10 ms·

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscl

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models. Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing. It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this vision developed further.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
How do you feel about the Pacer? Edsel? VW Thing? There's good and bad cars from every era. Some vehicles have aged well. Some vehicles still look stupid today. I find middle of the road vehicles that were neither designed to make a statement nor was aesthetic design ignored generally look good regardless of the era they're from (which makes sense considering that a bunch of professionals had to sign off on its mass-market appeal). The stuff that tries to push the limits is what either looks iconic or terrible in hindsight.
- JJMcJ 7y ago
  The Edsel was actually pretty standard design for the time. I think that may have been one of the things that hurt it.
endorphone 7y ago
"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. As to the CyberTrck it's worth noting that its design seems a restriction of material limitations rather than an intentional pursuit. As with the Delorean before, they started with the conclusion that they would use stainless steel and virtually every design decision was bound by that beginning.
- keiferski 7y ago
  > but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. Unfortunately, the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Worse yet, this opinion wasn't arrived at by carefully considering all the approaches to art and choosing subjectivity as the best option, which it may actually be (but that isn't my point.) Instead, it was arrived at by simple ignorance.
  - murgindrag 7y ago
    It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your opinion happens to mirror the opinions of English department academics -- just clever enough to be a new twist, but not so brilliant as to go outside of the culture -- you can get a position as a scholar, and keep writing papers within a mutual appreciation society of academics all thinking roughly the same thoughts. Eventually, the whole crew goes down one rabbithole or other. A group of thousands of self-supporting, mutually reaffirming "intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures" doesn't make that opinion any more right or valid than my own. On the other hand, if an engineer can make the fastest sailboat, that's external real-world validation that they got something right. As a subtle point, I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers who receive public acclaim (external validation). I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers of niche artistic films a lot less. That is to say, I'll trust them about the technical aspects (what aperture means, or how to edit a video), but not about the artistic aspects: how you use film as a medium for communication, expression, and so on. A big part of communication and art is understanding the audience, and they haven't demonstrated they can do that, at least outside of their own clique.
thdrdt 7y ago
A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in mind. For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an impact with a pedestrian. This is why a lot of cars start to look the same. This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. A door that doesn't dent on impact of a huge hammer gives a nice show but is a big no for a lot of different safety reasons.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  Also, it looks like an aerodynamic disaster with its sharp edges and square shapes.
  - ant6n 7y ago
    I though the new school of aerodynamics actually does involve sharp edges, something about breaking turbulence. For example, check out the newest high speed train of Germany, the ICE 4, designed for operating at up to 265km/h, with the weird edges around the front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_4_(Deutsche_Bahn)#/media/File:ICE_4_at_Nuremberg_Hbf.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_4_(Deutsche_Bahn)#/media/F...
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    CFD estimations actually put it to be a bit more aerodynamic than the F-150, actually.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      Depends on the CFD estimation. This one puts it at 0.47: https://i.imgur.com/MnY9lDO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MnY9lDO.jpg An F-150 is 0.40. So according to this simulation, the Cybertruck is roughly 20% less efficient than the F150. Of course, all of these simulations are a crap-shoot. And secondly, towing efficiency seems primarily determined by weight / rolling resistance anyway. So I'm not sure how much CFDs really matter. On the other hand, electric batteries are more efficient. On the other-other hand, ICE gets more efficient the more weight you load on it. (Etc. etc. etc.) We can sit around and compare apples-to-shotguns all day, but whenever the thing comes out, we'll just run tests on it then. No point trying to make hypotheticals, just test it when it comes out. EDIT: Another point: the cybertruck, as revealed, doesn't have side-mirrors. So now we have to make a guess: will the final product have side mirrors? Is Musk aiming for a camera-based solution? Etc. etc. These sorts of details could change a CFD simulation significantly. Clearly, the design of the truck is in its early stages, and they still have a lot of work to do. We really don't know what the final product will look like at any detail where an accurate CFD-model could be made.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

How do you feel about the Pacer? Edsel? VW Thing? There's good and bad cars from every era. Some vehicles have aged well. Some vehicles still look stupid today. I find middle of the road vehicles that were neither designed to make a statement nor was aesthetic design ignored generally look good regardless of the era they're from (which makes sense considering that a bunch of professionals had to sign off on its mass-market appeal). The stuff that tries to push the limits is what either looks iconic or terrible in hindsight.

