Normally, as I wade through the gyre of daily Internet trash, I don’t get too upset about anything I find.
BUT.
As someone who has lived and breathed cars since before I was born, I was unable to resist responding to this particular Medium post — The Zombie-mobile — that drifted across my feed when Dave Morin shared it. It’s not just any old post though; this appears to be an excerpt from a Book, and Books imply undue credibility. I find this both dishonest and disturbing. (In fact, I think the reason I’m writing this is because I want Mr. Morin to have correct information on the automotive industry. Who else will provide this critical information to him. WHO, I ASK?!).
In short, the post contains a vague, handwavy assessment of the many options available to today’s car buyer. The argument goes like this: In the 50’s and 60’s, cars were really wild and crazy looking. Now, every car looks basically the same. Automakers have perpetrated this sameness upon us, because we are feeble-minded, unable to make any decision that involves “more than a few options.” Therefore, instead of differentiating, car companies have all converged on building a bland, one-size-fits-all product to avoid scaring anyone off with too much choice (product differentiation) or flashy style.
This post seems to attack the SUV and crossover categories as guilty of satisfying too many needs for too many people. (How is this bad?) The post demonstrates this alleged “sameness” of SUVs by included a Photoshopped image of 23 SUV models. Each sideview of a vehicle is colored white, scaled to be similar in dimension, and had the wheel designs removed. Hmm, what a surprise that they all look similar! (Any fan of automotive design would be quick to point out that the character of a design is concentrated in the “face” of the car).
This is akin to approaching a group of people and saying “Hey, I noticed that all of you seem to have two arms and two legs. What the hell, people! How about showing me some variety?”
If you recall, the post suggested that the old fashioned designs of the 1960’s had flair, while modern cars are bland. It then says something so contradictory that I’m promoting it to pullquote status.
The reality is that the cars exterior should have some connection to its underlying form. Without an acknowledgement between form and function the design is just superfluous frosting. — @ade3
The assertion here is that styling of cars past was both more appealing and more connected to underlying function (mechanical purpose) than modern vehicles.
Actually, the opposite is true when it comes to form and function. Your grandpa’s 1959 Cadillac de Ville was indeed a work of art on wheels with enormous rocket-inspired rear fins, but its means of construction is known as “body-on-frame.” Car bodies of that era could have any manner of wild shapes, which were then bolted onto the frame and hid the mechanical underpinnings— essentially like mounting an artwork on a rolling platform.
This construction method yielded heavy cars, with a lot of wasted dead space. (For example, all the air inside a cavernous engine compartment.)
Nowadays, we’ve gotten wise and merged the mechanical foundation and components of the car with the body shape. This is known as “unibody” construction. The result is vehicles that are both far lighter and far stiffer, because they are built of fewer, larger bonded parts as opposed to many smaller parts bolted together.
Useable interior space was increased, while mechanicals were origami’d into more compact configurations. The unibody of a modern car forms the skeleton, over which the panels of the body are draped as if wrapping a taut skin around mechanical guts (think Terminator). Auto designers indeed speak of their art as manipulating the “skin” or surface of the car body.
Overall forms are very much dictated by function, while the specific design details convey the “design language” of each brand.
Automotive Design as a Refuge for Art
The post claims that the commoditization of cars is the death of artful design.
In other words, creating cars is not about making art, it is about making money. — @ade3
If you want to see a lack of art, take a look at washing machines. Now that’s a real example of a product that’s almost purely selected for utility rather than style. Because there are so many car and truck models available, the purchase is an emotional one. As such, you will find a great deal of artistic skill and craftsmanship throughout the interior and exterior of vehicles. There are exterior designers, interior designers, lighting designers, textile designers, interface designers, sound engineers, ride quality engineers, performance tuning engineers, all working together to strike an emotional chord deep within the buyer. How do you see yourself as a person? How do you want to feel when you drive? Automotive designers and engineers think of the car both as an object of utility and as a means of self-expression. Of course, premium self-expression comes at a premium price.
