Cheater

Cheater (pronounced chee-ter)

(1) A person who cheats.

(2) Specifically, an adulterer (although used in the same sense of infidelity generally, even when neither party is married). 

(3) A device or component used to evade detection of non-compliance with rules or regulations (such as the (Dieselgate) mechanical and electronic devices used by Volkswagen and others to cheat emissions testing programmes).  As a mechanical device a cheater is thus "a modifier" and the word is also often used as one.

(4) Slang (in the plural) for eyeglasses or spectacles (archaic).

(5) In mechanical repair, an improvised breaker bar made from a length of pipe and a wrench (spanner), used typically to free screws, bolts etc proving difficult to remove with a ratchet or wrench alone; any device created ad-hoc to perform a task not using the approved or designated tools.

1300-1350: From the Middle English cheater from cheat, from cheten, an aphetic variant of acheten & escheten, from the Old French eschetour, escheteur & escheoiter, from the noun; it displaced native Old English beswican.  The -er suffix was from the Middle English –er & -ere, from the Old English -ere, from the Proto-Germanic -ārijaz, probably borrowed from the Latin -ārius.  The adoption was reinforced by the synonymous but unrelated Old French –or & -eor (the Anglo-Norman variant was -our), from the Latin -(ā)tor, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr.  The suffix was added to a person or thing that does an action indicated by the root verb, thereby forming the agent noun.  The noun cheatery is now rare, existing only in old texts.  Escheat refers to the right of a government to take ownership of estate assets or unclaimed property, most often when an individual dies without making a will and with no heirs.  In common law, the theoretical basis of escheat was that (1) all property has a recognized owner and (2) if no claimants to ownership exists or can be identified, ownership reverts to the King (in modern terms the state).  However, in some circumstances escheat rights can also be granted when assets are held to be bona vacantia (unclaimed or lost property).  The original sense was of the "royal officer in charge of the king's escheats," and was a shortened form of escheater, agent noun from escheat.  The meaning “someone dishonest; a dishonest player at a game” emerged in the 1530s as the Middle English chetour, a variant of eschetour following the example of escheat +‎ -er which evolved in English in the modern form cheater (cheat + -er).  Cheater & cheatery are nouns; the noun plural is cheaters.

Cheater cars are a frequent sight on several social media platforms, posted presumably by impressed spectators rather than victims or perpetrators.  Techniques and artistry vary but there does seem to be a trend whereby the more expensive the car, the larger and more lurid will be the lettering.  Red, pink and fuchsia appear the colors of choice (the connotation perhaps "scarlet") except where the automotive canvas is some hue of red; those artists adorn mostly in black or white; the use of upper and lower case characters seems to vary.  Like many trends on social media, all may not be what it appears and it's believed some of the "cheater cars" posted are "fake", daubed just as click-bait.

Although the consequence of having violated the the Seventh Commandant, those suffering a "cheatered" care are in a sense "victims" so the following notes are provided as a courtesy to cheaters: If the philandering cheater is (obviously undeservingly) lucky, they’ll find the attack on their car has been symbolic rather than destructive in that the paint is water-based.  If so, if discovered soon after application, it may be possible for it to be dissolved and washed away without having to resort to strong chemicals.  Specialists recommend cleaning the car with just mild, soapy water (thereby removing anything abrasive) and then soaking microfiber towels in the same mix.  Place a wet towel over the affected area for 5-10 minutes (obviously more difficult with vertical surfaces so some improvisation may be demanded) and then gently wipe away the softened paint (do not scrub aggressively because some grit may be embedded; if possible use water spray from domestic garden hose).  If some time has elapsed and the paint fully has dried, usually it's safe to use a rubbing alcohol (such as Isopropyl); this should break down the latex or acrylic binder without harming the paint beneath.  Pour a small quantity of rubbing alcohol onto a clean microfiber cloth, hold on the paint for a few seconds and then gently rub with a circular motion.  Also potentially effective are the citrus-based solvents but these must be used with caution because they’re remarkably strong (left on some plastics, they can melt the surface!) so fluid should be tested on some small, hidden part of the vehicle (such under the hood (bonnet) or beneath carpets).  There are also dedicated clay-based lubricants (they come as conveniently sized bars) that can be “glided” across dampened paint to lift what’s atop without damaging the paint below.  The clay works on as similar basis to rubbing compounds and these may be necessary for any “stubborn spots”.  If the paint used is oil-based or something just as “sticky”, an expert should be consulted because aggressive solvents (industrial paint strippers, acetone, lacquer thinner etc) quickly can eat through to bare metal or whatever material was used for the bodywork.

An sinner's Audi: A Trotskyesque death by pick-axe, Burgas, Bulgaria, September 2005.  Press reports suggested this attack was a "business matter" but it could have been the work of a S5C-APC.

So that’s of paint which is bad enough.  However if one had cheated on a S5C (stage-five clinger, a breed always prone to using paint) who is also APC (actual psycho-chick), the consequences may be worse and S5C-APC may resort to fire-bombing car, attacking it with a baseball bat, slashing tyres or leaving a half-dozen pick-axes buried in the bodywork.  That may sound extreme but the S5C-APC can be exactly that and, after all, cheaters have only themselves to blame and all that can be recommended is following either (1) the Seventh Commandant (Thou shall not commit adultery) or (2) the unwritten eleventh (Thou shall not get caught).  As a technical point, it's acknowledged that suggesting all cheaters are men and all painters (or axe-wielders) are women is sexual stereotyping may be wrong but probably only to the extent almost all cheaters are men and almost all painters (or axe-wielders) are women.

Hell also hath no fury like a woman cheated upon.   

