Car design is harder than I had thought... help please

Having spent countless hours evaluating surface in VR,on gigantic screens,state of the art hdw,etc.there would always be some adjustments necessary.And we had the "A" team working on the math,with the best hdw available.

A current project we're working on,we've had the math developed "off site" by a guy that I have a great deal of respect for,who is using our sketches,scans,etc.We mill in the math,and we still make adjustments/changes."That's why we mak'em out of clay"

 

I am somewhat envious to hear these stories. I went to ACCD for a brief time but could not afford the tuition. It's nice to be able to peek into that world once again. I still have photos from a guy whose models on display in the gallery I was CERTAIN would revolutionize the trends. I wonder if he's in the field today or not.

 

If you have a name,I could probably answer your question.Also the year would help as well.

 

Yeah, who?

 

I, and I'm sure many others, would like to thank yello430, Jeff Kennedy and Qvb for having this discussion on forum.

(Keep the book/source recommendations coming, guys!)

 

As someone who has always been interested in how things are designed and put together, I've been doing a lot of that for some time; time to take it up several notches. But there must be certain fundamental guidelines that would take forever to identify independently (I'm thinking of parallels to the Golden Ratio.)

There are also visual tricks designers use to make a component look more X than it is (the slits right behind the rear wheels of the 997 GT3s are said to be their to make the car look wider, not to alleviate air pressure in the wells)

Do any of the recommended books list such observations, are these nuggets scattered throughout the short stack yello430 was kind enough to post, or are they the sort of thing that's learned hands-on?

 

You're welcome.I'm always willing to share whatever car design knowledge I have.Sometimes I think it's not much,butI figure it's a way to give some back after doing it for 40+ years. And that's why I'm teaching it at school,because it ain't for the pay!! The way I look at it is,everything I have earned,including 3 Ferraris,sending my son to college,paying for 2 marraiges!!,etc. was all possible due to being blessed with a great career choice that afforded me the opportunity to do something that I always had a passion for.

Unfortunately,there are no easy answers/short cuts,to guide one regarding design solutions.Most of that information is learned over the years.Each design problem has it's specifics,and solving those design "opportunities" is what separates the good,from the bad,from the mediocre.Besides,if there were only one answer for any given design brief......everything would look the same.Some might say they do,but I don't necessarly subscribe to that theory.

Two of the principles that apply from my point of view are for any design,whether it's a car,product,graphics,fashion,etc. : 1.judgement 2. execution. That's usually what it boils down to.The judgement part refers to the ideas that get at solving the "problem",or what I usually refer to as the "big idea";and the execution part is self explanitory.How well did you execute your idea?

Another important tenant IMO is the concept of "reach" V "appeal".The design of the Totota Camry has plenty of appeal,but probably not a whole lot of reach.The Lambo Aventador has a boatload of reach,but is limited on the appeal scale for most of the car buying public.The designer has to decide for every project where on those 2 axis they want the finished product to be.Simple,but not easy.

I really believe there are no "right" or "wrong" answers when it comes to design.Some solutions are obviously better than others in the marketplace,but any given design is the way it is because someone wanted it that way.They don't design themselves.

Hope that answered some of your questions.

 

Here is a related video about the new Freightliner Revolution Innovation rig that is a real design problem.It solves some of the years old issues with this type of big rig.Cool design brief.Kudos to the design team!
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETPyk9MhrqU[/ame]

 

I too say thank you.

I have not been in any portion of automotive for a long, long time. My activities are in one-off corporate jet interiors. There is something to be taken away from these two activities. The aircraft interior has to satisfy one singular person. It is a focus group of essentially one. The automotive is about some theoretical definition of a target group. There is no living breathing person to ask for all the insight. As such there has to be some sort of invented concept of what this potential "group" has as their needs, expectations and desires.

In my world there is not any real concern about the market advancing during the execution of a project. [Depending upon the outfitting project it could be 6 months to about 1 1/2 years] The reality in automotive is very different and leads to some of the falacies of focus groups and even problems with unenlightened senior management. Car design is designing for the future. By the time the new model is introduced the studio had stopped working on it long ago. John and others can talk about what the current situation is but it used to be 5 years or so from project start to introduction. So during this development time the competitors are introducing new/updated products, a new game changing competitor could come into the market, general market trends evolve and then something completely unforseen like a financial meltdown or gas price spike can come strolling. So the development in the studio is trying to read a crystal ball. Old historicals (1950, 1960s and even through much of the 1970s) GM led US design because they were convinced they knew where they were going. Ford followed the GM trends and Chrysler (in the words of the late Chuck Jordan) "were futzing around somewhere over there".

