Form follows function......or does it?

[****]

One of the beautiful things about pure race cars is the fact that everything on the car has a functional purpose. In other words, it's all go and no show.

Ferrari has been a big proponent of the "form follows function" ideology, and very little exists on F-cars that does not have a functional purpose.

However, I've begun to rethink the FFF theory. Ferrari's are and always have been works of art. Originally, the beauty evolved from their function. Nowadays, Ferrari goes to great lengths to produce functional and beautiful vehicles. Granted, a large portion of the beauty is due to the functionality of the components, but there is also a history to maintain, which Ferrari and Pininfarina ensures happens.

So, my question: Is the beauty of an F-car part of an F-car's function? Or does it derive solely from aiming only towards function?

Have I confused everyone?

[Bullfighter]

Yes.

[John/FutureOwner]

Originally Posted by ****

So, my question: Is the beauty of an F-car part of an F-car's function? Or does it derive solely from aiming only towards function?

Have I confused everyone?

Well, think of it like this. If it was truly a FFF situation then Ferrari wouldn't use design studios like Pininfarina now would they?

Imagine if they had Pininfarina step into helping out with F1 cars! Woah now!

[JaguarXJ6]

Its both. Form may follow function but its a very close second.

Pininfarina would be lost in the F1 world. There is very little left to art that science hasn't already designed ahead of time. In fact, these two organizations are polar opposites.

[208 GT4]

I think as Ferraris have evolved, certain features were added due to function. The most aesthetically pleasing of these features are then given prominence in design, like big brakes & wheels. Whereas the less pleasing ones, though still included, are given less prominence. I think this is especially true for aerodynamic features, for instance the road Ferraris have extensive underbody aerodynamic features, but do without big wings on the upper surfaces which might also add downforce. They still have subtle topside features which benefit aerodynamics, but they aren't given prominence.

[ryalex]

Ferrari seems to design it's recent cars with the HotWheels toy industry in mind.
I'm still trying to figure out if the F430 is a serious car or was a cartoony interpretation of a 360.

Which makes sense, since so much of their revenue is based on licensing.

[****]

I'll try and make the question less convoluted:

Instead of form and function being distinct aspects of Ferraris, do you think that form is a function of F-cars? Like a high-revving engine, great handling characteristics, and a world-class chassis, what makes an F-car and F-car is greatly influenced by its appearance.

In other words, is show essential to Ferraris go?

[tvrfreak]

Yes, it's essential to any vehicle except utility vehicles. They have to sell. For that they have to appeal to their target market, both technically and aesthetically.

You have to define the various functions of a Ferrari (go, show, safety, utility, etc.) before you begin the design process, but the final form is derived from
- the artist's interpretation of the function(s)
- the craftsmen's rendering of the "vision"
- legal requirements,
- input and influence from key individuals, and
- engineering and practical constraints.

Plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of people to blame...

Getting away from Ferrari for a moment, I think Chris Bangle deserves a special mention for single-handedly screwing up BMWs' appeal.

[****]

Originally Posted by tvrfreak

Getting away from Ferrari for a moment, I think Chris Bangle deserves a special mention for single-handedly screwing up BMWs' appeal.

Call me crazy and stupid, but I like Bangle's designs. I'm in the vast vast vast vast minority, but I like geometric vs. orangic approaches to coachwork.

But that's just me, and I know very few other people feel that way! It must really suck to be a BMW fan and have some new guy come in and shake everything up. I only hope the designs return to the BMW purist's tastes.

[ylshih]

Originally Posted by ****

So, my question: Is the beauty of an F-car part of an F-car's function? Or does it derive solely from aiming only towards function?

If it were solely form follows function, then we wouldn't be debating about the difference between the headlights of the 360 vs 430 the shape of the "nostrils" or the side scoops of the 612. These are mostly visual and in some cases even have no function.

There are generally a lot of different forms that achieve similar effective functions (e.g., all the different shapes and sizes of openings in the bodies to allow cooling air through, etc). I think it is the role of design to express those different possible forms as an integrated whole that is balanced between function and appeal and in the case of Ferrari, even history. Look at the consistency of shapes and visual elements within the P-car line, they run just as high speed, HP, etc and they have completely different look than F-cars.

In the case of race cars, I suspect the forms end up more similar than street cars because between the strict rules and the limits of best available technology a lot of design variables and options are quickly eliminated.

[Dave Bellm]

It all gets to the heart of the industrial designer's philosophical dilemma: A manufactured object can take on an enormous range of different shapes and still do its intended function perfectly well. But the fact of the matter is that roadgoing automobiles need a body of some sort to perform that intended function (occupants need protection from elements, fragile mechanical components need shielding etc.) And that body has to take on some sort of form.

So why shouldn't it be beautiful? Or at least interesting.

