Analytical look at car designs! Turn on or Turn off?

[HighestOfHigh]

Turn on or Turn off car designs

We all have our own idea of what our perfect car would look like. Even though we are all loyal to German car makers we still sometimes wish certain design were looked at more carefully. I’m sure with Chris Bangle a lot of questions have gone off in our minds.

Some of us like his design and some don’t. On the other hand Benz has recently changed there design language as well. I have seen some many people complain about the fenders on the S-class and the difference between the old Benz design and the new ones.



This thread is a chance to give everyone a chance to weigh in on what is the problem with current designs of German cars as well as what’s good about them.



In order to steer the conversation in the right way here are a few questions that should lead us in a creative yet informative discussion on design elements.


Questions:

1. What makes for good design?

2. What determines what is acceptable and what not?

3. Is basic design boring?

4. Do curves really play a decent role?

5. Are smaller or larger vehicle more prone to design mishaps?

6. Do head lights play a major role in design?

7. Should rear lights be smaller or larger?

8. Are rap around headlight better?

9. What’s the problem with an elevated trunk?

10. What pillar (c-pillar etc.) can make or break a design?


Your thoughts?

 

[Osnabrueck]

1. What makes for good design?
A few things:
• A good design must generate interest and send the message that the product indends. Bonus points if you can style something new, double bonus points if it's something fresh that pushes forward our design vernacular, triple bonus points if you can do all that and still maintin context for your design within its brand heritage.

• A good design must have staying power. It's easy to design a car that holds interest for one or two model years, it's harder to keep that mojo going for a full product cycle.

• A good design must provoke sales - period. If people like it, and people keep buying it, then (from a pragmatic bean-counter point of view) it's a good design.


2. What determines what is acceptable and what not?
• Sales - period.


3. Is basic design boring?
• It can be. But in skilled hands, and viewed by skilled eyes, the results can be spectacular.


4. Do curves really play a decent role?
• Definitely. We've seen an evolution of the curve over the past 7 or so years that is really astounding. The complexity of lines coming out of the best shops right now would have been unthinkable not so long ago.


5. Are smaller or larger vehicle more prone to design mishaps?
• Smaller. Larger vehicles can use their girth as a crutch, whereas smaller vehicles have a more difficult time appealing to our sensibilities. For the most part, small cars have characteristics that run counter to our design ideals, so flattering solutions are more difficult to develop.


6. Do head lights play a major role in design?
• Still probably the single biggest make or break design element.


7. Should rear lights be smaller or larger?
• Neither. Rear lights need to be rethought and are still a great place on the car to experiment. The pre-facelift E65, while panned upon its release, was a great stab at changing the way think about rear lights.


8. Are rap around headlight better?
•*Depends. I prefer old school rap.


9. What’s the problem with an elevated trunk?
• That also depends. For the most part, an elevated trunk makes a car appear tall and clumsy, and they're everywhere now because market demand for luggage space has brought us larger and larger trunks.

• The new C-Klasse is an excellent example of how clever design can effectively combat high trunks by misleading the eye.


10. What pillar (c-pillar etc.) can make or break a design?
•*The C-Pillar is still the most important. It sends the strongest message about a vehicle's intention - stately, sporty, progressive, etc. When you're viewing a car from the side or from the front 3/4, the C pillar is the puncturation mark that wraps everything up.

 

[SDNR]

What is really left to say. Excellent post Josh












Oh BTW, the ODC is hideous and the CS is beautiful ...cheers

 

[martinbo]

Jeez, you’ve been busy… another good thread topic to stimulate conversation away from the regular and mundane discussion of my car is faster than your car.
I’m not a designer, and interestingly whilst I deeply appreciate the aesthetic design of an automobile, I’m not that fussed by the looks of a car when it comes to a purchase decision. For me a car has to first prove itself dynamically and reliably before I consider the styling. Of course, if it happens to combine the former attributes with svelte looks then I’m sold! Unfortunately, any car that successfully integrates function with aspiration comes at a premium over its competitors.

