car designers... useless gits??
Discussion
what is it about car designers these days??? the new suby consisted of the old suby 
but with a big sodding circle added to the headlights. was this the same guy who has been subtly "tweaking" the 911 for optimal ?? or is it merely some child with a bad cad program?
one only needs to examine the recent load of produced to see where the auto world is headed , 911, WRX, EVO, hell even the s2 elise. all cars are getting slabbier and fatter with crash testing and regulations used as the excuse.
i shudder to think where cars will be in 20 years time. the 911 will probably just look like the cayenne
but with a big sodding circle added to the headlights. was this the same guy who has been subtly "tweaking" the 911 for optimal ?? or is it merely some child with a bad cad program? one only needs to examine the recent load of
produced to see where the auto world is headed , 911, WRX, EVO, hell even the s2 elise. all cars are getting slabbier and fatter with crash testing and regulations used as the excuse. i shudder to think where cars will be in 20 years time. the 911 will probably just look like the cayenne
I agree, design and innovation is being stifled by the quest for safety. The ability to produce the car based on another one in the range is also leading to very similar cars from the major manufacturers. However, I dont think that car designers should be singled out here - they do try their best as can be seen by many concept models that are available. They try to push the 'envelope' with something new, but usually any production model is toned down and much different.
Its all to do with the business managers and leaders. No one wants to be different any more. They want commonality with their competitors and have the 'customer clinics' where all cars end up looking the same.... shame really, cos if the designers and engineers had their way we would all be driving around in unique pieces of automotive art....
Scooby is one example - they wanted to produce something distinctive - hence the boggle eyed model. That didnt work so now get the conservative look. Which is OK, but lets face it the rest of the car is conventional - 100% conventional that it! shame they couldnt do anything else other than some small tweaks - might have been better to have had some more significant changes rather than cosmetic ones.....
Still, heres hoping that the Renault strategy pays off. Ok, dont like the look of them, but hats off for doing something unique and individual - long may it continue.
Cheers,
Paul
Its all to do with the business managers and leaders. No one wants to be different any more. They want commonality with their competitors and have the 'customer clinics' where all cars end up looking the same.... shame really, cos if the designers and engineers had their way we would all be driving around in unique pieces of automotive art....
Scooby is one example - they wanted to produce something distinctive - hence the boggle eyed model. That didnt work so now get the conservative look. Which is OK, but lets face it the rest of the car is conventional - 100% conventional that it! shame they couldnt do anything else other than some small tweaks - might have been better to have had some more significant changes rather than cosmetic ones.....
Still, heres hoping that the Renault strategy pays off. Ok, dont like the look of them, but hats off for doing something unique and individual - long may it continue.
Cheers,
Paul
mrhatmostly said: thumbs up on that, tvr are great. but where will they be when they have to start appeasing the masses?? or can they stay unique on their current sales??
and try finding a tvr in australia... as much chance as england winning the world cup :cheeky:
Same here in the states, TVR's are few and far between, still they're out there, but mostly older models. Placed a bid on a '64 Griffin a couple months ago. 20k mi. and recent complete, frame off restoration... beautiful car and I bet it went like stink (dual weber Coventry Climax), but the owner wanted way too much for it, I think it sold for about $19,000USD...Jim '85TE
>> Edited by lotusguy on Sunday 16th February 03:50
Strangely I remember the same complaints in the fifties, sixties, seventies etc.
My complaint about car designers is that they prioritise form over function, production over maintenance etc.
Lotus 340R, looks good but you have to remove the body to replace the battery, now thats what I call intelligent design..NOT!
My complaint about car designers is that they prioritise form over function, production over maintenance etc.
Lotus 340R, looks good but you have to remove the body to replace the battery, now thats what I call intelligent design..NOT!
gnomesmith said: Strangely I remember the same complaints in the fifties, sixties, seventies etc.
My complaint about car designers is that they prioritise form over function, production over maintenance etc.
Lotus 340R, looks good but you have to remove the body to replace the battery, now thats what I call intelligent design..NOT!
Thats not car design, thats engineering. Design you start without rules, the engineers make it happen/wreck it.
Design means
Design is often limited to aesthetics in a common appreciation, but in fact it includes all four above points.
Different products do have different priorities in these four aspects:
e.g. a vase has to look good, but the function is limited to keep the water. A vacuum cleaner does have more weight on function and usability.
For cars, a sportscar must look good and feel good; a Unimog must work well (its form-follows-function however, gives a certain appearance which I describe as sexy
)
So what car does have it all?
- self explainable ergonomics
- economic production
- target group dependent aesthetics
- appropriate function (in forms of technology)
Design is often limited to aesthetics in a common appreciation, but in fact it includes all four above points.
