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

Can't say there is just one.....................too many to name

 

The answer may have more to do with various times. Giugaro showed the way to everyone with planal designs (folded paper).

Sometimes be careful of the difference between the best PR effort and the significant design trends.

Jeff

 

Some may find this interesting. Stories as told by the actual people. Do be cautious about self serving versions of history.

Jeff

autolife.umd.umich.edu/Oral_histories.htm

 

+1

yes,he's definitely one

big influence on automotive design since the late '60's, IMHO

 

^^ to many, i agree

i tend to know more contemporary designers ...i understand harley earl's relevance, for example, but it's harder for me to relate to his designs ...kind of like music i guess, you're most familiar with the things that surrounded you growing up!?

i like ian callums work, i like jay mays work ...both are some what conservative though, more 'evolutionary' i think

i like pininfarina of course, but they were never 'revolutionary' really, i'm sure ergio didn't pen them all himself, but almost always were sexy designs

i like some winners of ital design, but he had some not so attractive designs too

i think bertone was a more daring designer IMO not always outright beautys, but always interesting ...of course that's a desiggn house ....i think from there gandini is my favorite

 

some pix from the student show:

http//www.cardesign.ru/articles/diploma/2012/06/27/5305/

 

cool link, thanks

 

found it ...you'll have to use google translate though

http://www.cardesign.ru/articles/diploma/2012/06/25/5298/

 

this I copied from the header:
http://www.cardesign.ru/articles/diploma/2012/06/27/5305/

 

there it is ...sorry, i put the wrong one

lots of variety there ....is that all ffrom one graduating class?

 

yes,most of the Seniors are there,but there is the work of some of the Junior class as well

I'll have them this coming Fall........

 

dang, you keep busy!

 

been learning more with these rendering programs

hey Bounce, of these 3 program, i'm finding sketchbook the easiest by far ...i know photoshop can give some amazing graphics, but this one has been easier to learn

i tried one thing, and found out the wacom tablet has a small fault
...i tried taping the drawing (second image) to the tablet, then trace over it with the digital pen ...well, compared with lines in drawing you can see they don't match up! ...it's like the pen forget it's location, going slightly off, each time it's lifted away from the tablet?

i think scanning in a fully sketched out drawing (no shading, no hatch lines, etc) as the 1st / background layer, is the way to go for clean looking lines

i even tried free handing it several times, but it's nearly impossible to get right ...the screen & tablet are on 2 different plains, and to get a long flowing line, you have to zoom out the image to where the lines get to thick?

anyways, i left it rough look for this one, i know it's not fabulous rendering, but it's my first all digital rendering
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Congratulations............well done,for your 1st try !!!

I need to get working . Yes a line dwg will probably be better to work from,rather than something with tone or shading,at least to start off with.

 

thanks John ...it's quite a learning curve, but i hope these posts help ...one thing i picked up first off is the layers, not thinking like a typical rendering, but more like a sandwich of different layers, some more opaque, some more transparent, putting the line drawing as the top layer or the bottom layer, etc ...but the more layers you use the better it is actually ...you really have to change your mind set with a digital rendering
oh, and erasing, there's a lot as you build each layer ...i have to yet figure out masking funtions?
i've actually been trying several different methods, in order to learn ...this one i wanted to show how the tablet, even when tracing directly on to it, doesn't always give an accurate copy?
i guess like edson said, he had learned 1000 ways how not to do something ...i hope these tidbits help

 

Watched a Wacom webinar today for a 1 hr tutorial.Good stuff.
youtube.com/wacom
blogs.wacom.com
wacom.com/webinars

 

very cool! your link led me to thier youtube list of 28 hours worth of webinars, it linked to 198 more

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL32C9A72480B94029&feature=plcp

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post here is my take on the tragedy of GM Design. Since I am not in automotive it is not necessary to remain politically correct in these highly opinionated comments.

It is a true squandering of the legacy of what had been the most revered design organization for decades. Just like the fall of GM into bankruptcy it took years to accomplish (fewer for design than GM in total) and direct blame can be squarely placed at the board and a string of the highest executives of the corporation.