Because it sounds Shakespearian (a construct in literature), the (anyway incorrectly quoted) phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” often is attributed to William Shakespeare (1564–1616).  That's thought plausible because it seems to be in "his voice" and in modern use, often about the only time the Middle English “hath” is seen is in some Shakespearian quote so the association sticks.  The real author however was Restoration playwright William Congreve (1670–1729) who coined the phrase for his 1697 play The Mourning Bride, the protagonist of which, although becoming a bit unhinged by the cruel path of doomed love, doesn’t resort to leporidaecide (bunny boiling).  Congreve’s line, “Heav'n has no rage, like love to hatred turn'd, nor Hell a fury like a woman scorn'd.” was good but actually was a more poetic rendition of a similar but less elegantly expressed version another playwright had used a year earlier.  The Mourning Bride is the source also of another fragment for which the bard is often given undeserved credit: “Music has charms to soothe a savage breast” although that’s often bowdlerized as “Music has charms to soothe a savage beast”.  Politicians notoriously are liars and cheaters, some even cheerfully admitting it (usually when safely in their well-provided for retirement) but in the privacy of their diaries, they're fond of happily (and usually waspishly) admitting it of others.  Although he has a deserved reputation for telling not only lies but big lies, no one has ever disputed Joseph Goebbels’ (1897–1945; Reich Minister of Propaganda 1933 to 1945) assessment of a fellow cabinet member, foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Minister of Foreign Affairs 1938-1945) of whom he said “He bought his name, married his money and cheated his way into power”.  Goebbels was a serial adulterer and in his home town was known as "Die Ziege von Berlin" (the goat of Berlin). 

Volkswagen: Cheating as a science 

Guilty as sin.

Oliver Schmidt (b 1969; inmate number 09786-104 in US Federal, York Township, Michigan. right) received a seven year sentence for his involvement in the Volkswagen diesengate scandal.  Herr Schmidt (right) is pictured here receiving a Ward’s “Best Engine” award in 2015.  In US$ terms, dieselgate is thus far the most expensive of the many "gates".  In falsifying things so its diesel engines appeared to be less polluting than they were (certain particulates emitted at up to 40 times the volumes claimed with some 11 million "cheating" vehicles built) Volkswagen certainly gave cheating a bad name and, in addition to the hefty fines imposed in the US and EU (European Union (1993)), the multi-national aggregation which evolved from the EEC (European Economic Community), the Zollverein formed in 1957), in May 2022 the company announced an out-of-court settlement of Stg£193 million (US$242 million) with UK regulators, following the Aus$125 million (US$87 million) imposed by the PVA (Federal Court of Australia).  To date, Dieselgate has cost the company some US$34 billion with guilty verdicts handed down in criminal cases including two former Audi executives: head of engine development Wolfgang Hatz (b 1959) and lead diesel engineer Giovanni Pamio (b 1963) who were handed suspended jail sentences of 24 months and 21 months, respectively.  Hatz was fined €400,000 (US$437,000) and Pamio €50,000 (US$55,000).  All three were guilty as sin so the verdicts were unsurprising.  Volkswagen suffered greater consequences for having be "caught cheating" than did Pontiac in 1973 but that was a single vehicle submitted for testing so really was a case of "attempted cheating".

1971 Volkswagen Karmann Cheetah prototype.

Before they became the industry’s most notorious (although not only) cheats, Volkswagen flirted with the idea of producing a “Cheetah”; designed by Italy’s Italdesign and built by German coachbuilder Karmann, the Volkswagen Karmann Cheetah first appeared in March 1971 at the Geneva Motor Show.  Reflecting the view there were still developmental possibilities in the company’s long-running and highly successful platform used first for the Type 1 (Beetle, 1938-2003), the Cheetah was thought a way to wring one last drop from what had begun life in 1938 as an attempt by the Third Reich (1933-1945) to produce a "people's car".  Over the decades, the approach had yielded much success with the Beetle’s underpinnings yielding military applications and utility vehicles as well as the famous Type 2 (1949-1979, as Microbus, Kombi etc in a wide range of configurations and the lovely Karmann Ghia (in two series, Type 14: 1955–1974 & Type 34: 1961–1969) coupé and cabriolet.  Additionally, conventional (in the then current European style) coachwork had been used for the Type 3 models (1961-1973), built as two door sedans, (including a fastback) and station wagons, the market responding well to more spacious and modern bodies being placed atop the Beetle’s famously reliable and durable drive-train.

1980 Triumph TR8 (left) and Triumph Bullet design study (circa 1970, right).  The "wedge" design language is evident but the lines of the earlier Bullet design study  are even closer to those of the Cheetah; the Volkswagen didn't enter production but many wedges appeared in the 1970s & 1980s.  Like not a few ventures from the doomed British Leyland (1968-1986), as a successor to the highly regarded TR6 (1968-1976), the Triumph TR7 (1974-1972) should have been a success but corporate and governmental ineptitude saw it added to Leyland's large scrapheap.  The TR8 (1977-1982) transformed the TR7's dynamics by use of Rover's 3.5 litre (215 cubic inch) V8 but, as was emblematic of the corporation, just as the concept had been perfected, production ended.  There has been much analysis of the UK's motor industry in the 1970s and 1980s and while conditions (internal and external) often were "difficult", most published accounts conclude Leyland "deserved to fail".  

The idea of the Cheetah was a variation on the theme that had produced the Kombi, Karmann Ghia and such: a low-cost roadster suitable for mass production on existing assembly lines using a 1.6 litre version of the Beetle’s familiar flat-four engine, the power output of 50 HP judged “adequate” because of the light weight and slippery aerodynamics.  In a sign of the times, anticipating US regulations, not only were the front and rear sections designed to accommodate large bumpers but rather than a classic roadster, from Giorgetto Giugiaro's (b 1938) drawing board came a targa, the modernist wedge-shape then highly fashionable.  Because it was then anticipated the traditional convertible would in the US be outlawed, the there was a built-in roll-over bar, integrated into pillars designed to resemble a roadster’s detachable hardtop and the clever targa mechanism was the work of Karmann, the soft-top featuring a translucent sunroof panel above cockpit; it slid down the length of the top's sidebows, tucking neatly between the seats.  However, Volkswagen’s management were by the late 1960s not disconnected from reality and understood the days of mass-market machines with air-cooled rear-engines were coming to an end.  Although still a success, the writing was on the wall for the Beetle and the attempt to translate the concept into larger, four-door form had failed, the 411 (1968–1972) & 412 (1972–1974) ranges never coming close to meeting expectations.  By 1971, work was already advanced on what would be the template to carry the company into the next century (FWD (front wheel drive) with water cooled front-mounted engines) and that program would by 1974 begin to yield the new generations (Sirocco, Passat, Golf, Polo etc).

