2o6's automotive styling rant thread

[2o6]

I've been wanting to do something like this for awhile now, since you guys think I just love EVERY design on the market.



I think there's a lot on sale that I really hate. Matter of fact, I think most cars look very ugly. It's not "pedestrian standards" necessitate a higher beltline or a upright front end, since I don't think those things necessarily cause bad styling in itself. I just think a lot of cars are fucking ugly. I don
t understand why new cars are so fucking ugly these days....there are really only a few cars on sale that I actually like.



What set me off on this rant is the new pictures of the MB GLA. Mercedes Benz does not have a single well-styled vehicle in their lineup. I don't understand it. This is supposed to be a LUXURY make, it's supposed to set trends, really be on the cusp of automotive style, set trends, push bounderies.....yet they are giving us shit.

The A and B classes are the worst styled vehicles they have ever made, and I will explain why.



This is not an interesting profile, at all. It's not the front overhang, it's not the "FWD proportions" (yet again, FWD = not a bad thing) It's simply a fucking boring shape. The shape is not only just boring, but slightly awkward, too. That front hood is proportionally too long, and the A-pillar is too far rearward to be an interesting or fast shape....the hood is very high, and the truck nose draws attention to the fact the nose itself is very high. The car is super underwheeled, but the odd fact is that the car is not particularly on small wheels; the oversized features (the too big front and rear fascias) have a tendency to make everything else look very tiny (See Chevy Spark) - the car looks like it's rolling on 14" in this picture.


Those character lines are attempting to add some sort of appeal to a very, very, very, very dull and slightly awkward shape. They're also pretty nonsensical....the bottom one starts ascending either too fast, or not fast enough, randomly in the middle of the front door. The worst part of it is the fact when viewed in 3/4 or dead on front view, there is NO width treatments - the car isn't curvy or sexy or hippy or any sort or anything added on. It's bad when a Renault Clio has more side sculpting and crafted haunches over a damn premium luxury car. But the thing about it is, the A-class isn't even particularly roomy, so there are no daring styling decisions taking a bite out of interior space. The consumer is left with a fuck-ugly car for no reason.

The New Mazda 3 also has too long of a front hood, but the rest of the car (sedan) is generally styled OK, so it sneaks away with it.

I really adore the old A-class, yes it's not really a racy shape, but it's very forward thinking. Those wheels look rather large, despite being probably smaller than the ones on the new model. That glass treatment is also very interesting. And when properly wheeled...I think it looks pretty good for a tall little funny looking thingy.




Then you get to the B-class.....also bad.

Looks like a Chinese clone of itself.




Similar complaints on the B-class as I had with the A-class....but make the shape taller, and worse.


Then we get to the newly debuted GLA, which looks like a raised A-class, and not an SUV in the slightest. Too carlike.

[2o6]

Another design I don't like





Short notes


- Profile is awkward, roofline is very fast, but since the greenhouse is so small and very high up, coupled with a very tall hood - it isn't as dramatic, and it ends up looking like a blob with no discernible features when going down the road

- Beltline is too damn high; or at least do something with the bottom (maybe some black paint) to make it look less tall

- Belt line itself is awkward; instead of ascending from the front of the car to the rear, it descends. The effect is a backwards High-heel shoe; it looks weird.

- The car doesn't have much in the way in the use of width; the car looks very wide, but very blocky. No coke-bottle shape, nothing to see here.

- Front fascia is proportioned all wrong. That grille is a gaping maw, the headlights are too small.

- Rear fascia only emphasizes the visual narrowness and visual height that the car has

- Car is terminally underwheeled, partially due to the very high beltline. Even when the wheel wells are filled out, the car is still is underwheeled.


Just a nasty design.

[MexicoCityM3]

In defense of Merc, I think the SLS and the E-Class are great.

And the Fusion is very bold for its class.

[12,000 RPM]

Regulations killed car design.

That B-Class side profile is horrible though. It looks like someone photoshopped the nose from another car.

[2o6]

Regulations killed car design.

no

[Northlands]

no

Partly. Euro pedestrian crash standards have raised the beltline a bit with having automakers create vehicles with higher hoods.

[Laconian]

Also the fronts are required to be vertically flush, which is why every car looks so snub-nosed nowadays. I agree with that assertion.

There's a saying in engineering, "you get what you incent". If people are wearing blinders and only considering cars that get a certain score on a certain safety test, then by gum, car manufacturers are going to deliver designs that maximize those scores, even if the intangible costs exceed the gain. The automaker is more concerned about the short term issues of making a sale than the long term usability issues, towhich the customer is probably oblivious to, anyhow.

[12,000 RPM]

no

Yes

What car designer would put a high belt line, truck nose and impossibly blunt rear ends on a small car if they had any choice? When designers had free reign they never came up with anything like some of the monstrosities we have today.

For mainstreamers, the parameters and proportions are already worked out; designers just fill in the blanks. A cool roofline would kill passenger space. A low beltline would kill crash ratings. Etc. Everything flows from that.

[2o6]

I say "No" because removal of those guidelines does not equal a better looking car automatically. High hoods does not equal ugly. High beltlines does not equal ugly.