Throughout the 1970s (others can say how much later it really extended) the design job of choice for the graduating design students from Art Center was GM. GM did not play games with their job offer; that was left to Chrysler and Ford to get into bidding wars. The GM line was their choices would be taken care of as they proved themselves and advanced. It was also well understood that one could go to Ford or Chrysler after being at GM but GM would not hire from them. There were sometimes jokes about the big reflecting pool at the Tech Center was so that GM could see if their candidates could walk on water. Yes, GM Design was arrogant but they were the 800 pound gorilla and everyone knew it.

GM Design had a unique history. Not only did it come together with political clout but it was ascribed significant importance in the overall success of GM. The story goes that the original approach to Harley Earl came from the Fisher Brothers (Body by Fisher) in or around 1926/1927. This is significant since the brothers held 4 seats on the GM board. Harley Earl developed a close relationship with Alfred Sloan, president of GM; later to ascend to Chairman in 1937 and remain as such until 1956. Again, according to the stories few were able to have a close relationship with Sloan but for some reason the ultimate numbers man and the “flash & pizzazz” Earl somehow achieve this. Apparently Harley Earl had a direct line phone between himself and Sloan; no other GM officer had that even if they were above Mr. Earl’s rank in the corporation. Harley Earl was made a vice president in 1940.

This was all pivotal in the power of what was original Art & Colour, later to be renamed GM Styling and finally GM Design. Harley Earl had real corporate clout and would use it to get his way with even the divisional general managers. He was also a good enough politician to cultivate some of these general managers and play them off to design’s advantage. Buick’s Harlow Curtice was one and he would eventually become a GM president.

The second VP of Styling was William Mitchell. He had been the heir apparent to Earl for a long time and was made the official #2 person of Styling in 1954. Mitchell ascended to VP upon Earl’s retirement in 1958. Seemingly there were no alternative candidates as this was Earl’s choice. The men were different in their aesthetic preferences but both viewed this as their fiefdom to rule. The stories are legendary of Mitchell lording over other corporate executives using what was referred to as “The Ghost of Harley Earl”: Styling/Design built GM and you are not going to tell us how something should look. The other version included how Mitchell had been a VP since before someone had even joined GM. The GM design studios were organized to keep the design groups separate. Although the most senior design management could travel between studios the designers could not; the idea being to keep an independence of each studio’s creativity. This same control of access also applied to corporate management.

This separation of studios was very different at Ford and Chrysler. In those organizations the studios were large areas with multiple groups only separated by cubicles. They all saw each other’s work. The clay models were next to each other. And against the GM philosophy, the individual designers got to see and hear how management was reacting to what they saw by the other groups. Somewhere along the way it should be pointed out on the comparison of brands between the companies. Ford consisted of 3 brands (Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln) plus trucks. Chrysler had 3 (Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth) and trucks. GM on the other hand had Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac in cars with GMC and Chevrolet in trucks. At various points in time Ford believed that nose caps and trim moldings were sufficient to differentiate between Mercury. GM though had combinations of unique tooling across much of their lines.

Came across a report that during Mitchell’s reign Design grew to a total of 1,500 people. Beyond the designers and modelers this also included the engineering types that were part of Design; not part of engineering. This ensured that design was able to win arguments with engineering and manufacturing for the desired aesthetic solutions. Since these people reported to design their politics were driven by finding solutions especially when it countered the “no, not possible” from engineering and production groups.

By the time that Mitchell’s reign was nearing an end it is illuminating to see look at the management of the other design organizations. Mitchell retired in 1977 having been only the second head of design for GM. This stability was not to be found at Chrysler. Design existed in a limited way under engineering until the arrival of Virgil Exner in 1949. It was not until 1957 that the position was elevated into a VP position; basically the end of Harley Earl’s reign at GM. Exner only lasted until 1962 when he succumbed to the studio and corporate politics that led to Elwood Engel’s ascension. He lasted until 1974 when he was pushed out and replaced by Dick Macadam (now the third head of design since 1949; 3rd VP since 1957. Macadam would only last until Lee Iacocca took control of Chrysler and brought over his old Ford cohort Don DeLaRosa in 1979. In 1985 he was replaced by Tom Gale.

