car design thread

Another good example to add to my list of exceptions to the aforementioned fad.

BTW, the Jag has some nice details but overall does nothing for me, don't know why. Don't like the incongruity of quarter window line at the bottom, for one.

 

Yes about clearance to engine - I noted that as a possible reason for high hood/cowl.

Still doesn't explain copycat trend of hood crease blending to A-pillar. Probably just a case of unconscious copying.

 

It looks good, but it still has all the hallmarks of a new car. The sides are way too tall (masked by several side grooves), it has a huge amount of front overhand (masked by a wrap around bumper and 47 scoops and crannies), etc. I'll also note that it's much less lithe looking in real life/daylight.

 

Could be, although I thought (it happens) I read somewhere that those strakes were to direct air out past the huge side mirrors.

 

Tall body sides are not a modern design element, they have been around for a long time and they were not born from nor currently directly dictated by any regulations. The most common excuse designers are making (or other people are making for them) are related to the pedestrian standards and how they are affecting the front ends of cars, but the Jag and many other cars suggest that they should shut up and do a better job of making things look good. Personally, I think the F-Type looks better in person, and the view I posted (wide angle front 3/4) exaggerates the thickness of the front end and makes it look heavier than it is.
In this image, notice the minimal front overhang and the lack of excessive thickness above the tire, (IMHO)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Agree for the front, but rear fender way too high, don't you think?

 

Interesting. Must be true if everyone is doing it.

 

Modern cars have gone to extra tall wheels to mask large body sides. The new F-Type (a Turbocharged 4 cylinder) is 2-1/2 inches taller than a '93 300ZX (Twin-Turbo, Iron Block 6 cylinder) and over 760 pounds heavier.

Compared to a C3 Corvette, a car constantly called "bloated" and "overweight," the new Jag is 3-1/2 inches taller and nearly 900 pounds heavier.

Again, a lot of this isn't Jag's fault, they're only contending with the parameters in which they have to work (on the other hand, the new Jag is still nearly 3 inches taller and almost a thousand pounds heavier than a new Corvette). It should also be mentioned that the Jag is , not a big V-8.

 

Originally we were discussing how people use regulations as an excuse to why cars are unattractive, now we are heading into a whole different area. My view (related to that original discussion) is that, regardless of the package provided, a designers job is to make a good looking car.
Now on these other issues, I am going to (hopefully politely) disagree with everything you have said (Where did you get those weight figures?)

First off, big wheels were completely driven by the consumer. Designers (stylists, ugh) have been drawing giant wheels since before the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It wasn't until the general public started putting bigger and bigger wheels on their cars that the manufacturers figured out they were leaving money on the table.

Although the Jag is taller than a Z and Corvette, it's weight is very much in line with those cars (Jag weighs between 3,450 and 3,850 (with V8), C3 Corvette weighs 3,420, C7 Corvette is 3,300 to 3,580) Considering the more luxurious stature of the Jag, this seems about right.

A lot of people also blame safety regulations for the current overweightness of cars, of course the safety items add weight but technology has also reduced weight (Try adding safety features to that C3 Corvette ) so a lot of the reason that cars are so heavy has to do with the buyers expectations of comfort, luxury, and technology. The Miata gives a good idea of how light a car can be (2,350 lbs) while still meeting all the safety requirements. The Lotus Elise (2,050) had even less luxury features but also did not meet safety requirements.

 

It seems the site I got the F-Type weight had put the GVW in the place for "Curb Weight." Believe me, I am glad to see that!

I agree that there is a conflict of technology (reducing weight) and safety regulations (adding weight) that has effectively made it so the two wash each other out. But some of those regulations are simply onerous. The current roof-crush standards are what has brought us these huge pillars and reduced vision. The pedestrian impact regulations have made packaging the engine a nightmare.

And I think the side impact regulations are responsible for the tall sides. Go back to the comparison between the 300ZX and the F-Type. The extra height of the F-Type is in the car's sides, not it's roof and greenhouse.

And why? Certainly new cars don't have that much more headroom than the older models, do they? Are we back to Nash's adage of ensuring a man can drive the car with his Fedora on? Or is the extra height due to how thick the modern car's roof has become?

And yes, adding the modern safety features found in a new Corvette or Camaro to its older cousin would really put the pounds on the older car, but then again, the door window glass of a 1970 Camaro probably weighs as the combined weight of the door window glass, regulator, and power motor of the new car. Build the 1970 Camaro with the same weight saving tricks used in the 2017, but without all of the modern safety features, and the '70 would probably come in under 3,000 pounds!

And what is all this technology doing to used cars? Airbags have a useful shelf life. The same is true of those explosive hood hinges and the soon-to-come explosive A-pillars. We're building cars that are super-safe for ten years, but then what?

I know, I am dancing all around a myriad of issues, but I think we've just taken some of the safety stuff too far. It's like the tail fin, at first they were cool, but then we took them to the point of absurdity.

There are some good looking cars today. I like the F-type. I like the Mustang. I wish I could see out of either of them, but the damned 6X6 roof pillar is a pain. I'd even like the Challenger, if only it weren't 1.25:1 scale.

 

Don't forget that design idioms tend to run in cycles.

The dropping of the side window from the A pillar/front fender intersection was used by everyone until it ran its course. This got more side glass to body side.

Several years back it became a new look to squash the roof down like a chopped '50s hot rod. It was "new. I figure at some point that too will run its course too.

 

I know they could make them meet crash standards and be much thinner, so don't the designers understand how bad visibility is getting due to the thick pillars??

Also, the doors pre 1970 were kind of heavy even without the mandated crash beams due to the mechanical windows. They went to the lighter wire pulleys to offset the beams extra weight on alot of European cars.

The conversation on new car weights seems to be moving to the front now. Maybe they will do something about it since a lot of people are complaining about it??

 

John, or a few others, can talk of the technical possibilities. I want to get across that Design is only one of the groups involved in the larger process. From the technical side engineering and manufacturing are both going to have big roles in deciding what can/can't be done. Consider that some possibilities may not withstand cost considerations.

 

I should restate that. I did not think they were not aware, but that should be a focus for manufactures and designers as it may be causing safety issues and accidents due to blind spots. I'm sure it is a bean counter issue more than anything. Any advanced material use would cause prices to go up, so only the safety issue route would be a good one to try at your next conference..





In the 1960's they developed the Kamm tail, in the 2000's they designed the Kamm front end.

 

Wouldn't the rake of the front windshield angle also contribute to thicker "A" pillars to meet rollover/roof crush standards? I could see where a return to front vent windows as a structural bolster/brace might be able to lessen the requirements on the "A" pillars somewhat. But that wouldn't be cool from a styling point.

 

.....pickup trucks from your fav luxo-mobile!

luxury pickup trucks: imagine rolls-royce, bentley and lamborghini models

just a taste....(it gets worse......)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes on the EEK!

Someone needs their Photoshop privileges rescinded.