I’d love to hear what Hussein has to say about this topic and to impart his extensive knowledge on the subject according to the points you’ve set forth.

1. What makes for good design?
For me as nothing more that a consumer and a car fanatic the primary consideration is proportion. When I evaluate the looks of a car I immediately start making a mental note of the various styling and bodywork proportions in the sense of measurement or comparison. The ratio of wheel diameter (incl. tyre and rim) relative to the surface area of the sheetmetal is one of my observations. The bodywork should never overwhelm the wheels and make them look undersized.

The ratio of DLO or glasshouse to sheetmetal is equally important to me, as is its shape, the rake of the front and rear windshields, and the fore/aft placement of the cab. This can make or break the subjective appeal of an automobile. Too much glass and the car looks like a bus, too little and there’s the suggestion of a claustrophobic interior.

The ratio of wheelbase to front and rear overhang is another vital observation. A standard family saloon with long front and rear overhangs typically has awkward proportions for me. Whereas, a more compact short-wheelbase sports car like a Cayman or 911 can pull of the long front and rear overhang thing with greater conviction and attractiveness. Again, it’s all down to proportion. The idea being that a car should look dynamic and athletic or, put another way, have “pace with grace” even when it is standing still. To me it’s all about a suggestion of intent; an anticipation of the promise of an engaging driving experience – irrespective of how one chooses that experience to manifest. Whether it’s loping along in great comfort with impenetrable stability or blasting down a mountain pass kissing every apex, a properly styled car must signal its intention from the moment you lay eyes on it.

Martin’s general rule of thumb for overhangs is: For a four door saloon: as short a front overhang as possible with a nice long overhang at the rear. This elongates the design and makes that car look as if it is stretching rapidly towards an imaginary destination. For a hot hatch, if a long front overhang is inevitable then the rear overhang must be as short as possible. Of course a wheel at each corner looks way better vis a vis the 2nd generation New Mini compared with its much prettier predecessor; the new Mini’s front overhang is a problem. For SUV’s a long wheelbase and a short front overhang is essential. The rear overhang can be longer as long as it doesn’t make the car look arse-heavy. A good example of this is the perfectly styled Range Rover Sport vs. the rather big-bummed Cayenne. For supercars a long, pointy front overhang always works, provided the rear overhand is absolutely as short as possible. The ultimate expression of this concept: the McLaren F1.

More on the rest of the points to follow...

 

[SDNR]

What is really left to say.

..... I spoke too soon.

Good post Martin

 

[martinbo]

2. What determines what is acceptable and what not?
Public and popular opinion. Any car design, whether ground-breaking or pragmatically conservative must not alienate the target audience. On occasion it’s not only about what looks good and what doesn’t but also what kind of message you’re sending to the general public. The E65 7er certainly polarised opinion when it was launched but it’s statement was emphatically unambiguous: “You’re looking at the revolution of the large luxury sedan” is what the message was. Whether it was perceived as revolutionary, merely acceptable or downright vulgar, the 7er must be heralded as a success for BMW.

3. Is basic design boring?
This question can be interpreted at so many levels. The key here is to define what is “basic design”. Is this a lack of adornment and detail pizzazz or does this refer to long established conventional design such as your regular 3 box saloon? One could say that the market has seen a slight shift toward less than conventional proportions such as in crossover vehicles and SUVs but the fact remains that basic design sells en mass. Crossovers have a long way to go before they usurp the sales volumes from their long standing conventionally styled counterparts. Perhaps a basic 3 box design saloon is more boring than a swoopy crossover sports activity coupe but it’s all too subjective to determine in any event.

Should you be referring to detail styling features on a conventionally shaped vehicle then one could argue that it’s down to what is pleasing on the eye. For example, some of France’s most avant-garde and less than boring designs are also its most hideous. Second that for anything made by Ssangyong. Certainly not boring. Most certainly fracking ugly.

4. Do curves really play a decent role?
This depends on the car, its intended role and the perception of the public. In a Ferrari, curves are everything. In a Range Rover they’re nothing. I believe that curves (or the lack thereof) in regular cars are a vital element in communicating a brand’s identity to the market.