Over at Ford there was a strange design history too. The internal politics of Ford have traditionally viewed as being a blood sport across the decades. Edsel Ford had been very much a friend to design and the concept of aesthetics. Problem was his death in 1943 took away the organization’s patron saint. He had worked very closely with Bob Gregorie. In the post WWI period it became a power struggle between Gregorie and the outside consultant George Walker while concurrently Ford was building an internal staff. This resulted in the departure of Gregorie but Walker did not become directly part of Ford until 1955 at which time Styling was finally separated out from engineering. Walker retired in 1961 and Gene Bordinat became the new VP of design. Bordinat served out his full duration but by the mid 1970s his eventual successor was called back from Europe and ensconced in the “on deck circle, not by Bordinat’s choice. Truth was that Bordinat was not well respected; Bill Mitchell in his retirement interview with Automotive News pointed made it clear of his lack of respect for him. Jack Telnack ascended in 1980 and led a major turnaround of Ford design. Still viewed as an industry mystery is how Jack was torpedoed of his position by J. Mays in 1987.

As Bill Mitchell came up on his mandatory requirement it was clear who his successor was supposed to be. Chuck Jordan had long been the #2 to Mitchell. There were even rumors that Mitchell promised Jordan the VP position as his successor to keep him from following Bunkie Knudsen to Ford. When it came time to name the next VP of Design Mitchell recommended Jordan to the Board of Directors. The board, in all of its infinite wisdom, had required that there be two candidates and they chose the non-Mitchell person: Irv Rybicki. Those in the know at the time knew that this was the wrong choice but the board no longer wanted to have an Emperor of Design. They voted for a pliable manager. They got what they deserved and in so doing initiated the squandering of the Harley Earl legacy. [As a sign of Mitchell’s displeasure with Rybicki the instructions for Mitchell’s funeral included that Rybicki was not to be invited]

Chuck Jordan continued as the #2 of all GM design; Director of Design. The relationship between the two was uneasy to say the least. More accurately Jordan worked to assert himself and ensure the demise of Rybicki’s tenure. It ultimately worked but it was not until 1986 that he would be successful. Unfortunately he only had 6 years with which to try restoring what had already been done. His political benefactor at his ascension had been the then chairman Roger Smith but he retired in 1990. He was followed for a brief period by Robert Stemple, a long time GMer that came up through engineering.

As Jordan’s tenure was coming to a close there was again a situation like Mitchell/Rybicki/Jordan again. This time Jordan was resolute in his backing of Jerry Palmer to succeed him. He wanted no others to even be considered. The board though insisted on there being a second candidate and wanted a European experience as part of the package. Wayne Cherry was the alternate. And like before the pliable answer was selected over the strong advocate for the sanctity of design. Again the board got what they deserved and oblivious to the long term repercussions.

The context of the decision for Wayne Cherry must also be understood in what was happening at the top GM. Stemple was given the heave ho. In his place was John Smale, already a member of the board and the ex-CEO of Proctor & Gamble. Remember this is the start of the idea that the underlying problem with GM is that they did not know how to market soap and toothpaste. The influx of brand managers and other “experts” that knew nothing about the automotive industry ensued. Don’t know if even Jerry Palmer could have stopped the onslaught upon design by the new absurd corporate culture but it certainly was not going to happen by someone that owed his succession to the board room turmoil that put “these people” in charge.

In a conversation with Chuck during Cherry’s tenure several things came out. One, he was so totally disgusted with Design at that point that he overtly refused to enter into any discussion on Cherry. He then talked of the old GM Design philosophy: GM lead in design by looking forward and not looking over their shoulder at what the others were doing. Ford copied GM and Chrysler was always “out there somewhere futzing around”. As this conversation was during Tom Gale’s run at Chrysler his statement was then that Chrysler was leading, Ford was copying them and now GM was out futzing around. This was followed with a telling sigh of just how clueless GM Design had gotten.

The next step in grasping just how far the fall was came when Wayne Cherry’s successor was to be named. Word is that GM for the first time ever was looking on the outside. Problem was no one suitable was willing to become GM’s VP of Design. This is amazing because historically this had been the biggest fish in the largest ocean. This is why Cherry stayed on longer than the normal mandatory retirement age and ultimately Ed Welburn ascended.

The collapse of the GM Design/Styling/Art & Colour legacy was perpetrated by the corporation in the board room. Wrong selections for VP were made and the political protection needed to allow the Design head to properly lead disappeared. Bob Lutz was able to restore some of this but damages had already occurred. When one looks at the history of when the other Design organizations have been strong the common thread is that there was an unassailable patron saint like the CEO or COO that ensured that the other groups were kept at bay; no design by committee. There was also stability coupled with real talent for the leadership. Getting designers that look like they came from Central Casting and have image consultants decide what they should wear at press conferences to be "cool" is never going to not solve the problem.

 

Whoa,Jeff...............you really nailed it. Big time. You certainly know your Design History

You definitely have your story straight. One might argue with some of the details,but for the most part,very well done.

Lived through all that monkey business & somehow survived.....for the most part :0

I think the one thing missing that needs to be stated however,is that in spite of all the BS,working in that environment with all the creativity,creative people,cool cars,crazy personalities,gigantic egos.............it was so much fun!!!!! Wouldn't have traded it for anything.

It was just like to TV show MadMen. You couldn't make up some of the things that were happening. Never a dull moment.

Well said indeed!

 

Thanks. To get some of the dates and organization info straight I read through the interviews with Bordinat, Gregorie, Mitchell, Exner's son and a bit of Rybicki.

My opinion of Bordinat did not change. What was surprising was that he made it all the way to regular retirement time and seemingly had some of the Ford family in his corner. With that much support he should have been compelled to do better. Bordinat mentions all sorts of other people's drinking issues - glass houses and all that. Sort of skipped over his drunken meeting with Knudsen.

Now Gregorie seemingly did have the great political force while Edsel was around.

Was being told all the way back at ACCD that Ford internal politics had always been a blood sport. More important for people work that angle than anything else.

Exner's was interesting. Ex really did have the corporate support from the top up until his heart attack. Bordinat mentions how Ex got shafted for the Chrysler downsizing that was decided on by one of the divisional GMs though.

Mitchell was being somewhat politic with some answers. Much more so than normal for him.

Rybicki was a consumate politician with his interview. He could not have been that oblivious to what the rest of the entire industry knew - Mitchell never wanted him as VP. Teter gave condolances to Mark when the news made it to school; also was blunt that the wrong decision had been made.

Back on the day we had Joe Thompson in the clay studio. Really wish I had understood how big a role he had had back in those early days at GM. He would give a few tidbits of stories but he had to known a lot more; likely some real good skelton closet items too.

I should say that there is no question that just about every studio in the world has incredibly talented designers. The problem is rarely the designers in the room it is the senior design management and then ultimately the corporate leadership. The designer have limited ability to make the actual choices and even less any meaningful approvals.

Curious which details you might have alternative viewpoints on.

Jeff

 

amazing read Jeff, thank you ...it's sad, but not to unexpected of big corporate politics squandering potential & benefits (cut off nose despite face kind of thing) ...i wonder if we'll ever see another harley earl like figure rise in that company?

i'd like to learn more about bob lutz ...been reading up on him some of late http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lutz_(businessman) ...i've read only bits here & there, but never quite sure why or how he has the pull that he does, or what his benefit there?

 

I would have to say one of Mr. Lutz's biggest contributions would be putting Design back where it needed to be.Emphasizing the importance of design when it comes to selling cars.And that would be to say that design needs to be a part of corporate strategy,not just a necessary evil.Apple,OXO,Audi,Harley,etc. all do this well.

 

guess you got to work with him some at cadi? ...he seems like a real straight shooter, which is cool
i'm surprised at the weight he carries (carried) at GM, since that wasn't where he started?

 

Probably the assessment of Irv Rybicki's tenure.IMO,he has always been portrayed as substandard.Certainly most of us were pulling for CMJ,but unfortunately that didn't happen. There were some great cars under the CMJ/Rybicki "partnership".The whole business was rapidly changing at that point,and I doubt that CMJ or anyone else for that matter would have been able to have altered the course the Corporation was headed for.But at this point it's purely conjecture.

I was working on the front side of the bldg. on the 2nd floor in Chev.II the day the announcement was made for Rybicki's VP appointment. CMJ's exit from the executive garage in his yellow Daytona is etched in my memory forever...... :0

 

He DID start his career at GM,then went to BMW,Ford,then Chrysler,Exide,then back to GM.