What is not happening with automotive styling

People are just buying the wrong cars :D

Every time period has its automotive styling trends. Most cars follow them. You show me a random car from the 50s and chances are I'll be able to say "yep, that's from the 50s" and nothing else, a lot of cars looked alike back then too...
 
People are just buying the wrong cars :D

Every time period has its automotive styling trends. Most cars follow them. You show me a random car from the 50s and chances are I'll be able to say "yep, that's from the 50s" and nothing else, a lot of cars looked alike back then too...
I gotta say I agree with that. I have a hard time telling muscle cars apart if I see them from the back/side, fronts were fairly distinctive but even then the same basic shape was always followed. Up until recently I could tell a 50's Bel-Air from Plymouth Fury and the Cadillacs, all looked the same to me. From our modern stand point the designs are insane but if you compare them within their time period they are very similar and no car really stands out.
 
fronts were fairly distinctive but even then the same basic shape was always followed. Up until recently I could tell a 50's Bel-Air from Plymouth Fury and the Cadillacs, all looked the same to me.

To be fair, they were a lot more limited with what they could do with front-ends due to restrictions on the headlights. There was a 44-year regulation that limited headlights to those round or rectangle sealed headlights. It wasn't until 1984 that the first replaceable bulb-type headlights came to market since 1939.
 
To be fair, they were a lot more limited with what they could do with front-ends due to restrictions on the headlights. There was a 44-year regulation that limited headlights to those round or rectangle sealed headlights. It wasn't until 1984 that the first replaceable bulb-type headlights came to market since 1939.

So what you're saying is.... it was stupid regulation? Looks like we've come full circle :p
 
Well, in the US anyways. :p When the "designed" headlights came online, they were called "euro" lights. :p
 
I would have to disagree. Many of todays car's are not conservative in their styling. I would argue that many companies are going way too art deco.

For instance, today's Toyota 4Runner is way too boxy (it's ugle as hell). The previous two generations were more elegant and had better free flowing lines. The same could be said with Honda's latest styling with the Pilot.

Beautiful curved lines (2008).
2008-Toyota-4Runner-front-3-4-400.jpg


Boxy as hell. No form. This is way out there. Headlights that protude from the body.
2010-toyota-4runner.jpg


I always loved BMW's conservative styling but when Chris Bangle took over, he's styling was far from conservative, it was just to geometric for my personal taste. His design elements were, again, too overstyled.

Mazda is really taking curvature to levels that are almost radical.

Let's not forget about Acura. The kings of way too much overstyling. There styling is so way off (especially with the grille) that they went from conservative (however, very sporty and elagant) to full re-tard styling.

2008 Acura TL
2008_Acura_TL_08.jpg

2010 Acura TL (metal poo-poo)
2010-acura-tl-to-be--1_460x0w.jpg
 
well there are exceptions

Mazda RX8
Caddy CTS V
Bentley Brooklands

New Lotus cars

but they are all quite expensive
 
I miss visibility. I know the whole "hunkered down low" inside thing is huge but I'd rather have a great view of the world around me...and a good place to rest my arm on long drives (windowsill)
 
There are options.

Eunos.jpg


MG_TF_2002.jpg


No car beats a convertible in visibility.
 
Yeah, those smaller Seats are pretty distinctive - to me mostly because apart from a brief time where we got some form of the Cordoba (I see one semi-regularly parked outside a business on my route to uni), you don't see them down here. That said, looking at your car long enough I start to see similar elements to the current Ford Fiesta / Mazda 2.

My car is a slightly curved box on wheels, but think it looks better than the current Fit / Jazz with the over-styled front-end. :shrug:
 
I miss visibility. I know the whole "hunkered down low" inside thing is huge but I'd rather have a great view of the world around me...and a good place to rest my arm on long drives (windowsill)

This car has amazing visibility:

00811041990002-480.jpg


And yet I can tell you from personal experience that it's pretty terrible to drive :p

I also second convertibles.
 
I can only partially second convertibles. With the top up, blind spots on clothtop cars are murderous. Folding hardtops may be better in that regard, but they have downsides of ugliness and weight. If you want to talk visibility on a full-size sedan though, old-fashioned design wins:
02407091990001-480.jpg

Just look at how the greenhouse on that thing is upright and airy.
 
Last edited:
I can only partially second convertibles. With the top up, blind spots on clothtop cars are murderous. Folding hardtops may be better in that regard, but they have downsides of ugliness and weight.

Don't put the top up. :p Tonneau covers exist for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The SLS is win all around. When I saw one in person I couldn't find a bad angle.
 
I have yet to see one in real life. Maybe that will win me over, but until then (based on photos and videos), the rear end is fugly for me.
 
The comments here on Bangle really do drive home the "elephant in the room" problem that no one is talking about: If a car is conservatively styled to appeal to the most peopel possible, it's considered bland and derivative, and hated on by enthusiasts. if it is designed to step outside the box and NOT be conservative, it's roundly criticized as ugly and overstyled. Bangle was tasked (remember, he had been head of BMW's design center since '92) with breaking the mold and going in an etirely new direction. His team did so, coming up with design languages that were neither conservative, nor derivative. And he was roundly criticized for it.

So to you guys wanting something different and unique and moving design forward, are you willing to risk accepting designs that the mainstream finds ugly in order to do it? Why does it have to be ugly, you say? Because automotive design is a leanred process, not a natural one. We have to learn what looks good and that changes as we see more. And we also equate good looks with the vehicle role. A Ferrari 458 looks considearably different than a Range Rover Sport, but both are usually considered good looking vehicles. A BMW M3 looks considerably different than a '30 Deusenberg SJ, but both are considered attractive cars. A CRX looks pretty decent, as does a last gen Honda odessey. But juggle the features around only slightly and you end up with the Aztek, a fully functional vehicle that is universally panned for being too ugly to own, or the Bangle version, the Fiat Multipla.

And since designers have to live in a world that is 5-10 years in the future, they have to try and figure out what we, teh bying public, is going to accept 5 years before the buying public even knows about it. That's why it's so desirable to do retro. While it's harder to make a good retro design (not a reproduction, but a design that borrows from older cues while still being modern in detail), at least the designers already know the core styling was acceptable to the public. And what the designer thinks is radical, and acceptable, and even fun, the general public can say is horrendously ugly and unbuyable.
 
Every time I hear someone complain about how "cars these days" are bland, safety regulations have ruined everything, and that there are no well-styled cars anymore, I just think about my car:

https://pic.armedcats.net/c/ch/chaos386/2009/06/27/Susu.jpg

:D

The only problem is that if you black out the car itself and only look at the general outside shape and outline, it looks like almost everything else in it's class. The same goes for most classes, not including sports/supercars. The only differences the designers seem to be able to make nowadays is what shape the lights and vents are. This one has squareish headlights, gross, but ooo this one has roundish headlights, sweeeet. It's kinda sad.
 
The only problem is that if you black out the car itself and only look at the general outside shape and outline, it looks like almost everything else in it's class. The same goes for most classes, not including sports/supercars. The only differences the designers seem to be able to make nowadays is what shape the lights and vents are. This one has squareish headlights, gross, but ooo this one has roundish headlights, sweeeet. It's kinda sad.

"If you take away all of the details, all cars look pretty similar."

How many unique shapes can there be that are practical? Hatchbacks are round for a reason, maximum interior space without having the aerodynamics of a brick. The cars that break from the mold and embrace the brick (Nissan Cube, Scion xB) are considered ugly.

Plus, your statement applies to just about any given point automotive history...
 
Top