5. Are smaller or larger vehicle more prone to design mishaps?
Honestly, I don’t think that design mishaps can ever be attributed to the actual size of a car. An Audi A8 looks fantastic, yet, just half a size down the A6 looks positively mundane and an A3 Sportback once again looks terrific. Either the car is a stylistic success or it isn’t; it’s more about the interplay of the various shapes in a car’s design than physical dimension in my opinion.

6. Do head lights play a major role in design?
Absolutely. Go and ask Subaru who still can’t get an Impreza right… bug-eyes, then blob-eyes, then wing-eyes. Every time the general public went “eewwww”.

7. Should rear lights be smaller or larger?
In my opinion smaller is typically better – though not necessarily safer. Case in point: current Honda Civic sedan, the rear tail-lights are at complete odds with the rather pretty, sleek looks of the rest of the car. Those monstrosities spoil the car completely.

8. Are (w)rap around headlights better?
Yes and no. It all depends on the application and their cohesion with the rest of the design.

9. What’s the problem with an elevated trunk?
It makes the backside look too big and this makes the overall appearance of the car less elegant and dynamic than it ought to. Case in point: the BMW 5er - the most un-dynamic looking 5er ever - that needs great gobs of optional styling extras to make it look the part.

10. What pillar (c-pillar etc.) can make or break a design?
In my mind it’s the angle or rake of the a-pillar and the shape of the c-pillar that makes or breaks a design.

 

[lambornima]

1. What makes for good design?

The same things that make for good artwork: flow, unity, proportion, etc

2. What determines what is acceptable and what not?

the purpose for which the car is built. also, opinion. for example, in supercars, a big of exaguration (ie the LP640's large front air intakes) can make for an interesting design. but if the car was to be a small city car, exagurated features may throw off the design.

3. Is basic design boring?

depends on the design. Audi and Lamborghini have shown us that basic quadrilaterals can make for an incredible design (pretty much all lambos and audis). whereas complicated designs make me (personally) uneasy (ie S7)

4. Do curves really play a decent role?

im unsure of the question, but looking at whether or not curves can make for good designs, looking at the previous gen Viper and the Aston Martins, Ferrari F50 etc we can see that curves, when done properly can make for a great design, but when done improperly (ie F430) can make you uneasy looking at the car. like on the F430, some curves can come out of no-where and great for a "bulgy" look.


5. Are smaller or larger vehicle more prone to design mishaps?

I would say smaller. I mentioned things like unity and flow and in cars like the Audi A8 and Mercedes CLS and Sclass, the size of the vehicle is utilized to make great, long flowing lines and angles. when making cars smaller, its harder to make such lines and its harder to have things flow since you are constricted of room.

6. Do head lights play a major role in design?

YES! like the eyes of a beautiful girl (and sometimes breasts ) they are the first thing that catches your attention, and from there your attention goes to the other parts of the body. and imo, the design should flow outward from the headlights, making them the focal point of the masterpiece. if THEY'RE done right, it makes the design a hell of a lot easier to work with. looking at cars up to mid 90s, the restriction on headlights forced designers to shove away the headlights into the body of the car (pop up healights). this made for wierd looks when the lights were up and probably for unfavourable aerodynamics too.

7. Should rear lights be smaller or larger?

depends on the design. I spoke of proportions earlier and with the wrong proportions, the design can be ruined. looking at the Enzo's rear, with a car that is over 2 meters wide, it has a HUGE rear end, however the tail lights are unporportionally small. same goes for the F430 but to a lesser extent. im not sure of the name of the car, but one of the new Lincolns has MASSIVE rear lights that are just TOO big. again, it draws your eyes to it and doesnt let go (like a girl with a massive behind ) and you just cant not look. cars that have good tail light proportions are cars like the murcielago (LP640 is a better example of tail lights design, whoever designed the tail lights of the LP640 was a genius), SLR, A8 (almost all Audis), new 335i (the 4 door 3 series' tail lights are too large).