1972 publicity still for Fiat X1/9.  Because of the juxtaposition of (1) lime green paint and (2) a model in orange hot-pants, no knowledge of automotive history is required to date this photograph from the 1970s.

But the Cheetah seemed compelling because there was rear-engined, air-cooled hay to be made while the sun still shone and the formula (a small, economical, sports car able to be mass-produced at low cost by using components from high volume models) had long been a staple of the UK’s industry (MG, Triumph and Austin Healy all booking good profits through big export sales, especially to the lucrative US market.  On paper, the Cheetah thus made sense and although, (given the 50 HP) the name might have been at least optimistic, the Karmann Ghia sold well despite never having been a high performance car despite the glamorous lines (indeed, slightly heavier than a Beetle, acceleration suffered although the shape added a little to the modest top speed).  Anyway, the Triumph Spitfire’s pace hardly lived up to its illustrious name and the Cheetah was envisaged as something that would sell to those who valued the Beetle’s virtues (economy of operation, reliability, resale value) but would be drawn to its avant-garde looks; at a time when the phrase still could be used, it was a “lady’s car”.  As it was, the decision was taken not to proceed and not long after the debut in Geneva, the Cheetah faded into obscurity although Fiat would in 1972 release the similar-looking X1/9 using the same concept of parts-sharing although with contemporary engineering (water cooled, mid-engined, no swing axles) and it was a success, needing only minimal updates until production ended in 1989.  Volkswagen doubtlessly was right not to proceed with the Cheetah; the historic moment had passed.

Smokey Yunick: Cheating as an art  

Smokey Yunick’s 1966 Chevrolet Chevelle (1963-1977) #13 that some alleged was a 7:8 or 15:16 rendition, here aligned against a grid with a stock body.

In simpler, happier times, cheating could be an accepted part of the process and just something of a contest between poacher and gamekeeper.  In the 1960s, NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) racing in the US was a battle between scrutineers amending their rule-book as cheating was detected and teams scanning the same regulations looking for loopholes and anomalies.  The past master at this cheating was Henry "Smokey" Yunick (1923–2001), a World War II (1939-1945) bomber pilot whose ever-fertile imagination seemed never to lack an imaginative venture aimed at securing some advantage while remaining compliant with the letter of the law (at least according to his interpretation).  His cheats were legion but probably the most celebrated (and there were some who thought this one legitimate) concerned his interpretation of the term “fuel tank capacity”.  NASCAR's rulebook specified the maximum quantity of fuel a tank could hold but said nothing about the steel fuel line running from tank to engine so Mr Yunick replaced the modest ½ inch (12.5 mm) tube with one 11 feet (3.6 m) long and two inches (50 mm) wide, holding a reputed 5 (US) gallons (19 litres) of gas (petrol).  That was his high-tech approach.  Earlier he’d put an inflated basketball into an oversized tank before the car was inspected by scrutineers: when they filled the tank, it would appear to conform to regulations; these days it’d be called “inflategate”.  After passing inspection, Mr Ynuick would deflate the ball, pull it out and top-up his oversized tank for the race.  Pointing out there was nothing in the rules about basketballs didn’t help him but did lead to the rule about a maximum “fuel tank capacity”, hence the later 11 foot-long fuel line.

NASCAR's letter of approval.

Mr Yunick’s 1966 Chevrolet Chevelle was different from the stock models but by the mid 1960s, all NASCAR’s "stock" cars were, the days long gone when what were raced were essentially "stripped-out versions of showroom-stock cars".  The difference certainly was perceptible to the naked eye and an urban legend arose it was a 7:8 (some said 15:16) scale version.  The body’s external dimensions were however those of a stock Chevelle although the body was moved back three inches for better weight distribution, the floor was raised with the underside smoothed to improve the aerodynamics, the same reason the bumpers were flush-fitted to the fenders.  The first car passed inspection (after making the modifications decreed by NASCAR) and took pole position at the 1967 Daytona 500.  He built another imaginative Chevelle for the 1968 race but it never made it past inspection.  In 1990, Smokey Yunick was inducted into the International Motorsports Hall of Fame, a recognition as richly deserved as it was overdue.

The speedy cheetah

Singer and dancer Josephine Baker (1906–1975) with Chiquita, her pet cheetah.

A true homophone of cheater, cheetah (the plural cheetahs) wholly is unrelated.  Cheetahs are large cats (Acinonyx jubatus) of south-western Asia and Africa, resembling a leopard but noted for certain dog-like characteristics which is why they’re sometimes been trained for hunting game (deer, antelope etc) and they have even occasionally been fully domesticated as pets; they're said to be "affectionate and protective but never fully house trained".  Dating from the early eighteenth century, cheetah was from the Hindi चीता (cītā (leopard, panther), from the Sanskrit citraka (leopard) & citrakāya (tiger) the construct being चित्र (citra) (multicoloured; speckled) + काय (kāya) (body, thus “beast with a spotted body”).  The Sanskrit citra was akin to the Old High German haitar (bright), the German heiter and the Old Norse heiðr (bright) and ultimately was from the primitive Indo-European kit-ro-, from the root skai- (to shine, gleam, be bright).  Kāya ultimately was from the primitive Indo-European kwei- (to build, make).  The now archaic alternative spellings were cheetah & cheetah and historically, the creatures were known also as the guepard, hunting cat or hunting leopard.  Understandably, given their size and predatory nature, it’s not uncommon for cheetahs to be referred to as “big cats” but in zoological taxonomy, felinologists restrict the “big cat” classification to the genus Panthera (lions, tigers, leopards, snow leopards & jaguars) and one defining feature of the Panthera cats is their ability to roar, made possible by a specific structure in their larynx.  Lacking the anatomical feature, cheetahs can purr, chirp & hiss but not roar.

