4 ms·

I can't help but feel like this is simultaneously insightful and insufferable. The author has interesting thoughts, but is obsessed with aesthetics. You want d

I 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 ago
Aerodynamic 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 ago
  Ok, 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.
  - tadfisher 11y ago
    > 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. As do safety regulations and testing bodies. Hence the same high belt and hoodline, same lack or rearward visibility, same super-thick A-pillars that trade visibility for roof strength (and in my opinion, this final design point ends more lives than it saves).

dognotdog 11y ago

Aerodynamic 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 ago
Ok, 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.
- tadfisher 11y ago
  > 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. As do safety regulations and testing bodies. Hence the same high belt and hoodline, same lack or rearward visibility, same super-thick A-pillars that trade visibility for roof strength (and in my opinion, this final design point ends more lives than it saves).