Design Laziness??

[RichardParker90]

Given the controversial nature of this topic bare with me.

With so many makes not devoted to a evolution design theme rather than a design revolution. Do you think that this design language has hampered design development or helped it? Yes, yes, I know that many makes wouldn't be what they are if it wasn't for their looks, 911, GTI, DB9, Corvette, Mustang, M3/4, M5 etc, etc. But if you consider the advance,net in various technology, could you argue that makes are skimping out of designing new products simply because they don't have any balls? I mean can you tape ally call a car that weighs close to 4000 lbs a M car? Or be that is shifted automatically, has rear steer, E-PAS, and weighs more than the standard car a proper GT3?

My main point: Are makes gutting icons in the name of emissions and using the pseudonym "evolution" to keep enthusiasts from riots? Or are our motoring icons as much iconic now as they were when they debuted because if their various "improvements?"

[300bhp/ton]

There are more regulations which limit what can be done these days. But in fairness such things have existed for a long time and many of these icons you speak of are a result of such things from decades past.

And remember car companies are there to make money. Not to satisfy a few enthusiasts who likely wouldn't buy the products anyhow. With fewer race series requiring homologation cars then car makers have little to no reason to build stripped out specials. Therefore selling something fast and well specced is easier and more profitable.

[XplusYplusZ]

Emissions and safety have been shaping our 'icons' for at least the past 50 years. The covered headlights on Jag e-type mk1s were removed for the mk2 and 3s due to US legislation. US emission control also choked some of the fruitier engines of the 60s. I read that these restrictions continue today, with a US law requiring headlights to be 'switchable' from high beam to low beam, which means that the cutting edge audi and volvo LED lights (which are adaptable, but do not have a 'switch') are currently against the legislation.

I think the philosophies of companies varies, depending on their target market. Supercars are all about being fast, their heritage is in their ability to push the boundaries, as such, form follows function. La Ferrari, Porsche 918,

However in the more prestige orientated market, where the styling and design allow a car to be instantly recognisable, and is what the market wants to buy into, the general silhouette of the car advances little. But still the latest features are included under the bonnet.

Does the box truly restrict the goods within? Not until you're in supercar wind tunnel territory.

The 911 is of course a very interesting conundrum in all this. The form is actually pretty good, however the underpinnings are what make it both flawed, but loved. I see a very interesting clash between the 911 and the Cayman. The cayman has the potential to be faster than a 911. But i doubt porsche will ever let that happen. Probably not to keep the 911 as the head boy, but because they are catering for different markets. The cayman is (in porsche's eyes) cheap, focussed driving. The 911 has the heritage, the comfort and the technology to keep it at the top of most people's wish list. And for those who really just want to go very fast, they have the 918.

So I think the markets dominate the overall designs. If the 911 had been slated in its first guise and nobody bought it because the engine was in the wrong place, then i'm sure it would have been reworked into something mid engined, and now 40 year old Caymans would be fetching £200,000 at auction. BUT the 911 was fast and fun despite its design, and that's kept buyers buying, and that's why it's still selling like hot cakes.

Edited by XplusYplusZ on Wednesday 27th March 07:11

Edited by XplusYplusZ on Wednesday 27th March 07:11

[Captain Muppet]

RichardParker90 said:

Given the controversial nature of this topic bare with me.

With so many makes not devoted to a evolution design theme rather than a design revolution. Do you think that this design language has hampered design development or helped it? Yes, yes, I know that many makes wouldn't be what they are if it wasn't for their looks, 911, GTI, DB9, Corvette, Mustang, M3/4, M5 etc, etc. But if you consider the advance,net in various technology, could you argue that makes are skimping out of designing new products simply because they don't have any balls? I mean can you tape ally call a car that weighs close to 4000 lbs a M car? Or be that is shifted automatically, has rear steer, E-PAS, and weighs more than the standard car a proper GT3?

My main point: Are makes gutting icons in the name of emissions and using the pseudonym "evolution" to keep enthusiasts from riots? Or are our motoring icons as much iconic now as they were when they debuted because if their various "improvements?"

I'm confused, is this about styling or engineering? Or marketing?