A female cheetah at speed.

According to Dr Anne Marie Helmenstine, computer modelling suggests a cheetah should be able (briefly) to attain a speed of 75 mph (120 km/h) although its hunting technique is to maintain an average of 40 mph (65 km/h), sprinting to the maximum only when making a kill.  Cheetahs have been verified as attaining 60 mph (96.5 km/h) and if required, the quick cats can go from 0-60 mph in 3 seconds (three strides), putting them in the class of the quickest Lamborghinis, Ferraris and such but they're sprinters with little endurance, able to sustain top speed for little more than a quarter-mile (400 metres).  Like engineering, nature imposes trade-offs and although pronghorn antelopes have been recorded running at a slightly slower 55 mph (88 km/h), they're able to sustain that for around a half-mile (800 metres) although 40 mph (70 km/h) can be maintained for several miles and their "natural cruising speed" of 30 mph is possible for as much as 20 miles (32 km) depending on the terrain and weather conditions.  The speed and endurance differentials between cheetahs and antelopes explains why the cat's tactic is to get as close as possible before closing for a kill; if the prey is not caught within 300-400 metres, it'll likely escape although, in the wild, not every encounter is one-on-one; a antelope seeking to outrun one cheetah runs the risk of running into the path of another.

Easily, cheetahs can out-sprint humans, the men’s world record for the 100 metre dash standing a 9.58 seconds, compared with an eleven year-old cheetah (in captivity) clocked at 5.95 and her top speed of 61 mph (98 km/h) remaining the highest verified.  For now, the cats remain quicker than even robots, the record at the 2026 World Humanoid Robot Games in Beijing set at 9.39 seconds but while the cheetah probably has reached its evolutionary peak, humanoid robots are still (in evolutionary terms) in an early stage of development so one going quicker then 5.95 may be just a question of whether resources are devoted to the quest; it does seem more likely the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) will direct companies to focus instead on making humanoid robots more "useful" such as for military purposes (neutralizing other machines or killing people).  So for now the pace of the cheetah remains impressive but it's still not the fastest creature on the planet.  In the ocean, Black Marlin have been clocked at 82 mph (132 km/h) while sailfish can for periods swim at 70 mph 110 km/h.  Land and sea creatures are how ever slow compared with birds, the “calculated maximum theoretical speed” of the “ideal Peregrine Falcon” being between 250-388 mph (400-625 km/h) depending on altitude (and thus air density) and while many are sceptical about that, Guinness World Records has accepted the bird’s speed being recorded at 242 mph (389 km/h) in a dive.  Despite that, there are ornithologists who doubt such a velocity has been reached and claim a top speed around 150 mph (240 km/h) is likely more realistic.  Still, that makes them the fastest known animal in the universe.

The Bill Thomas Cheetah

Cheetah cutaway, published in Sports Car Graphics, November, 1963.  Not many front-engined cars had space sufficient to for a usefully-sized frunk.

A contemporary of the Shelby American AC Cobra (1962-1967) and very much in the same vein, the Cheetah (1963-1966) was designed and constructed by California-based race car builder Bill Thomas (1921-2009).  As part of his work as an engineering consultant, Mr Thomas undertook projects for GM (General Motors), his focus on the somewhat clandestine motorsport activities of its Chevrolet division and he parlayed this influence into securing corporate support for the concept that became the Cheetah.  The support was practical in that it yielded most of the mechanical components needed for a prototype including a Chevrolet Corvette's 327 cubic inch (5.3 litre) V8 engine, Muncie four-speed gearbox, independent rear suspension and a miscellany of stuff from the GM parts bin.  It was obviously the pre-CAD (computer-aided-design) era but Mr Thomas didn’t trouble himself with drawing boards or blueprints, instead laying out the drive-train components on the floor of his workshop in what seemed to his practiced eye an ideal arrangement and, with white chalk, he then sketched on the concrete the outline of the chassis frame members.  At that point, a draftsman (with tape measure) was brought in and blueprints were rendered; remarkably, Mr Thomas with great success for decades used this novel design technique (don't try this at home, it needs a gifted engineer).  Once the chassis dimensions were finalized, a body was designed and it’s important to note the project was initially envisaged only as a “concept car”, built for the purpose of impressing GM and thus securing further contracts.  So, conceived as something to be admired rather than used for any serious purpose, it was only as construction continued Mr Thomas sort of “fell in love” with his creation and decided to use it in competition, something to which its low weight and prodigious power should have made it well-suited.  However, the compromises in chassis design which mattered not at all for a concept car meant some structural rigidity had been sacrificed and that was a quality essential in race cars; later rectification work would be required.  The first two Cheetahs were fabricated in aluminum (later models used GRP (glass reinforced plastic, better known as fibreglass) and one was sent to the Chevrolet Engineering Center for testing and evaluation.