Focus groups. A major double edge sword. The problem is that "Joe sixpack", or whatever the demographic target is, has been brought in as a group to look at the future. These are folks that are not in any way atuned to thinking 2-5 years into the future of aesthetic design nor are they likely to be looking too much at competitive analysis. They see what their neighbors and collegues drive. If the focus group is using comparative cars then those cars have to be current models not what will be on the road when the subjet car becomes available.

Now, getting back to the idea of "what is good design". Proportion is critical. The Golden Rule does not play here as all sorts of different looks work equally well. Cohessiveness of design. Although most cars are designed by groups to be really successful it needs to appear to be as if designed by one. Bad examples to prove this point: most any 1958 GM, Pontiac Aztec. The Aztec is a double winner because it has flawed proportions and looks like an amalgamation of a whole bunch of assorted design ideas. [Do not blame the individual designers of the Aztec for this - this is what happens when senior corporate management goes blind] Good design requires nuances. Remember that every intersection, every surface, every radius meant a design decision was made. Was the decision a default or did someone actively work that solution.

Here is a story form 1977. This was a time when the sheer look was prevalent everywhere. Planes intersecting planes with long relatively flat lines. At Chrysler the clay models were using "gut" for the intersection lines. This was normal and how one did such a model to hold the line. What was different was that at GM after they got to that point the gut was pulled and the modelers did the radiuses even if "minimum bend". Chrysler did not. Not sure exactly which reason - cost, more calendar time, the computer could calculate the radius better/quicker or some combination of all. What I do believe is that this took away from the nuancing of where a minimum radius should have been opened up to increase the aesthetics. To try this was not an option available to the designers on the floor.

As John says - management with the real power gets what they want (deserve). They get this because they are the ones that make the real decisions on what is selected along the way.

In my case I remember in the Chrysler studio seeing presentation boards showing one of the cars in development. The boards showed various alternative clay models and the rejected design decisions. The guys in the studio had proposed some good designs along the process. Problem was that those with the power had consistently picked the bad option each time. The car wasn't even fully finished and all 6 of the studio guys already knew it was a turd. They had tried their best to make it as good as they could but none of them had a VP or EVP in their title. And Dick McCadam was losing all his design battles to Hal Sperlich.

Desgin taste is something that is developed but do not believe that it can be outright taught. Pour over all the old Car Styling and following the clay development process. From this you should be able to futher develop a more critical eye. Rarely is there an outright wrong answer, just better and worse ones.

Jeff

 

Jeff,

Great observations.

Just to add to them: thank goodness I didn't have to work on the Aztek. I was in the studio next door & got to watch the whole debacle go down.It wasn't pretty.

The clay sculptors still use "gut" to hold the lines,but remove them where radii are ultimately desired.At least that is the practice at my current employer & former as well.

Currently,I'm doing a design consulting job and recently the "executive" team flew in to talk to the design team about the recent "clinic" they had conducted in LA,and were lecturing us on how important the "customer" feedback/focus group input was for the designers to bake into the final design solution.It was like frickkin GroundHog Day for me.If I have to sit in on one more consumer clinic results mtg.........odds are my head will explode!! Everything changes & nothing changes. The Movie industry is increasingly using this IMHO,banal approach to determine what movies to make. Where there is big $$ to make or lose,I'm afraid this approach will prevail.

Just my $.02

 

At the time at Chrysler they never pulled the gut. Look at a 1980 Cordoba and Mirada and you will see how this affected the final design. I do believe that some of the radiuses in some places would have been altered if it had of been modeled. I brought this up to Chuck and he said that GM would not leave it in gut for final reviews.

Clinics = decision protection for executives that are too afraid to make actual decisions. Goes back to expecting "man on the street/Joe sixpack" to understand trends before they happen. I remember seeing the "lifestyle" boards that seemed to have been a part of presentations some time back. Saw them as one of the most stupid time wasters for designers - if you did not already have an inate grasp of what you were doing clipping pictures from magazines wasn't going to help you.

Lutz had some interesting points on clinics from his latest book. GM had figured out how to massage bad clinic reviews into acceptable ratings. If one could make a Mercedes or BMW not be recognizable as one in a clinic would it still get as high of acceptance?