Did you try proof reading your post before posting it?

[RichardParker90]

Captain Muppet said:

I'm confused, is this about styling or engineering? Or marketing?

Did you try proof reading your post before posting it?

It's sort of an open ended question in a design theme. Looking on the current auto-scape today, so many makes are compromising on their original beliefs: BMW and Porsche are the more notable ones. 911 was once a sports car, identified by its inherent engineering compromise. Yet, with their current gen, Porsche has moved the 911 toward a more GT design brief than that of a true sports car: longer wheel base improves ride quality, more sound deadening improves NVH at speed, PDK improves long distance ease of use and economy, and E-PAS lessens driver fatigue from an overly sensitive steering wheel. They justify this broadening of the useability of the vehicle with cooresponding lap times at the Nurburing. is that enough?

BMW M cars were once a celebration of BMW's Motorsport participation giving users the chance to experience the Mulsanne straight on your way to work. The original M5 obviously had its limitations, with the E60 the ultimate culprit of following the original receipe too far. With the M3 it's a completely different ball game. Yes, I know the merits of a daily useable package, that was the original brilliance of the M3. But when you take the time to develop a proper track day car such as the E92 M3 GTS can it really be a proper successor to the E36 M3 CSL (Or, can the E36 CSL be a proper successor to the LeMans beast that was the original CSL?). Don't even get me started on the inherent heresies of the X5 M and X6 M, or the rumors of a possible M7.

My basic question is this: Can makes be justified by simple lap time improvements? Is there a point where lap times don't even matter any more when the car, though still called a 911 or M3, as been gutted of its original distinctiveness for the sake of broadened public appeal and more daily usability? I understand the marketing advantages of using an easily recognizable brand, but there is the problem of brand dilution. However, I also see the issue Audi is having with its S and R/RS brands with its desire to protect Quattro GmbH from internal brand compromise that BMW M and MB AMG are dealing with, but it's trying to design products for a brand "S" no one really understands.

I'm not trying to be cynical. I've just been mulling around some questions I've been having, and thought I'd turn them into a forum debate and see what other people thought. I personally think the current gen 991 911 and E92 M3 are brilliant in their own right and offer the enthusiast incredible performance possibilities. The 991 in particular. I think it's just incredible that the basic C2 can be so capable and yet so liveable. I eagerly await to see how Porsche develops this platform, hoping it'll inject some heritage back into the platform that may have been lost in transformation from 997.2 to 991.

Edited by RichardParker90 on Friday 29th March 07:27

Edited by RichardParker90 on Friday 29th March 07:28

[littleredrooster]

Babelfish is confused.

I'll have a pint of wot e's drinkin' pleez (as soon as the bar opens).

[davepoth]

RichardParker90 said:

911 was once a sports car, identified by its inherent engineering compromise. Yet, with their current gen, Porsche has moved the 911 toward a more GT design brief than that of a true sports car: longer wheel base improves ride quality, more sound deadening improves NVH at speed, PDK improves long distance ease of use and economy, and E-PAS lessens driver fatigue from an overly sensitive steering wheel. They justify this broadening of the useability of the vehicle with cooresponding lap times at the Nurburing. is that enough?

The 911 was never a sports car to start with, but a GT, bigger and more comfortable than the more heavily Beetle based 356 it replaced. It was designed for thrashing up and down the autobahn, and as such the design fitted the brief well. Very aerodynamic, but with enough room for some back seats, unlike mid engined cars. The first time the wheels were moved back in the chassis was 1969, by the way. That was also the year that a clutchless manual gearbox was first fitted.

RichardParker90 said:

BMW M cars were once a celebration of BMW's Motorsport participation giving users the chance to experience the Mulsanne straight on your way to work. The original M5 obviously had its limitations, with the E60 the ultimate culprit of following the original receipe too far. With the M3 it's a completely different ball game. Yes, I know the merits of a daily useable package, that was the original brilliance of the M3. But when you take the time to develop a proper track day car such as the E92 M3 GTS can it really be a proper successor to the E36 M3 CSL (Or, can the E36 CSL be a proper successor to the LeMans beast that was the original CSL?). Don't even get me started on the inherent heresies of the X5 M and X6 M, or the rumors of a possible M7.

The M cars have been about selling an expensive badge to buyers since the M535i, which was effectively the second M car. It wasn't used for racing, utilised a motor designed for a proper sports car in a family vehicle, and was ludicrously over-specified for driving to the shops. Just like an X6M.

RichardParker90 said:

My basic question is this: Can makes be justified by simple lap time improvements? Is there a point where lap times don't even matter any more when the car, though still called a 911 or M3, as been gutted of its original distinctiveness for the sake of broadened public appeal and more daily usability? I understand the marketing advantages of using an easily recognizable brand, but there is the problem of brand dilution. However, I also see the issue Audi is having with its S and R/RS brands with its desire to protect Quattro GmbH from internal brand compromise that BMW M and MB AMG are dealing with, but it's trying to design products for a brand "S" no one really understands.

I'm not trying to be cynical. I've just been mulling around some questions I've been having, and thought I'd turn them into a forum debate and see what other people thought. I personally think the current gen 991 911 and E92 M3 are brilliant in their own right and offer the enthusiast incredible performance possibilities. The 991 in particular. I think it's just incredible that the basic C2 can be so capable and yet so liveable. I eagerly await to see how Porsche develops this platform, hoping it'll inject some heritage back into the platform that may have been lost in transformation from 997.2 to 991.

Successful performance cars don't become successful due to their performance. Not enough people are bothered about speed or handling to make it economically viable (ask Lotus). Cars have to be user friendly to make sure that the people who buy them (and don't care about whether it will steer on the throttle) don't kill themselves. It's always been the way.

[eldar]

davepoth said:

The 911 was never a sports car to start with, but a GT, bigger and more comfortable than the more heavily Beetle based 356 it replaced. It was designed for thrashing up and down the autobahn, and as such the design fitted the brief well. Very aerodynamic, but with enough room for some back seats, unlike mid engined cars. The first time the wheels were moved back in the chassis was 1969, by the way. That was also the year that a clutchless manual gearbox was first fitted.

I'm not so sure, I think it was both sports and GT - the rang of models and power outputs from 60ps to 270ps over its life. The original design intent may have been GT, but that would have limited its market, thus they broadened the appeal from the design stage and evolved over decades. Smart move.

[davepoth]

eldar said:

davepoth said:

The 911 was never a sports car to start with, but a GT, bigger and more comfortable than the more heavily Beetle based 356 it replaced. It was designed for thrashing up and down the autobahn, and as such the design fitted the brief well. Very aerodynamic, but with enough room for some back seats, unlike mid engined cars. The first time the wheels were moved back in the chassis was 1969, by the way. That was also the year that a clutchless manual gearbox was first fitted.

I'm not so sure, I think it was both sports and GT - the rang of models and power outputs from 60ps to 270ps over its life. The original design intent may have been GT, but that would have limited its market, thus they broadened the appeal from the design stage and evolved over decades. Smart move.

That's sort of my point. The 911 never started out as a sports car - the layout was all wrong for racing if you were doing a clean sheet design (and indeed for all of Porsche's racecars the engine was in the right place - the middle). It was however very good at covering ground at speed for a given engine displacement, and that's why people started racing them. Porsche then started to figure out how to make it go round corners properly.

[RichardParker90]

davepoth said:

That's sort of my point. The 911 never started out as a sports car - the layout was all wrong for racing if you were doing a clean sheet design (and indeed for all of Porsche's racecars the engine was in the right place - the middle). It was however very good at covering ground at speed for a given engine displacement, and that's why people started racing them. Porsche then started to figure out how to make it go round corners properly.

It's interesting that you point that out. The fact that Porsche's race cars, 917 and such, we're all mid engined. And it's current road going sports car range consisted of an inherently compromised design, the exception being the speedster. With the development of the Boxter and the Cayman, it's interesting to see Porsche build its racing dominance on the backs of the 911 while selling two vehicles that harken back to the days when it built mid engined monsters. Interesting to see that role reversal. Obviously there are exceptions to both cases it's just an interesting detail.