1964 Cheetah with clamshell hood open.

The layout was not so much radical as extreme, the conventional F/R (front engine-rear drive) approach taken to a kind of logical conclusion with the engine located so far back the driver’s legs were alongside the block.  In the same way the “mid-engine” configuration was being defined as “engine behind the driver and in front of the rear axle line”, the Cheetah’s variation was “engine in front of driver and behind the front axle line”, already familiar in race cars and in a handful of exotic machines but in the early 1960s still.  As well as offering most of the weight-distribution and handling advantages offered by a mid-engine, the Cheetah’s layout avoided the complication of a transaxle but the drawbacks included inefficiencies in packaging (ie a cramped cockpit) and extraordinary heat-soak, the latter a familiar issue in an era when small, low volume coupés were fitted with large displacement US V8 engines, the elegant AC 428 “Fura” (1965-1973) an exemplar of the phenomenon.  When the Cheetah was tested prior to being used on the track, it was found to be prone to over-heating, largely because the body had been designed to look decorative and no vents had been installed to extract hot air from under the long hood.  That was addressed by the use of a larger radiator and the addition of various vents & ducts, along with a full-length belly pan, meaning subsequent versions lacked the visual purity of the original, the effect not dissimilar to the way the addition of this and that to provide for heat management meant the production versions of the Lamborghini Countach (1974-1978) lacked the sleek starkness of the original prototype, first shown at the 1971 Geneva Motor Show (attracting rather more attention that that other prototype wedge, the Volkswagen Karmann Cheetah).  Still, compared with how subsequent versions of the Countach (1978-1990) would be adorned, the elegance of the early run 160-odd of the LP400 Periscopios remains compelling.

1964 Cheetah, note the cut-outs and vents, subsequent additions to handle the heat generation.  As might be guessed, AC (air conditioning) was not on the option list.

The Cheetah’s dubious structural rigidity was a result of the original chassis being merely a quickly-assembled platform on which the striking body could be mounted to be admired but it was marginal for use even as a road car, let alone one subjected to the stresses of competition; even before testing it was anticipated substantial changes would have to be made.  Because so little triangulation had been incorporated in the original build, the chassis was susceptible flex as the loads imposed by lateral forces increased as high-speed curves were negotiated, meaning the suspension geometry changed, challenging even skilled drivers accustomed to rigid frames that guaranteed the point at which characteristics became frightening was at least predictable.  Additionally, for the testing, the Cheetah was provided with more power (perhaps not the car's most most obvious need) which exacerbated the alarming tendencies, including the rear suspension’s trailing arms bending, slighting altering (sometimes while at high speed!) the location of the wheels.  Adding gusseting and triangulation to the frame and redesigning the trailing arms ameliorated the worst of the characteristics but some vices were inherent in DNA so subsequently, some owners of Cheetahs, seduced by its many virtues, undertook what was essentially a re-engineering of the underpinnings; most of the many replicas and "continuation" editions differ significantly from the originals.  So it was flawed but it was an age of charismatic, imperfect machines and whatever the quirks, the Cheetah was powerful, light and clearly aerodynamic for in a straight line, few could match its pace; the name was chosen for a reason.

Unfortunately, the early 1960s were the end of an era in sports car racing because in addition to the regulatory body (the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (the International Automobile Federation) already on its descent to becoming world sport's dopiest regulatory body) changing the rules for the class for which the Cheetah was intended so that 1,000 rather than 100 would be required for homologation, in the top flight, the days of the classic front-engined roadsters and coupes in top-line competition were nearly done and the future lay with the rear-mid configuration.  Given all that, Chevrolet withdrew its support although small-scale production continued and some two-dozen were constructed before the last was built in 1965.  The survivors are now high-priced collectables and there have been dozens of replicas although in the twenty-first century, this cottage industry was stalled by a dispute over ownership to the intellectual property associated with the design.  Predictably, although the Cheetah wasn’t obviously a car in need of more power, some owners of the replicas have (commendably) concluded exactly that and fitted a variety of engines including big-block V8s while others have added forced aspiration (turbochargers or superchargers).  Fundamentally, what this approach meant was the “handle with care” injunction wisely applied to the original remained; just more so.

1929 Mercedes-Benz SSK (left) and 1964 Cheetah (right)

The distinctive lines of the Cheetah, its driver sitting over the rear wheels behind a long nose, recalled the pre-war roadsters that provided the model for most of the era’s grand prix cars, the motif lasting into 1960 when (in the unusual circumstances prevailing for Italian Grand Prix at Monza), a Ferrari secured one last win for the front-engined anachronisms.  The Mercedes-Benz SSKs (W06, 1928-1932) & SSKLs (WS06RS, 1931) were classic examples and among the last of the road cars able to win top-flight grand prix events.  The red example (above left) is a 1929 model SSK (one of 33 built) and although the hue is untypical of the breed, in fashion and on the highways, the interwar (1919-1939) years were more colourful that the impression left by the volume of monochrome and sepia images making up so much of the photographic record.  Interestingly, although Mercedes-Benz race cars are much associated with white (the racing color originally allocated to Germany) and silver (adopted by the factory racing team in the 1930s although in not quite the circumstances once claimed) there was a precedent for the use of red because that was the paint applied to the Mercedes Tipo Indy 2.0 used to win the 1924 Targa Florio (setting a race-record time which would stand for a decade), chosen because of the habit of the Sicilian crowds to pelt with rocks any car not painted in Italian Racing Red.  Not since 1920 had a non-Italian car won so it was a wise precaution.

1969 Pontiac Grand Prix Model J.  The name was opportunistic, the big Pontiac having as much in common with a grand prix as the Volkswagen Karmann Cheetah had with speed.

Such is the appeal to stylists of the “long nose” that over the years many have ignored the packaging inefficiencies its use imposes.  It was one of the most commented-upon aspects of the Jaguar E-type (1961-1974) and probably it’s rare for an analysis of that shape to have been written without the word “phallic” appearing at least once.  Even when the effect is not so exaggerated it can be effective, the third generation Pontiac Grand Prix (1969-1972) the last of the memorable designs to emerge from the golden years of GM’s PMD (Pontiac Motor Division) during the 1960s.  Intended to be evocative of the aspect ratios of machines such as the big Duesenbergs of inter-war years, PMD even purloined the “J” & “SJ” designations although with its apple-green straight-8 engines a Duesenberg really did need a long nose; under the hood of the exclusively V8-powered Grand Prix, there was much empty space.

Sublime to ridiculous 

Modified 1973 Volkswagen 1303 Super Beetle.