That said, a designer's philosophical dilemma then moves to the matter of purity: How much of that form should be contrived? Should the designer add unnecesary elements to make the form more beautiful? For automotive designers, those arguments were for many decades divided among cultural lines -- Americans went after beauty through extravagent adornment, Europeans tried to achieve beauty through purity of form.

But now that's all gone out the window -- largely in pursuit of the juicy American market ($$$$), which no longer has any cohesive opinion regarding design styles.

And thus you have a kind of flip-flopping free for all, in which the Europeans are falling into the very same "lookit-me" design bizarreness that they used to criticize American automakers for. Ferrari, unfortunately isn't immune to such excess. Fortunately, they seem to contain it to only the very top cars (Enzo, etc.), leaving the "mainstream" Ferraris looking generally rather tasteful.

I've thought about it all a lot over the years. Guess it's my industrial design degree. I did nothing with the degree -- went into publishing instead -- but I'm still interested in the subject.

[Cincy Ken]

Louis Sullivan said, "Form follows function." Frank Lloyd Wright (Sullivan's apprentice) said, "Form and function are one."

[Attaus]

Pre-1998, I would have belived you. Ferrari was dedicated to building a solid car first, and then shaping it into something beautiful, that all levels of enthusiasts can enjoy. Nowadays.. I would have to say that function follows form. Performance and usability has given way to "new age technology" and "cutting edge looks" which frankly, help your driving experience very little. What good does a soft suspension do in a F40 LM?

[ferrari4evr1]

Sergio Pinifarina or Batista (if he were still alive) could answer that question.....

[Vlad328]

I read somewhere once that "ugliness" is the single greatest sin of an Italian sports car. There is a visual standard to what a Ferrari "should" look like, despite aerodynamics and other practical considerations. Historically, the beautiful cars always retain more value than their more homely sister models during same years of production, long after their technology and performance are obsolete. The 250 GT California Spyder, 275, 365 Daytona, and 246 Dinos are good examples of this. Now compare that to the values of say 365 GTC, 330, 308 GT4, and Mondial. With time, the 512 Boxer, 308/328, and Testarossa will likewise grow in value because of their beauty not their performance.

[plasmid]

Originally Posted by JaguarXJ6

Its both. Form may follow function but its a very close second.

Pininfarina would be lost in the F1 world. There is very little left to art that science hasn't already designed ahead of time.

quite the contrary.
science restates what artists have stated for centuries.
(there are always more scientists than artists)

and artists have always repackaged folklore.
(in '1st world' countries there are more artists than peasants)



>In fact, these two organizations are polar opposites.

quite the contrary. art and science are both religions.
as all religions they attempt to explain the same set of data
by defining what is right and what is not right.

as tarkovski very correctly observed both the arts and sciences
are simply inferior to ...

[plasmid]

Originally Posted by Vlad328

I read somewhere once that "ugliness" is the single greatest sin of an Italian sports car. There is a visual standard to what a Ferrari "should" look like, despite aerodynamics and other practical considerations. Historically, the beautiful cars always retain more value than their more homely sister models during same years of production, long after their technology and performance are obsolete. The 250 GT California Spyder, 275, 365 Daytona, and 246 Dinos are good examples of this. Now compare that to the values of say 365 GTC, 330, 308 GT4, and Mondial. With time, the 512 Boxer, 308/328, and Testarossa will likewise grow in value because of their beauty not their performance.

while the boxer is nice, the 308 is rather cliche, especially in .us trim, on bad days evoking the unfortunate lines of a camaro, and the testarossa's 80's front end doesn't make it beautiful, but rather mr2ish. lets not forget that silly dash.

many, particularly in europe, think the GT4 looks better externally and internally than the gts/b, and drives better. at certain angles its kinship with
the countach and stratos is clearly visible, and provides a much needed contrast to pininfarina's curves, which, with the exception of the 246gt and boxer aren't always an attribute.

the mondial leans towards ugly, yes, unless one adores the 80's

in accord with what others have said, beauty is not in the numbers
but in between the numbers, the coming together of the parts.

[plasmid]

Originally Posted by ryalex

Ferrari seems to design it's recent cars with the HotWheels toy industry in mind.
I'm still trying to figure out if the F430 is a serious car or was a cartoony interpretation of a 360.

v.good

430 = 1 ugly senseless f-car

[robert_c]

Regarding FFF, the 348 is an example. There is only one air intake on the front. It looks unbalanced to me. If Form were foremost, they would have made it symmetrical.

Regarding show and no go; I think the 400 with the V12 is an example of all go and no show.

My Conclusion; Ferrari does both FFF, and FFF.

[ryalex]

Originally Posted by robert_c

Regarding FFF, the 348 is an example. There is only one air intake on the front. It looks unbalanced to me. If Form were foremost, they would have made it symmetrical.

Even worse, the front grill area doesn't lead anywhere. It's merely an indent. No venting. The 355 has side venting to the front intake, but nothing on the 348.