Different products do have different priorities in these four aspects:
e.g. a vase has to look good, but the function is limited to keep the water. A vacuum cleaner does have more weight on function and usability.
For cars, a sportscar must look good and feel good; a Unimog must work well (its form-follows-function however, gives a certain appearance which I describe as sexy
) So what car does have it all?
Bodo said: Design means
- self explainable ergonomics
As an Ergonomist, I have yet to encounter a designer who gives that a thought! - all the ones I've worked with have little interest in function, only form!
Hell, at Uni, one guy designed a fantastic looking car, but when we told him there was no room for the occupants, he threw his toys out the pram and refused to work with us!
Just wait till cars start to be designed so you can crash them without wearing a seatbelt and escape unhurt (as I believe is about to become law in some US states), they'll be nice....Err NOT
However lets face it many people do not give a toss what a car looks like, in the same way that they shuffle through their bland lives eating tasteless food, drinking piss fizzy beer, never have their own opinion, doing shit 9-5 jobs they don't like yet they cannot be arsed to do anything about it, watching dreary arse on the telly and listening to talentless manufactured 'pop stars' regurgitating formula written drivel. If auto companies can get away with mediocrety then they will and lets face it we (the minority) cannot really blame them.
I'm off to drive my interesting Cerbera home and watch coronationenders whilst drinking harp and listening to Darius Gates....and of course eating some chicken nuggets.
Blimey that Carzee thread seems to be spreading..
D
D.
However lets face it many people do not give a toss what a car looks like, in the same way that they shuffle through their bland lives eating tasteless food, drinking piss fizzy beer, never have their own opinion, doing shit 9-5 jobs they don't like yet they cannot be arsed to do anything about it, watching dreary arse on the telly and listening to talentless manufactured 'pop stars' regurgitating formula written drivel. If auto companies can get away with mediocrety then they will and lets face it we (the minority) cannot really blame them.
I'm off to drive my interesting Cerbera home and watch coronationenders whilst drinking harp and listening to Darius Gates....and of course eating some chicken nuggets.
Blimey that Carzee thread seems to be spreading..
D
D.
True, but certainly the FBS census is proof that a car, although capable just isnt catching the amount of petrolheaded people who would otherwise want a 2 seater sports car.
interesting what most of the people around here drive...
Shit 9-5 jobs, shit 9-5 cars
"Designed by people who can't draw"-Sniff Petrol, superb!
interesting what most of the people around here drive...
Shit 9-5 jobs, shit 9-5 cars
"Designed by people who can't draw"-Sniff Petrol, superb!
Bodo said: Design means
- self explainable ergonomics
Had someone try influence my decision to purchase a car in the basis of its ergonomics.. Being an evil git that I am, (also a qualified ergonomist) I had a little bit of fun and asked him what that was all about.. Well says he, its a nice shape inside innit? Having explained the difference between aesthetics and ergnomics I asked him is not being able to adjust the wing mirrors when seated in my normal driving position was an example of good ergonomics.. Bloody odd if you ask me..
And while I am on that particular rant, why is it that the switches for these things are still in unreachable places on Mondeos? If i am sitting far enough back to be comfortable, I can't adjust the mirrors so have a 5 minute fiddle everytime I get one on hire.. Irritating..
psychobert said:
Bodo said: Design means
- self explainable ergonomics
Had someone try influence my decision to purchase a car in the basis of its ergonomics.. Being an evil git that I am, (also a qualified ergonomist) I had a little bit of fun and asked him what that was all about.. Well says he, its a nice shape inside innit? Having explained the difference between aesthetics and ergnomics I asked him is not being able to adjust the wing mirrors when seated in my normal driving position was an example of good ergonomics.. Bloody odd if you ask me..
And while I am on that particular rant, why is it that the switches for these things are still in unreachable places on Mondeos? If i am sitting far enough back to be comfortable, I can't adjust the mirrors so have a 5 minute fiddle everytime I get one on hire.. Irritating..
(sorry everyone, Ergonomist joke!) As for the Mondeo... simple explanation. They put me in IT!!!!!!
Bodo said: Design means
- self explainable ergonomics
...
Design is often limited to aesthetics in a common appreciation, but in fact it includes all four above points.
Podie and psychobert, I agree with you; and I think I have to emphasize now, that Designers themselves often have no clue about design except for aesthetics
Podie said:
As for the Mondeo... simple explanation. They put me in IT!!!!!!
Ah.. Another human orang-utang left in charge of the design of a dashboard
Shame you didn't put something in that disables foglights in the daytime.. Shortest of shortarsed gits can reach those..
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff