Awkward design details on production cars
Discussion
Yes, all exterior 'lamps' (which this these emblems would be deemed as when illuminated) have to be homologated onto the car for safety reasons.
Illuminated emblems are deemed to be only there for 'decoration' so the regulation doesn't allow it today, there has been a push in recent times to allow for illuminated emblems standalone, but the regulation makers globally are resisting because it's deemed that they give no objective benefit but risk causing distraction to other road users.
Illuminated emblems are deemed to be only there for 'decoration' so the regulation doesn't allow it today, there has been a push in recent times to allow for illuminated emblems standalone, but the regulation makers globally are resisting because it's deemed that they give no objective benefit but risk causing distraction to other road users.
mat205125 said:
Cliftonite said:
Cyder said:
Illuminated emblems that are standalone are currently not allowed.
That is Wolseley stuffed, then?
HTP99 said:
David_M said:
The tail lights on the new Defender are just . . . . not right. While finding this image I even ended up reading an article about why they are like this, and they are still wrong.
And yet whenever I see a new Defender I'm always impressed with how the tail lights look, very different to anything else out there. F1GTRUeno said:
ajprice said:
I think the rear lights stretching along the side of the car on the Focus mk3 are for similar USA regulation side reflector/marker light reasons.
Adds another detail to the thread - the fuel filler cap - I hate it being integrated into the awful rear light design..jpg.2a805e10f63102eff78afb2d184b9c2f.jpg)
ajprice said:
Then they facelifted it with smaller rear lights that didn't line up with the filler flap.
That really is a cheapskate move. I think most potential buyers looking at a car see only the loud and crazy detailing and surfacing, that dopey looking BMW iX thing that created a big fuss is a great example of that, once you take away the "bold" wheel arches and the "bold" grille/badging it is an utterly and totally generic two box crossover, as controversial and daring as tap water; in silhouette it could be from absolutely any manufacturer at all, particularly with that tropey C-pillar treatment, but I do wonder if people notice at a subconscious level stuff as lazy and shoddy as that fuel filler cap and if it puts them off the car at all.
I don't suppose it can or nobody would have bought the incredibly shoddy W176 Mercedes A-Class.
Why is it a cheapskate move? It would usually be prohibitively expensive to commission a new body side press tool for a facelift. (Not to say it doesn’t happen)
From an engineering and PQ point of view the face lifted version is much more sympathetic to design and manufacture with tolerances involved.
We generally try to avoid the situation that occurs in the pre-facelift where you have a ‘+’ shaped hole where all the panels/lamps come together. Any variance in tolerance will make the shape look wonky and be highly noticeable.
In the facelift version when the panels/lamp come together it is easier to disguise any variation due to tolerances.
From an engineering and PQ point of view the face lifted version is much more sympathetic to design and manufacture with tolerances involved.
We generally try to avoid the situation that occurs in the pre-facelift where you have a ‘+’ shaped hole where all the panels/lamps come together. Any variance in tolerance will make the shape look wonky and be highly noticeable.
In the facelift version when the panels/lamp come together it is easier to disguise any variation due to tolerances.
Cyder said:
Why is it a cheapskate move? It would usually be prohibitively expensive to commission a new body side press tool for a facelift. (Not to say it doesn’t happen)
From an engineering and PQ point of view the face lifted version is much more sympathetic to design and manufacture with tolerances involved.
We generally try to avoid the situation that occurs in the pre-facelift where you have a ‘+’ shaped hole where all the panels/lamps come together. Any variance in tolerance will make the shape look wonky and be highly noticeable.
In the facelift version when the panels/lamp come together it is easier to disguise any variation due to tolerances.
That's interesting - more "ah, so that's why they do it like that" insights from vehicle design please!From an engineering and PQ point of view the face lifted version is much more sympathetic to design and manufacture with tolerances involved.
We generally try to avoid the situation that occurs in the pre-facelift where you have a ‘+’ shaped hole where all the panels/lamps come together. Any variance in tolerance will make the shape look wonky and be highly noticeable.
In the facelift version when the panels/lamp come together it is easier to disguise any variation due to tolerances.
Fastpedeller said:
I may be correct in saying the manufacturers already have the facelift designed before the original arrives onto the market?
Likely the design studio is already working on styling it, but that’s still a fair way away from bringing to market. It’s not a cynical exercise where they hold it back just because. It would also be foolish not to at least have a chance at incorporating market feedback. Funkstar De Luxe said:
No, it's intentional. You'll see, if you look closely, the filler cover is not from the same tooling (no recess in the newer model)
The filler cover is the cheap bit to change though. It’s the bodyside pressing that’s still the same as the pre-facelift, forcing the filler cover to be the same size as the pre-facelift one. I'm always surprised how much they do actually change tooling.
An example I particularly like is the Jaguar S-Type.
They arselifted it in 2004, the bootlid, bodyside, and bonnet (changed shape slightly and was pressed in alu vs the earlier cars in steel).
Park them beside each other and they almost still look identical.
An example I particularly like is the Jaguar S-Type.
They arselifted it in 2004, the bootlid, bodyside, and bonnet (changed shape slightly and was pressed in alu vs the earlier cars in steel).
Park them beside each other and they almost still look identical.
Venturist said:
It’s not a cynical exercise where they hold it back just because. .
Nothing was further from my mind. A facelift may not be what's required at the original launch date (maybe too radical?) , and why would you want to not do a facelift and miss the opportunity to extend a model for a few years. The clever bit (IMHO) is predicting what the public will want in maybe 5 or 8 years' time.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff