Giannis
Staff member
Beeing an engineer, it's a part of my job to not like designers. A designer, by definition, is the single best man that can make an engineer's life miserable. Architects can design spectacular buildings, but then, it's the engineers' nightmare, to make them stand and survive an earthquake. Certainly not the best job in the world.
Having that in mind, I just read in the forums a good member comparing car design to architecture. I read it again and then I thought about it. Is it good? Is it bad? Does this mean that all cars from now on will look like the first generation Fiat Multipla, or that even the most basic car you can buy will be looking as amazing as an Aston Martin DBS?
BMW E36 3-series: A typical 90's sport coupe. Nice and clean lines. Simple and elegant design.
Leaving my field of studies and passion for old-school sport sedans aside, I have to admit that what we call "automotive design" has not evolved that much during the second part of the 20th century. The typical family car is a 3-box sedan, while the small and/or practical car has a 2-box shape. The lines are usually pleasing to look at and most designs are clear instead of being "busy". This resulted in a typical shape of the car. Like the typical shape of a camera, that, even now, in the digital age, can have any shape, not only a rectangular box with the lense in the middle. The single most important breakthrough in automotive design, according to designers, if I am not mistaken, is the use of CAD programs.
Yet, the last couple of years we have seen some very interesting concepts. Take the new Ford Evos for example. Or last year's Mazda Shinari Four-Door Sports Coupe Concept. They could be characterized as strange, as ugly, as simply beautiful or as a revolution. Many opinions for the same design. But, isn't this the definition of a successful design?
Ford Evos
Mazda Shinari Four-Door Sports Coupe Concept
Architecture, is not the art of wasting space (according to some engineers with a great sense of humor), but the art of mixing unorthodox shapes and curves with the standard "block", as Scott nicely put it. So, the question is, can it be applied to cars, and if yes, is this a good thing?
Small design cues of some new cars could certainly be compared with architecture. The BMW F20 1-series "nose" for instance. It could be architecture. The Mercedes-Benz CLS's side view lines. That could be, too. Giving it a bit more though, I can name at least another ten models that I could describe as having architecture cues in their design.
This is something new. These strange 3-D shapes, the use of complex surface work to enhance the design of a certain car. Think of Ford's "Kinetic Design" and BMW's "Flame Surfacing". Bold curvy surfaces that are disrupted by curvy lines. It's either love or hate from first sight. It's architecture.
I'd say that the answer is yes. The question is somewhere in the second paragraph. So, yes, contemporary automotive design can be compared to modern architecture, and this is a good thing. We are finally going to see something different. Maybe a different shape, or the good old typical car shape, yet presented in a different way. Or maybe more 3-D styling cues. Or even new materials that we wouldn't even imagine in a production car. Or maybe my imagination is going too far. Or maybe not!
This is actually good, because the modern car is not only a mean of transport these days. It can also be a fashion statement. Or reveal many things about yourself, your character, your education, your culture, your style, yourself, but that's for phychologists. So, being something more than a transportation machine, design is important. I am very excited about what the future will bring us, design-wise. No matter if it will be a design evolution or revolution, it will be something different. And I'm all in for it!
Trying to put an end to this text, I have to ask a question, as an engineer: It's not broken. Why fix it?
I am very curious to see, how you, dear reader, would answer this question...
