Triumph Stag

Made between 1970-77. I never paid much attention to these cars until I had dinner with an old boss of mine. We talked cars, and I asked him what he would get regardless of money. He's a Jag man, but rather than mention XJ220's or even some Italian exotica, he wanted Michelotti's timeless classic. He's just waiting for the right one....

Karl Marx once said, "Nothing can have value without being an object of utility..."

Marx wasn't one given to talking much about 'Art' and we can safely assume that his views were more concerned with functional things. I don't know what he'd make of the current car industry. With BMW X6s and their convaluted purposes, Range Rover Sports that muddy the waters already crossed by it's full sized big brother. GT coupes that can be 'sporting'. Sporting cars that can be GT's. What is a GT anyway? Is a 911 a GT? Or is it a sports car? It can seat four. Or can't it? Well there are four seats. But not really. What is a sports car anyway? A Bentley Continental is faster that an MG-F. Much faster. But the MG-F is a sports car. Or so people say.....I'm confused.....

I saw a few 612 Scagliettis today. And this sits at the top of the tree of the type of car that I personally like. Coupe styling. Fast. Can seat four (or can it? It has four seats...but some people say - oh I give up!).....It's just got me thinking. Are car's capabilities defined in our eyes by their descriptions? Or is it the other way round? Should it matter? Why does the car industry almost do the opposite of most succesful industrial design ethoses? Instead of form following function, most manufacturers seem to push a model or conceit that turns this very thinking on it's head.....

The Triumph Stag. From when times were much simpler. A classic British 'sports car'.