Nor was it just manufacturers with a fondness for the style.  In Canada, somebody with the requisite skills decided the “Cheetah look” was what a 1973 Volkswagen Super Beetle really needed and while it’s obvious the body extensively has been modified, the distorted dimensions are deceptive because the (presumably unique) project sits on an unmodified chassis, the wheelbase unchanged.  Unfortunately or not, the opportunity was not taken to install up front a straight-8 or V16, the car still running the modest, rear-mounted, 1.6 litre (97 cubic inch) flat-4 fitted by the factory (ie underneath, it's the same specification as the abortive Karmann Cheetah prototype).  As well as the curved windscreen, the 1303 featured the 1302’s improved front suspension (an enhancement one tester claimed made it faster point-to-point than a 1963 Porsche 356), the design of which allowed the capacity of the frunk to be increased and this one will be more capacious still; given it’s now a two seater, luggage capacity should be adequate although the front bucket seats have been replaced with a full-width bench so three adults could be accommodated, BMIs (body mass index) and a willingness to rub shoulders permitting.  Because it’s on the same wheelbase, any increase in weight should be minimal and the handling (anyway improved by the revised suspension) presumably will be affected (for better or worse) only by the change in weight distribution.  That said, given the thing is now more tail-heavy, the Beetle's inherent tendency to oversteer (somewhat tamed by 1973) might be more apparent but with the power available, even if it behaves something like an early Porsche 930, should a situation drama occur, probably it'll be at a lower speed.

Ridiculous to absurd     

1980 Cadillac Eldorado “Valentino” by the unimaginatively named Conversions Incorporated, a Michigan-based customizing house (left) and 1981 Cadillac Eldorado "Regal Coach" by Florida's International Coach Works Company, a selling point the Rolls-Royceish “flying lady” hood ornament, said to make it a “real head turner” (right).  Heads can of course turn for reasons good and bad.

In the sometimes weird world that was the ecosystem of modified PLCs (personal luxury coupe) in the US of the 1970s and 1980s, the “long nose” style didn't exist in isolation.  It was one of a number of design elements part of the “neo-classical” movement that included also side-exit, flexible exhaust pipes (referencing the often supercharged pre-war machines (a la the Mercedes-Benz SSK but by the 1970s almost always fake), upright chrome-plated grills (Rolls-Royce the preferred inspiration), T-roof assemblies (a modern take on the old sedanca de ville coach-work), fake wire wheels and external spare tyres, the rear one in a "Continental kit" (a look that to this day refuses to die), the fender-mounted pair taking advantage of the eighteen-odd inches (460 mm) spliced between A-pillar and front wheel.  The spares used the space where sometimes sat the external exhaust pipes so it was a choice to be made by customers although some builders just left the expanse of sheet metal, emphasizing the elongation.  For all its foibles, the US is one of the most remarkable nations ever created and, having the the previous quarter century mastered nuclear fission & fusion, produced the Bill Thomas Cheetah and sent a dozen men to walk on the Moon, other Americans turned to doing this to Cadillac Eldorados.  It's a cliché to say "American has the best of everything and the worst of everything" but the phrase endures for good reason. 

Ellipsis

Ellipsis (pronounced ih-lip-sis)

(1) In grammar, the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction.

(2) In grammar, the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction.

(3) In grammar, a sequence of three dots (…) appearing in a text to indicate a pause, sometimes used for dramatic effect such as a “wait for it” moment.

(4) In typography, a mark or marks (——;* * *; … etc) to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.  The sequence of three dots (…) is now the most common (four if used at the end of a sentence, the last a period (full stop).  In linguistics jargon, the “three dots” are also called “suspension dots” or “suspension points”.

(5) In mathematics, the use of such a convention to indicate a pattern continues (ie in “1, 2, 3, ..., 8, 9”, the numerals “4, 5, 6, and 7” are “implied” and thus “mentally included “as part of the pattern.  As a digital representation of the vulgar fraction “one third”, “0.333…” means it’s a “repeating decimal”, having “threes” going on to infinity, tending always towards (but never quite reaching “one third”).

(6) In geometry, an ellipse (obsolete though, confusingly, the adjectival elliptical endures).

(7) In film & television production, the omission of scenes that do not advance the plot.

(8) As vertical ellipsis (⋮), three dots) vertically aligned, used to extend a list vertically, or as mathematical notation for “is divisible by” or “is a multiple of” and latterly adopted in computer GUIs (graphical user interface) for various purposes, notably the “Customize and Control” drop-down menu in Google’s Chrome web browser (although Microsoft Edge and some other browsers based on the open source Chromium use a horizontal three dots).

1560–1570: An unadapted borrowing from the Latin ellīpsis, from the Ancient Greek ἔλλειψις (élleipsis) (omission; a falling short, defect), noun of action from elleipein (to fall short, leave out), from en- (in the sense of “in”) + leip- (stem of leípein (to leave) + -sis.  Leipein was reconstructed to be from the primitive Indo-European root leikw- (to leave).  The –sis suffix was from the Ancient Greek -σις (-sis) and was used to forms noun of action), often via Latin but increasingly also from French; it had exactly the same effect as the Latin –entia and the English -ing.  Historically, the use in terms borrowed from Ancient Greek was comparatively rare but there are many modern coinages based on Ancient Greek roots, reflecting to ongoing reverence for the ancient languages.  Confusingly, the word elliptical needs detailed explanation.  As an adjective, elliptical can mean (1) in geometry, in a shape of, or reminding of, an ellipse; oval or (2) in linguistics of, or showing ellipsis (having a word or words omitted); relating to or containing an instance of ellipsis or (3), of speech, concise or condensed.  The geometric use is also specific in botany, elliptical referring only to the general shape of the object (typically a leaf), independently of its apex or margin (and sometimes the base), so that an “elliptic leaf” may at both ends be pointed.  A three-dimensional elliptical object is ellipsoid, while an object that is not a perfectly stretched circle is ovoid or obovoid (and to mathematicians, a circle is a type of elipse).  In the gym equipment business, am “elliptical trainer” is an exercise machine in which the feet of the user travel an elliptic path; they’re used to simulate stair climbing, walking, or running while offering the advantage of being “low impact”, meaning there’s less jarring to inflict excessive pressure on joints.  The synonym is eclipsis (omission of parts of a word or sentence).  Ellipsis, ellipsization & ellipsism are nouns, elliptical is a noun & adjective and elliptically is an adverb, the noun plural is ellipses.