Personally, I think that the commoditization of cars is a great thing. The vastly improved quality, comfort, and reliability of modern cars is a testament to the forces of competition. The products are so exceedingly good that the choice between brands is no longer a significant risk! I can chose whatever I like, however whimsical I may feel. Isn’t it wonderful that the industry has adapted to serving human emotion, and not the other way around?
“As competitive forces reach equilibrium, car companies don’t present an assortment of products equally spaced across the spectrum.” — @ade3
Clearly.
Do Wind Tunnels Erode Great Design?
In both the literal and metaphorical wind tunnel every unique angle and differentiating shape gets questioned. One by one, every original idea gets put under air pressure until it finally folds. Instead of innovation we get slightly rounder versions of our dream cars. Too often the only thing that comes out the other end of the wind tunnel is conformity.— @ade3
::Engineer emits heavy sigh::
First of all, it’s the oppressive federal safety regulations that are smoothing out the shapes of modern cars, not the wind tunnel. NHTSA dictates bumper and hood heights, so that a pedestrian will more gently roll onto the hood in a collision, reducing injury. There are a number of other requirements that make cars heavy and slab-sided.
Here’s an example of an awfully “bland” design (below), resulting from wind tunnel testing. This is the BMW i8, a real car that you can buy right now. Great design happens when constraints are present.
Design with constraints produces value; design without constraints produces art. — Me
Today is a Great Time to be a Car Buyer
In 1950, Chevrolet offered one car. You could order the Special version or the Deluxe version. Here’s a sample of the wide variety available today:
Your format options include: Hatchback, wagon, coupe, sedan, four-door coupe, convertible, SUV, crossover, pickup truck, minivan, van, open-wheel track cars, and even the occasional shooting-brake
Your size options: Subcompact, compact, midsize, full size (a.k.a. “executive”)
Your trim levels: Base/economy, comfort, “entry level” luxury, luxury, super luxury
Your drivetrain options: Diesel, turbodiesel, naturally aspirated gas, forced induction gas, gas/electric hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric, hydrogen
Your performance options: Standard, sports car, supercar, hypercar.
If you care about particular features, manufacturers have differentiated. Safety (Volvo), technology (Tesla), utility (Ford and Chevy trucks), supercar performance within reach (Corvette), a tactile driving experience (BMW), affordable sportiness (Mazda), plush comfort (Mercedes Benz), quiet and reliable (Lexus), off-road travel (Land Rover), just plain cheap (Kia), and normal people who don’t really want to deal with cars but have no choice (Toyota).
Hell, you can get a car with collision avoidance, lane departure warnings, an electrochromic (color-changing) panoramic roof, a heated steering wheel, and 30-way adjustable seats that heat, cool, and massage your back! That is incredible.
Car Ownership is a Waste of Human Capital
So now that we’ve talked about how far we’ve come in the automotive realm, let’s talk about how buying, owning, and driving a car is pretty much a waste of everyone’s time. Unfortunately, many of us have no choice but to own a car so that we can commute to work. The cost of monthly payments, insurance, fuel, registration, and parking tickets is a substantial expense, and many people would avoid car ownership if they could.
The offending post’s anecdote about the Porsche Cayenne is a good example of how the market has found a sustainable way to serve both those who don’t like cars, and those who do. If someone just needs a way to get around, they can buy a Toyota Camry. If someone does have a passion for driving, they can buy a BMW, Jaguar, or Porsche. The sales of the profitable Cayenne SUV enable Porsche to remain a going concern and fund the development and relatively small sales of the legendary 911 models. Car enthusiasts wouldn’t have special sports cars to buy without the so called “zombie” masses buying crossovers and keeping those companies afloat.
That said, I’m looking forward to a time when we all share a massive fleet of autonomous self-driving cars and we never have to drive in rush hour commutes again.
Well, Someone On The Internet Is Wrong™, and I fell into the trap. I swear this never happens.
Comments welcome. I invite @ade3 to clarify these points from his book.