JJMcJ 7y ago
The Edsel was actually pretty standard design for the time. I think that may have been one of the things that hurt it.

endorphone 7y ago

"As a person with personal interest in visual arts" With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. As to the CyberTrck it's worth noting that its design seems a restriction of material limitations rather than an intentional pursuit. As with the Delorean before, they started with the conclusion that they would use stainless steel and virtually every design decision was bound by that beginning.

keiferski 7y ago
> but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this. Why is everyone's opinion equal? When building a bridge, is the opinion of a civil engineer equal to that of a cook? No, clearly not - but we only recognize this because the effects of building faulty bridges are obvious and immediately noticeable, whereas the effects of cultural ignorance are far more subtle and wide-reaching. The fields of art and aesthetics have a long, complex history and have been studied and written upon by thousands of intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures. Unfortunately, the default opinion among society today (which you yourself are echoing) is just a sort of ignorant relativism - everyone's opinion on art (and anything else that isn't 'practical') has the same value and the topic is fundamentally just a popularity contest. Worse yet, this opinion wasn't arrived at by carefully considering all the approaches to art and choosing subjectivity as the best option, which it may actually be (but that isn't my point.) Instead, it was arrived at by simple ignorance.
- murgindrag 7y ago
  It's not about practicality. A Formula 1 car or high-performance sailboat has no practical value, but I trust engineers far more than kindergartners about Formula 1 or yacht design. On the other hand, I've seen gifted kindergartners draw things which I thought were pretty good -- on par with some respected artists. It's about having real-world validation. Anyone can have an opinion about art and literature. If your opinion happens to mirror the opinions of English department academics -- just clever enough to be a new twist, but not so brilliant as to go outside of the culture -- you can get a position as a scholar, and keep writing papers within a mutual appreciation society of academics all thinking roughly the same thoughts. Eventually, the whole crew goes down one rabbithole or other. A group of thousands of self-supporting, mutually reaffirming "intelligent scholars, designers, artists, philosophers, and religious figures" doesn't make that opinion any more right or valid than my own. On the other hand, if an engineer can make the fastest sailboat, that's external real-world validation that they got something right. As a subtle point, I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers who receive public acclaim (external validation). I'll trust the opinion of filmmakers of niche artistic films a lot less. That is to say, I'll trust them about the technical aspects (what aperture means, or how to edit a video), but not about the artistic aspects: how you use film as a medium for communication, expression, and so on. A big part of communication and art is understanding the audience, and they haven't demonstrated they can do that, at least outside of their own clique.

thdrdt 7y ago

A lot of cars today are designed around regulations and with aerodynamics in mind. For example in Europe you can't have a spoiler that could catch a cyclist. And it is prefered that there is room between the hood and motor in case of an impact with a pedestrian. This is why a lot of cars start to look the same. This is also why the cybertruck in it's current form will never be allowed in Europe. A door that doesn't dent on impact of a huge hammer gives a nice show but is a big no for a lot of different safety reasons.

Aperocky 7y ago
Also, it looks like an aerodynamic disaster with its sharp edges and square shapes.
- ant6n 7y ago
  I though the new school of aerodynamics actually does involve sharp edges, something about breaking turbulence. For example, check out the newest high speed train of Germany, the ICE 4, designed for operating at up to 265km/h, with the weird edges around the front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_4_(Deutsche_Bahn)#/media/File:ICE_4_at_Nuremberg_Hbf.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICE_4_(Deutsche_Bahn)#/media/F...
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  CFD estimations actually put it to be a bit more aerodynamic than the F-150, actually.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    Depends on the CFD estimation. This one puts it at 0.47: https://i.imgur.com/MnY9lDO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MnY9lDO.jpg An F-150 is 0.40. So according to this simulation, the Cybertruck is roughly 20% less efficient than the F150. Of course, all of these simulations are a crap-shoot. And secondly, towing efficiency seems primarily determined by weight / rolling resistance anyway. So I'm not sure how much CFDs really matter. On the other hand, electric batteries are more efficient. On the other-other hand, ICE gets more efficient the more weight you load on it. (Etc. etc. etc.) We can sit around and compare apples-to-shotguns all day, but whenever the thing comes out, we'll just run tests on it then. No point trying to make hypotheticals, just test it when it comes out. EDIT: Another point: the cybertruck, as revealed, doesn't have side-mirrors. So now we have to make a guess: will the final product have side mirrors? Is Musk aiming for a camera-based solution? Etc. etc. These sorts of details could change a CFD simulation significantly. Clearly, the design of the truck is in its early stages, and they still have a lot of work to do. We really don't know what the final product will look like at any detail where an accurate CFD-model could be made.