In classical and medieval texts, ellipses were unmarked, but the practice of marking them originated in the scripts of late sixteenth century plays as a way to indicate the “imperfections of the voice”, the omissions, pauses and interruptions fundamental to spoken language (seen in the modern day discipline of “disfluencies”, something of a backwater in linguistics until the importance of the phenomenon in “natural language” was recognized by those developing AI (artificial intelligence) bots).  All those years ago, those inserting ellipsis marks all had much the same purpose but there was initially no standardization of form, a continuous rule (-), a series of hyphens (---), or a series of points (. . .) all used, and which appeared reflected sometimes the practice of the printer (or possibly what “hard” fonts were to hand in the operation’s typographical sets (ie sometimes technologically deterministic)).  Asterisks (***) were first employed to display hiatuses in the printer's copy-text, but, as rules and points came to be used for other forms of omission (such as censorship or citation), strings of asterisks became interchangeable with alternative forms of ellipsis marks.

Promotional poster for Ellipsis (2017).

The film's published synopsis was: “In the middle of a crowded city, the paths of two strangers, a man and a woman, collide.  This accidental, chance occurrence sets in motion a chain of events that sees the two strangers embark on a night of adventure and connection that challenges their separate lives.  Ellipsis is a film about the random nature of life and human interaction and the small choices that can set our course.  Set in Sydney over the course of one night, it is also a portrait of the city and its inhabitants.  The film celebrates the distinct nature and idiosyncrasies of the people that live and work there.”  As blubs go, that’s a bit long and something tighter would be: “A film for book club ladies who like to talk about their feelings.”  Tempted?  There's a trailer.

It wasn’t until late in the 1800s that clear distinctions of use emerged on the path to twentieth century standardization with the dash (or continuous rule) the most commonly used (signalling abrupt changes or breaks) while points implied something longer and more hesitant (the classic “pause”).  Points also became the preferred mark for indicating omissions from quotations with the asterisk assuming the primary role of marking footnotes (“*” for the first, “**” the second and so on although other distinctive symbols would also be used (the obelus (†) or dagger the best known of many) and for endnotes (appearing at the end of the chapter, sequential superscript numbers became the standard convention, an obvious innovation rendered essential as endnotes came to exist in dozens.  In some aspects, the “standardization” of English over the last century-odd has for some been regretful but in printing, the uniformity in typographic conventions has been welcomed by most.  While dictatorial edicts on matters of content rightly are resisted, the combination of increasingly pervasive style guides and standardized font-sets in word-processers (and the now apparently extinct variant, the “desktop publisher”) has been a positive influence, meaning texts almost always use the same “language of symbols”, removing one source of potential ambiguity.  This has meant most obviously (and helpfully): (1) hyphens now rarely make up a rule, (2) dashes are usually one em in length, (3) an ellipsis mark is comprised of three points (or four if a full-stop is added) and (4) the asterisks (that once often signified ellipses) now have a “substitutive rule” to indicate a word or phrase has been self-censored (usually to avoid use of a vulgarity although sometimes this is done in a way to make the original still obvious (“s**t” or “f**k”) while attempting to evade text-based electronic filters.  In the less standardized world of social media and such, variants are common (such as “f#$k”) and all these forms differ from redactions (solid black lines where the words or entire passages would appear), the intention genuinely to conceal identities or events.

Ellipses (in red ellipses) in the Google Chrome (left) and Microsoft Edge web browsers; in Chrome, a vertical ellipsis was used whereas in Edge they were the traditional horizontal form.

Technically, there was no difference in function, the “three dots” just shapes on the screen used by the GUI (graphical user interface) for similar purposes and why Google’s designers opted for one and Microsoft’s the other may just be an example of “product differentiation”, both browsers ultimately derived from the open-source Chromium project.  Microsoft’s original Edge was proprietary with a unique interface, the product necessitated by the company’s IE (Internet Explorer) becoming a victim of its own success, locked into a cul-de-sac of a development path because of the need to maintain backward compatibility with the large base of corporate users using software with a “high IE dependency”.  As things turned out, embarking on a separate development path was “a browser too far” (even with all Microsoft’s resources) and, once reality bit, the decision was taken to “jump on the Chromium bandwagon”.  Few mourned IE although nerds still pine for the download bucket.

Filmmakers like “Ellipsis” as a title.

In texts, the use of ellipses is common but compared with other “technical” words from the jargon of grammar, it’s not well known.  For that reason, some style guides suggest oral use is governed by one’s audience: If addressing a circle of scholars of English literature, one may be assured they’ll know the meaning but if the gathering less specialized, it’s permissible (indeed, probably desirable) to say “dot dot dot”; this is a “verbal clue” as opposed to the “visual clue” of “air quotes” one might use to indicate a word or phrase should be visualized as appearing within “quotation marks”.  When Henry Fowler (1858–1933) published his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), the use of the ellipsis (and other symbols used in texts) was still so inconsistent as to demand an untypically long and detailed entry, the technical details of which might mystify modern readers brought up on standardized conventions; genuinely there have been advantages in the way word processors and editors have imposed a kind of “structural homogenization”.