8. Are rap around headlight better?

depends on the design. wouldnt look good on the Murcielago, but could on the next potential 7 series generation.

9. What’s the problem with an elevated trunk?

depending on the design, an elevated drunk can give a car a rear heavy look and on a shorter car like a C class of 4 door 3 series, it would look unproportional.

10. What pillar (c-pillar etc.) can make or break a design?

I would say c pillars.

 

[SDNR]

Finally, I feel like tackling this thread with my own responses to your questions HOH. I hope you don't mind if I use some visual references ....I find it easier to explain my point of view with the aid of images.

1. What makes for good design?

The eternal question .....actually that is not strictly true. Design, as we know it in its modern sense, is a relatively new concept (about 150 years)

Good car design can be interpreted or measured in several ways. Firstly, the purpose of the vehicle (ie, performance, off-road, or luxury) will have much influence over, not only the styling of the vehicle, but also its underlying platform, Technical things like engine size and placement will have an immediate affect on the overall design concept from the outset. Generally though, apart from how well a design functions in the real world (its ergonomics and technical aspects), proportion and the harmonizing of the different elements are the attributes which determine the success of the final design from an aesthetic stand point.

Generally, successful designs employ a harmonious blend of ergonomics and emotive aesthetics.

2. What determines what is acceptable and what not?

Really, the short answer is fashion and changing social trends and lifestyles.

Of course, fashion and social trends are themselves influenced greatly by science and technology .....as well as environmental concerns, natural resources, and changing social and political issues.

3. Is basic design boring?

I liked Osnabruecks answer, I think we have to understand "basic" design in context.

In recent years the booming global economy has brought with it a strong demand for luxury/status objects. Objects which are primarily focused on function ...or conceived from a genuine academic principal of purity and modesty, are quite out-of-step with current trends.

Giorgio Giugiaro's original Golf is interesting. At first glance, it appears to be a very simple and inexpressive, but it actually has a very strong style of its own -- it is unmistakable ....a very well designed little car all round.


Max Bill's famous stool from 1955 is an object conceived from a principal of absolute rationalism -- design reduced to its most fundamental elements to fulfill its requirements.

Do curves really play a decent role?

Once again, fashion does play a part. In the 1970s, curves were seen as "out of date" -- perhaps the most dramatic example of this was the total rejection of curves in the Aston Martin Lagonda.

Interior of the Aston Martin Lagonda


However, curves do have a strongly emotional aspect about them -- we do have a natural attraction to volumes and curves ...........it is partly a primal attraction

5. Are smaller or larger vehicle more prone to design mishaps?

I don't think they have to be ......the only thing one might say is smaller cars for the budget market obviously have constraints placed on the "decorative" aspects of their design for purely financial reasons ......but the Italians have proved many times in the past that cheap doesn't have to be completely boring.

6. Do head lights play a major role in design?

They have become more and more important as designers have made them a major design feature for many cars.

The oval headlights of the W210 were a major step for Mercedes-Benz -- they were taking a risk with them ......it was a clever way of extending the Mercedes' archetypes -- from these, Mercedes designers have realized that the public will allow great variations of the "Mercedes style" -- we have seen how Mercedes has continued to abstract its traditional styling elements to create fresh interpretations of what a Mercedes should look like.

7. Should rear lights be smaller or larger?

I don't really think there are any strict rules here ........if it works, it works .....we can all tell when it doesn't.

8. Are rap around headlight better?

Not better or worse .....really just a matter of personal taste.

9. What’s the problem with an elevated trunk?

Nothing .....once again it is more about styling trends than anything else. If it works well with the overall design then there is no problem.

10. What pillar (c-pillar etc.) can make or break a design?

I guess any pillar could ruin the appearance of a car if it was very badly designed ......generally, because of laws governing the angle of A pillars, there is not too much than can go wrong with them -- the B pillar could be a problem if it is too wide I guess ......but really it is the C pillar which has the most scope to contribute to the identity of the vehicle ....for this reason, I believe it is probably the one which could most affect the overall strength of a design.

 

[martinbo]

Superb contribution Rob...