Jeff

 

Over 30 years of clinic results,there are countless examples of large swings in acceptance levels when cars were shown unbadged,then badged.

I'm not so sure the results were "massaged" as opposed to just plain conveniently ignored.The CTS V Wagon is the poster child for that behavior. However........that is one case where the marketing guys/research guys, (hate to admit it) were right......."American's just don't buy wagons".End of story.

 

Would love to see those photos if you could scan them in.

Don't feel bad. I dropped out of a transport design program as well. No biggie. I have moved on. I did ok, and I could indulge my material fantasies. I might have been happier doing design as a profession, but I can still dabble in it in other ways (have been able to provide input on a few products/interfaces), and it is not a sure thing that the other career path would have been fulfilling or happy. It's a tough field.

 

Americans may not buy wagons but jack it up and call it a crossover and they will. Miriam is on her second SRX. She won't even think about the CTS wagon no matter what. maybe they need to rename them "Shooting Brakes" and have Aston and Bentleys in the picture to make people think they are OK.

Jeff

 

That's funny.When we were doing the car,we had a F/G model of the wagon in the studio.Every woman that came into the studio would stop dead in their tracks,and tell us how cool the wagon looked,and how they wanted one!! Guess they lied I think the higher H-Point is crucial to women.

My own personal thinking at the time was that at some point the American buying public would grow tired of SUV's and gravitate back into wagons. We toyed with the idea of calling it a shooting brake,but figured "Umerikins" wouldn't know WTF that meant.

 

Miriam is short so the high H point does matter to her. Guess everyone who ever grew up seeing a Country Squire wagon will have to be dead before there is a real market for wagons again.

There was talk in the press that part of the justification for the CTS wagon was the European market need. So was that a reality in the case study or an after the fact invention for the press?

Did the studio ever develop a convertible iteration of the current CTS coupe?

Was the ATS done in the same studio while you were there?

Jeff

 

The only reason the wagon was greenlighted was because of Lutz & Europe.We tried to sell the idea of a wagon,because to be a player in Europe,you need a wagon,AND a Diesel.That whole strategy fell through during BK/ch.11,so Cadillac abandoned the idea of going to Europe.They are set to make another attempt soon.

We DID do a convertible version,but there wasn't enough structure in the body to accomodate side impact requirements.Don't forget,there were never any other body styles that were in the "official"program,other than the Sedan.The Coupe/Wagon were added by the Design Center,much to the chagrin of a number of others . I still have the sketch though .

No,there were two Cadillac Exterior Studios at the time due to the workload,so the ATS was done in the other one.They are back to one studio now though.

 

And while we're on the topic of customer clinics,from today's Autoblog.com :

"Automotive News reports Bentley is staying the course with the company's EXP 9 F SUV Concept. The ultra-luxury automaker plans to bring the vehicle to the Beijing Motor Show exactly as it appeared at the Geneva Motor Show earlier this month, despite the fact that the concept didn't exactly debut to resounding acclaim. Critics described the design as awkward and unbecoming of nameplate like Bentley, but the automaker says it wants to vet the design in as many markets as possible before finalizing the exterior. Here's hoping the crowds in China are as repulsed as those in Switzerland."

 

Boy, you guys had a lot of fun today!
John, I meant to ask you, how well do you know Dave Marek?
He was a legend when I was in school, he graduated a year before me, and I worked with him at Honda for 13 years and continue to work with him now. The information in his head is staggering and he is one of the most talented designers I have ever met.

 

Only know him through the Eyes on Design judging at the NAIAS.I was"his escort" with the group that he was in,so we walked the show together.He also visited my Senior CCS class several weeks ago,looking to hire some designers.

 

ditto.....all great for reading and learning, thanks guys!

 

Just call it a "Gun Sport" and be done with it. It'll sell like hotcakes!

 

Can you elaborate on this. What is gut?

Thanks.

 

fishing line/clear filament line
It's used to "hold" edges in the clay,then generally removed when the final design is requiring radii on the edge.It keeps a hard edge in the clay to control lines and edges where two surfaces come together.Some sculptors/companies keep the "gut" in even when the final surface is scanned,and the digital modelers add the necessary mfg radii afterword.Hope that helps.

I'll try to take some pictures when i'm down at school this weekend.

 

That does help....thanks.

The edges depend on the adjoining surfaces, and the surfaces depend on the edge. Which comes first... Is it common that the desired character line or edge is established first and the surfaces follow?