Even in 1965 when the second edition (with a textual revision by Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966)) appeared, Henry Fowler’s original entry substantially was left unchanged but by 1996 when there was a major update by Robert Burchfield (1923–2004), the entry radically was different, reflecting (1) the publishing industry having removed (almost all) inconsistencies and (2) readers being now less familiar with the kind of descriptive language Henry Fowler used because his expectation was of reaching an “educated audience”.  Many modern readers of a book like A Dictionary of Modern English Usage are of course in some ways “better educated” than previous generations but it’s a “different education” (not “inferior”, just “different”).  While in some aspects what Mr Burchfield did was by the purists, not well-received (“purity” probably not a helpful world-view when judging changes in the use of the English language) because he seemed all too accommodating of “lower standards”, his revision of the book’s entry for “Ellipsis” was helpful and common-sense, an indication of which was the same format being used by Jeremy Butterfield who edited the fourth edition (2015).  While the curmudgeons will continue to lament “linguistic promiscuity”, in some cases simplicity is better and anyway, some never forgave Burchfield for having “taken the lexicographical axe” to thousands of archaic words while an editor of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary).

A Lohanic ellipsis in action.  The operative part of the text: “It's waist-length, perfectly coiffed, and... blonde?” is read “…and [pause] blonde?”  As Ms Lohan points out, the distinction between “blonde” and “strawberry blonde” is significant because the latter happens at the margins of red.

So, in modern use, the working definition of ellipsis is accepted as the one appearing in the OED: “The omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to complete the grammatical construction or fully to express the sense.”  In spoken form, the ellipsis is so common as usually to pass unnoticed (such as: “Want some?” in which the pronoun has been dispensed with).  In other words, the ellipsis is an essential part of the “verbal shorthand” that comprises so much of conversational English, constructs created by a process in which certain notional elements of a sentence may be omitted if clearly they are predictable or recoverable by virtue of context.  Indeed, in “legitimate” use, English grammar really “demands” the omission of certain elements if sentences are to be thought “elegant”, the most obvious the injunction not the repeat the definite article: “He heard the whirr and ʌ click of machinery; (ie infinitive marker to not repeated before a second infinitive) or “I was forced to leave and ʌ give up my work at the hospital” (subject not repeated).  That doesn’t mean insertion of the missing elements is wholly proscribed because, if for dramatic effect some degree of emphasis is required, the repetition is an accepted device, but, but in everyday use or declarative or narrative prose, ellipsis is the “natural” form.  Those wishing to perform textual analysis of what’s been digitized will find many fields in literature littered with both ellipses and their deliberate avoidance.  Being English, in academic linguistics a remarkable number of variant forms have been identified and defined, the CGEL (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985), edited by Professor Randolph Quirk (1920–2017) et al) needing more than 50 pages to list, illustrate, and label them all (strict, standard, situational, structural etc).  Of course the “rules” work because they interact with the human brain and, both being flexible, the “imaginary words” usually come quickly to mind.

The “rules” do however extend to defining “unacceptable types”, the most often cited being if two auxiliary verbs that operate in different ways are placed together.  So although it doesn’t seem obviously clumsy, one should not say or write: “No state has or can adopt such measures” because idiomatic tradition has come to require: “No state has adopted or can adopt such measures”.  Burchfield’s caution was: “When a change of grammatical voice is involved, ellipsis spells danger.  A reader cannot be expected to make the necessary adjustment from the active voice to the passive and supply an omitted part of the passive form.”  With that, old Henry Fowler would have concurred and even in the later editions one of his examples from 1926 was cited: “Mr Dennett foresees a bright future for Benin if our officials will manage matters conformably with its ‘customs’, as they ought to have been [insert managed]”. Comparisons can also produce unacceptable sequences when unwise ellipses are attempted: “The paintings of Monet are as good or better than those of van Gogh [read as good as or better than].  Perhaps less obviously wrong but best avoided is leaving out an auxiliary which is not the same number (singular/plural) as one that is given: “The murderer was hanged and his followers ʌ imprisoned [ellipsis of were].”  Of course, in non-standard speech the rules often are not followed and in literature are ignored for “conversational authenticity” a person in the US in 1973 affecting to be unaware of the Watergate scandal likely in certain circles to be admonished: “Watergate, man, where you been [insert have]?”  A sentence like that is also fun to play with by changing the emphasis on each word, each producing a subtle shift in effect.

The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (2018), edited by Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (b 1976) and Tanja Temmerman (b 1985).

That the concept of the ellipsis sounds simple and easily is illustrated by examples (“Sarah likes coffee and Jane, tea”) may leave some baffled the CGEL could fill 50-odd, densely packed pages on the topic but in modern structural linguistics, specialist scholars think that a mere bullet-point list.  For those wishing further to explore, there is The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis (2018) and, running to an impressive 1148 pages and weighing in at 1.89 kg (4.16 lb), it’s a hefty tome, academically and physically.  Importantly, the work is not restricted to the way the ellipsis phenomena operates in English, a dozen-odd languages explored, examining, as the editors put it: “inter- & intralinguistic variation”.

Those wanting simply directions on “right & wrong” constructions are better off with a style guide but for word nerds of the le langage pour le langage school (language for language (best translated as “language focusing on itself”)) in the tradition of Russian literary theorist & linguist Roman Jakobson (1896–1982 and one of the most influential figures in structural linguistics), any deep dive into metalinguistics is tempting and somewhere in those 1148 pages must surely be “the last word on ellipsis”.  The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis is divided into four parts: (1) the purpose of ellipsis and how it may be analysed when mapped to various theoretical frameworks, (2) an exploration of the utility of ellipsis as a diagnostic tool for other linguistic phenomena, (3) descriptions of the types of elliptical constructions found in natural language, such as “sluicing, gapping, and null complement anaphora” (students of jargon will not be disappointed by this work) and (4) case-studies in languages, including Russian, Hungarian, Dutch, Japanese, Persian and Finnish Sign Language.  The text is spread over 38 chapters, the tempting titles include Codeswitching, Sluicing and Its Subtypes, Predicate Ellipsis, Gapping and Stripping and Comparative Deletion.