Future car design
Discussion
Having lots of random thoughts buzzing like midges as I walked across the car park at lunchtime. One of them considered car design - virtually all cars have a front end that looks vaguely like a face; 2 headlights for eyes, a brandname badge for a nose and a grill for a mouth, numbers for teeth.
Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
kambites said:
I think the idea of two headlights is to show oncoming traffic how wide the vehicle is? Don't they have to be within a certain distance of the outside of the car?
Yes, and it's why problems are caused when one lamp is out - a 6' car approaching looks like a 2' motorcycle.alfa pint said:
Having lots of random thoughts buzzing like midges as I walked across the car park at lunchtime. One of them considered car design - virtually all cars have a front end that looks vaguely like a face; 2 headlights for eyes, a brandname badge for a nose and a grill for a mouth, numbers for teeth.
Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
I've thought about this a few times too. My thoughts were triggered by (I think) the new Bentley GTC's massive rear brake light. Why don't all cars have a brake light or driving light the width of the car. There would be no need to be dazzled by badly adjusted headlights anymore. however, I thought the downside would be a relatively minor front end shunt could cost a fortune in all those replaced lights!Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
R11ysf said:
alfa pint said:
Having lots of random thoughts buzzing like midges as I walked across the car park at lunchtime. One of them considered car design - virtually all cars have a front end that looks vaguely like a face; 2 headlights for eyes, a brandname badge for a nose and a grill for a mouth, numbers for teeth.
Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
I've thought about this a few times too. My thoughts were triggered by (I think) the new Bentley GTC's massive rear brake light. Why don't all cars have a brake light or driving light the width of the car. There would be no need to be dazzled by badly adjusted headlights anymore. however, I thought the downside would be a relatively minor front end shunt could cost a fortune in all those replaced lights!Now the 2 headlight thing I can work out from vintage cars, where headlights at the time would have to be parabolic bowls and one wouldn't give you sufficient light to drive at night, so it would make sense to have two of them, but not economic sense to have more than two. I know that Rover did a car in the 40s that had a central headlight as well as 2 normal ones, which was considered fairly ugly and was inevitably nicknamed Cyclops. However, modern light technology means that there is no requirement to have just 2 headlights - we could have a whole strip across the front for instance, with dipping facility, all using low power consuming LEDs or similar. Obviously the radiator grill on front engined cars (and a lot of others) is there to provide cooling airflow to the radiator and therefore is best positioned at the front.
The questions are, would consumers still want to buy such a thing? Do we actually like our cars to look vaguely facelike from the front? Or is it just that cars have morphed through the decades that we'll only buy a car that actually looks like what we think a car should look like?
Two functioning headlamps or tail lamps adequately do the job of indicating width, as long as they're working properly. Round our way it seems 5-10% of cars have a headlamp out.
BarnatosGhost said:
kambites said:
I think the idea of two headlights is to show oncoming traffic how wide the vehicle is? Don't they have to be within a certain distance of the outside of the car?
Yes, and it's why problems are caused when one lamp is out - a 6' car approaching looks like a 2' motorcycle.MitchT said:
Surely some reflective material at the extremes of the car's 'footprint' would help to make it visible to oncoming traffic in the event of a light being out? I'm surprised such a thing isn't mandatory... or maybe it is?
It's mandatory on the back. If they have it on the front too, it doesn't work very well. 
attym3 said:
I think also it is a case of if one headlight stops working you have another spare. If you just had one light and it stopped you would lose total vision.
Unfortunately redundancy only helps if you bother to repair the first failure when it happens, and I've seen little evidence of that recently. 
This is classic form vs function.
When I was younger I believed function always followed over form, but it rarely is ever totally the case.
Even with something as bland and boring looking as a late 80s/early 90s Audi or a Toyota Prius.
If you did design a car purely with function in mind- aerodynamics would take a priority with a small frontal area and good cross wind stability, with the vehicles centre of pressure located behind the vehicles centre of gravity. There grill between the headlights would probably go: Cars such as the X300 Jaguar for instance utilise most of the cooling air from the vents in the bumper- the chrome radiator grill is there mainly for decorative purposes. You could in theory replace the grill area with somee kind of air duct or faring to produce more down force. Quite often open grills in the traditional place merely cause air to enter the engine bay and cause buffeting and therefore reduce the cars CD. It is for this reason cars like the Mk2 Golf have the grill blocked off on one side on the inside.
The headlights could be a strip of innane but functional LEDs and the car would have a high notch back rear end that tapers or a kam tail if it's a fast back.
The target Cd number could be 0.26 with a rounded snub nose.
HOWEVER I think such a car would look boring and very very bland.
There comes a point in most of our lives, even engineers, where a certain amount of emotional intelligence is gained. Like it or not there is an artistic aspect to car design and what appeals to us. This is why there is nearly always a balance of form over function. I think this is needed or else sales are effected. Even with the constraints of aesthetics alot of the functional criteria can still be met: The Mercedes W124 series looked very 'mercedes like' with the classic grill however it was one of the most aerodynamic cars in it's class (Cd=0.26-0.28) and the same with the Mk2 Golf (0.34) compare that with the original Jellymould Ford Sierra which was less aerodynamic that both and had side wind stability problems but LOOKED more functional.
I for one, am glad of this form vs function balance. It's what keeps cars objects of passion and desire and stops them from becoming A to B whites goods (although the current regime of disposable car culture and functional hybrid type cars are doing a very good job of reversing this).
When I was younger I believed function always followed over form, but it rarely is ever totally the case.
Even with something as bland and boring looking as a late 80s/early 90s Audi or a Toyota Prius.
If you did design a car purely with function in mind- aerodynamics would take a priority with a small frontal area and good cross wind stability, with the vehicles centre of pressure located behind the vehicles centre of gravity. There grill between the headlights would probably go: Cars such as the X300 Jaguar for instance utilise most of the cooling air from the vents in the bumper- the chrome radiator grill is there mainly for decorative purposes. You could in theory replace the grill area with somee kind of air duct or faring to produce more down force. Quite often open grills in the traditional place merely cause air to enter the engine bay and cause buffeting and therefore reduce the cars CD. It is for this reason cars like the Mk2 Golf have the grill blocked off on one side on the inside.
The headlights could be a strip of innane but functional LEDs and the car would have a high notch back rear end that tapers or a kam tail if it's a fast back.
The target Cd number could be 0.26 with a rounded snub nose.
HOWEVER I think such a car would look boring and very very bland.
There comes a point in most of our lives, even engineers, where a certain amount of emotional intelligence is gained. Like it or not there is an artistic aspect to car design and what appeals to us. This is why there is nearly always a balance of form over function. I think this is needed or else sales are effected. Even with the constraints of aesthetics alot of the functional criteria can still be met: The Mercedes W124 series looked very 'mercedes like' with the classic grill however it was one of the most aerodynamic cars in it's class (Cd=0.26-0.28) and the same with the Mk2 Golf (0.34) compare that with the original Jellymould Ford Sierra which was less aerodynamic that both and had side wind stability problems but LOOKED more functional.
I for one, am glad of this form vs function balance. It's what keeps cars objects of passion and desire and stops them from becoming A to B whites goods (although the current regime of disposable car culture and functional hybrid type cars are doing a very good job of reversing this).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff