7 ms·
The Zombie-Mobile: Car brands no longer reflect differentiation
- chiph 11y ago> Through this lens it is not surprising that Porsche was an early adopter of the crossover, if they didn’t create it outright with the Cayenne. I would argue that Honda started the category with the CR-V. Front-wheel drive, unibody construction, emphasis on utility for a typical family, yet has the high driving position of a SUV. They have sold millions of them. Also, while the author mentions aerodynamics, the one thing that is driving cars to uniformity these days is legislation. Both the European pedestrian safety standard, and the soon-to-be-draconian US CAFE fuel-economy requirements.
- sliverstorm 11y agoExcellent point on legislation. It has at least once led to divergence of design (80's pop-up headlights) but safety standards, especially pedestrian safety, have dramatically constrained the style of the front end. Low hoods are a thing of the past in part thanks to that.
- zo1 11y agoHow does a low hood affect pedestrian safety? I'd much rather be flipped over the car then hit and possibly pushed under. Any studies on this, perhaps?
- gtCameron 11y agoI love comments like this. "I have a random hunch about a subject I have spent 30 seconds thinking about. I bet it is correct and the regulators who have full time jobs researching this are wrong"
- csours 11y agohttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law - The best way to get an answer on the internet is to say the wrong thing.
- jschwartzi 11y agoThis is why I always say dumb things. It's not that I'm looking to make you ignorant, it's that I want you to make me knowledgeable.
- zo1 11y agoIt's an opportunity to both present my view, even if it is biased and probably flawed, as well as to invite discussion and debate. Additionally, in a setting where individuals with a wide body of knowledge and experience are present.
- ch4s3 11y agoIt provides room for the hood to give when your head hits it. "The hood of most vehicles is usually fabricated from sheet metal, which is a compliant energy absorbing structure and thus poses a comparatively small threat. Most serious head injuries occur when there is insufficient clearance between the hood and the stiff underlying engine components. A gap of approximately 10 cm is usually enough to allow the pedestrian’s head to have a controlled deceleration and a significantly reduced risk of death[3]. Creating room under the hood is not always easy because usually there are other design constraints, such as aerodynamics and styling. In some regions of the hood it can be impossible. These include along the edges on which the hood is mounted and the cowl, where the hood meets the windshield. Engineers have attempted to overcome this problem by using deformable mounts, and by developing more ambitious solutions such as airbags that are activated during the crash and cover the stiff regions of the hood[4]. Some models, like the Citroën C6 and Jaguar XK feature a novel pop-up bonnet design, which adds 6.5 cm (2.5", C6) extra clearance over the engine block if the bumper senses a hit. In 2012 and 2015, the Volvo V40 and the Land Rover Discovery Sport have a under-the hood airbag with operates if the hood senses a hit. The airbag also covers the windshield pillars to provide better protection in all areas struck by the pedestrian's head." there's a great wikipedia article about it.[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehicle_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...
- chiph 11y agoIt's not just the low hood (for crumple-area), but also the curve of the leading edge. In older SUVs (and still in today's full-size pickups) the front was squared-off and blunt, and this lead to people getting injured by that sharp edge. With the curved leading edge the pedestrians have a much more progressive landing on the hood. A car like the mid-70's Aston Martin Lagonda with it's knife-edge grill will never be built again. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Aston_Martin_Lagonda_West_London.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Aston_Ma...
- sliverstorm 11y agoI can't help but feel like this is simultaneously insightful and insufferable. The author has interesting thoughts, but is obsessed with aesthetics. You want differentiation? Every Subaru (save one) has AWD, and one of the best AWD systems on the market at that. Subaru never really sold cars on the basis of looking cool (save that same one). As for the wind tunnel- that's a smart connection. A large amount of the stylistic similarity can be traced to the wind tunnel. But that is because we are slave to wind resistance, and the optimal shapes for fuel efficiency are pretty well known. Statements like this: The wind tunnel’s usefulness has been perverted to legitimize the destruction of progress. I cannot even figure out how to parse. The wind tunnel is now an excuse to gain fuel efficiency and avoid progress, where "progress" means "striking bodystyles"? Or: Wiedeking’s use of the word “fickle” is telling. To translate, “People with taste are picky. The only way to make money is by satisfying those who can’t discern quality.” Wiedeking's problem with the sports car market is it fluctuates wildly no matter how good a car you make. It is the canary in the coal mine that is the greater car market.
- dognotdog 11y agoAerodynamic shapes may be well known, but can still be very dissimilar, and counter to what we perceive as "aerodynamic." Point in case: the Citroen AX has a drag coefficient of 0.31, which apparently is the same as for a Porsche 997 Turbo. The AX looks like a box on wheels. We aren't the slaves of the wind tunnel, as in that case we'd probably have some pretty mad shapes driving around, but slaves of wanting to look, well, the same as everyone else, to avoid any risk. But this is more a feature of entrenchment in the car industry than anything else. There is really no incentive for the big OEMs to do anything risky.
- sliverstorm 11y agoOk, to be more accurate a number of variables come together with drag. If you are buying a crossover, you're probably interested in a roomy interior, safety, a higher vantage point for visibility, a short hood for easy maneuvering and again visibility. Put all these things together, and the basic shape is that of an enlarged classic mini cooper. Then put this somewhat large, somewhat tall vehicle in a wind tunnel and sculpt it for efficiency, and you arrive at today's crossover. You're right that aerodynamics does not leave us with only one possible body. We still have sports cars, vans, sedans, etc, each with a basic shape dictated by basic goals. But drag sculpts the shapes that go into the wind tunnels in generally uniform ways, because the wind treats a Dodge the same as a Ford.
- petra 11y agoSo if every vehicle is the same,vehicles are reliable, how do car companies persuade people to replace cars so often ?
- zo1 11y agoNot sure if there is a word for it. But it always strikes me that newer models "look better" in some intangible way, as if it's some sort of continuous improvement process. And they don't do it all at once, but drag it along so that they can do it over multiple models. That, and maintenance. The car purchasing field is so dodgy and rife with weirdness that people are a bit distrustful of the reliability of older cars. Whether that is just a perception thing from false advertising or actual fact, I don't know. But for me, at the end of the day, I want security and reliability, and the easiest method to that (from what I can tell) is to generally stay at the "newer" side of the market.
- walshemj 11y agoOh you are so wrong go and look at The Alfa Romeo Disco Volante - Sex on wheels!
- froo 11y agoYou could more or less argue the same thing about phones. They all have the same apps that 90% of people use (Facebook etc), they all have the same core features that 90% of people use (texting, internet and calling) and yet.. many people upgrade often. I expect its just a newer = better mentality that humans share.
- acomjean 11y agoI drive an honda element. Its a odd car, but I really like it. Its not a beauty, but its certainly different and practical. It didn't see an update, sales slowed and its no longer made. The design presentation linked is revealing in that its a car that was designed for something and totally missed, but ended up being different anyway. The Honda CRV which is in the same class, is in the car lineup in the article and impossible to find. The element would have stuck out. http://www.skidmore.edu/~pdwyer/e/files/schumaker.pdf http://www.skidmore.edu/~pdwyer/e/files/schumaker.pdf
- radiorental 11y agoElement owner here, thanks for the link. Really interesting to see some of the market research behind the vehicle.
- ar_turnbull 11y agoHeh. I work for a marketing agency that works with one of the major automotive brands and that brief is the kind of thing we see with every vehicle launch, model refresh, etc. Nobody wants to build a car for old, boring conformists.
- Fomite 11y agoWhat does it say that I correctly identified the crossover of both brands of car I own (VW and Volvo) despite not having ever seriously looked at buying their crossovers?
- csours 11y agoIn which the author disdains the aesthetic of the crossover. I'm not sure if the author dislikes the idea of crossovers or dislikes the fact that crossovers look similar. What change would best please him? I think it would be very fair to say that car companies don't spend much time branding their crossovers - look at the flagships and sport cars for that. Crossovers are functional vehicles - be comfortable, transport kids and groceries, be safe at a decent price. Every vehicle is a compromise - some are more extreme than others - the Hellcat for instance drives a hard bargain, but still has to make concessions to be street legal. Also, as other commenters have pointed out, there are well differentiated crossovers that are not pictured: The Element, the Crosstour, Ford FLEX, etc. A large part of the brand image of a vehicle is its front end sheet metal and grille, which are not shown in the picture. For example, if you look at the Buick and Chevrolet, you'll see that they are the exact same vehicle in profile. Headlights, Grille, Front end, taillights, and components set them apart. Disclosure - I work for GM. These opinions are my own only.
- hugh4 11y agoThe thing is that people act like the crossover form factor is new. It isn't. Take a look at the cars of the 1920s. Big tall two-box thing. Small box at the front for engine, big box at the back for passengers and cargo. You step up to get into it.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoWhether 5-door, hatchback, cross-over, SUV, what-have-you, it's all just filling in space between the sedan and a van/truck. If you brought someone to 2015 from 1955 via a time machine nobody would step up to a cross-over or an SUV and be agog at how utterly different and incomprehensible a vehicle it is. It's just variations on a century old theme. Big, station-wagon-y cars with extra height, that's what we've got in various different iterations. But the station-wagon is still "uncool" so we invent special names for such things, but really they are the same damned thing.
- jonnathanson 11y ago
- italophil 11y agoNot sure how serious to take an article on cars that misspells Volkswagen.
- freehunter 11y agoIs it an article on cars? Seems like it's an article on design that merely uses cars as an example.
- walshemj 11y agoYou can still see house styles if you know what to look for. And none of those look like say a Mustang Super Snake or a R8 or a Porsche 911.
- grillvogel 11y agomaybe I'm just a car nerd but I actually can identify most of the models in that pic. i don't understand this article, is he arguing that car makers should stop making these massively popular vehicles and focus on design passion projects? if the people demand a bunch of wacky bespoke 50s style vehicles then the companies will make them.
- pjlegato 11y agoYes. He further argues that competition is bad because it has produced this state. ("Competition doesn’t produce variety, it results in commoditization until we are left with 23 identical variations of the same vehicle.") He fails to note that there are actually many hundreds of other substantially different vehicles available for sale today. He is also evidently unaware of what happens in the absence of competition: far from some sort of designer's utopia of unique individual self-expression, you get one vehicle to pick from, and you have to wait for 10 years to get one -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
- thomas11 11y ago"By homogenizing the style across all brands, every brand sells more because the decision is easier." Every brand sells more? That would mean that the homogenized style makes people buy a car who would otherwise not have bought one. Makes no sense.
- rjbwork 11y agoAnalysis Paralysis maybe?
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoRegression to the mean.
- alricb 11y agoOne reason car companies are conservative: unit-body construction and safety and efficiency standards mean that getting a new car to market is very expensive nowadays. In the 50s and 60s, restyling every year or so cost a lot in tooling (meaning the independents like Nash and Studebaker had a hard time keeping up), but it was almost pure fashion, with very little regards for aerodynamics or safety. And since the body didn't provide the main structure of the car, you could do some radical changes to styling without affecting much of the underlying function. It's not to say that there isn't a lot of conformism, like in many industries. This leads, for instance, to the use of less-durable features like those silly plastic wraparound headlights; everybody has them, but because they aren't protected from the sun, they quickly fog and yellow; their complicated shapes also mean they're very expensive to replace for no good reason.