Ugly cars are just ugly.


A few short years ago, a lot of these regulations did not exist, and I do not think cars were better looking. New cars today (although I think they're ugly) are more usable, more ergonomic and we have way more sophisticated means of making them and keeping costs down.

[Laconian]

The requirement that your hood or beltline must be only so high do impose constraints on a designer's options.

[Byteme]

Another design I don't like


Just a nasty design.

You are in the minority on that one.  Most, if not all reviewers have praised the styling. 

As has beed noted designers have to work with constraints that were unheard of in the past.  And they are all striving for efficiency which, in part, is closely dictated by aerodynamics.  That in itself will tend to dictate similarity in designs.

Personally, I think design started going downhill in 1973, the year energy absorbing front bumpers were first mandated. 

[93JC]

I've been wanting to do something like this for awhile now, since you guys think I just love EVERY design on the market.

I don't think anyone thinks that. In the past I've thought that your publicly declared tastes—what you like and what you don't like—have been wildly inconsistent and almost deliberately contrarian in some cases.

[Raza]

The A class looks fine. 

[SVT666]

Aside from the awful break line for the hood, I think the C Class is a fine looking automobile.   The SLS and E Class are as well.

[Vinsanity]

This is what bothers me about the A-Class (and ugh! that B-Class is even worse), as well as the Caddy XTS...

Defining Dash-to-Axle - Design Handbook

[2o6]

This is what bothers me about the A-Class (and ugh! that B-Class is even worse), as well as the Caddy XTS...

Defining Dash-to-Axle - Design Handbook

Not just the axle to dash ratio, but the car looks really stumpy from some angles (as does the platform mate Impala).


I don't think a better dash to axle ratio is an end all for good design; long hoods don't automatically equal a better design. I think one-box designs with short hoods can look very good (Converj/ELR), and the new A-class has a much different axle-to-dash ratio than the old one.....yet manages to look worse with fucking odd proportions. It depends on the designer's initial idea, goal for the product in the market, etc.


I think a car with a short hood and small cowl tends to look very "futuristic" which may get people to take notice.

Like these:

Aside from the awful break line for the hood, I think the C Class is a fine looking automobile.   The SLS and E Class are as well.

I will admit, I don't think the C-class looks bad, but I think the rest of the segment looks better. E-class looked wayy better before the facelift.

However, MB has been ruining their new cars with probably the worst styling language ever, as evidenced with the ugly-ass SLK



and SL



The old cars were some of my favorites in the segment....and now MB fucked it all up.

[2o6]

The requirement that your hood or beltline must be only so high do impose constraints on a designer's options.

I guess, but the market has been gravitating towards a taller vehicle, anyways. I really wonder why anyone romanticizes old cars, when they suck. IMO, new cars (especially new small cars) are so much more ergonomically correct, so much more comfortable, so much more thoughtful....

[hotrodalex]

The problem isn't the design, it's the constraints given to the designers. Safety and packaging come before design. There's a reason concept cars are usually very nice designs and the actual production version has faults.

[280Z Turbo]

Modern computer aided design and CNC technology have made complex shapes more accesible than ever.

[2o6]

Yes, I never knew that.


It all goes hand in hand, however, that still doesn't excuse a bad looking car for being bad looking, because the end of the day no one will give a fuck as to why the designers had such a hard time, they just know that the car is fucking hideous.


Case in point:




One of the worst proportioned vehicles of all time. The design is clearly compromised; GM wanted to create a Midsize Crossover in the newly emerging segment, but clearly didn't want to spend any money. So they had Pontiac use pretty much everything from the Venture Vans, and you end up with a vehicle that has the proportions and sex appeal of a SWB Venture.


I know that they have issues with engineering, and regulations, and other issues.



The issue is that most consumers don't care. Nor should they. They just know that the car looks bad, and they don't care why it looks ugly, or how it got to look ugly, they just know that the car looks bad and they don't want it.

Hell, here's a write up from a few weeks ago about a few insight design proposals, not concepts, but production-ready design proposals for the now current generation Insight

Look at the design proposal for the Insight - great proportions, very good looking for an hybrid vehicle



And a later design proposal for the Insight.....looks like shit. (these proportions became the production model)




Shit like that makes me wonder

- Did their budget get cut? I wonder if engineering told the designers they had to use more parts from the Fit, so the hardpoints became more ungainly...

- If the above is true, and they had gotten the specs from the jump, the car wouldn't have been so ugly?

[Colin]

There is no one universal opinion on styling, with some people liking what others hate. And that has always been the case.

That said, I do think we are going through a particularly bad patch at present, and I agree with 206 that Mercedes are among the worst, with absolutely every one of their latest designs finding no favour from me. I don't buy the argument that regulations are the root cause of the problem. Of course they impose constraints, and as more of them come in, then there are more things for the designer to think about. Affordability, ie what it costs to make a car, and the reuse of components from the corporate parts bin have also never been more significant, but the the clever use of platform sharing has allowed manufacturers to produce a far wider range of visually different models than ever before, and most, although not all, mfrs are making profits.

I suspect the problem is that there are a new generation of designers who are desperate to do something "different" - and ironically,they have all ended up doing very similar things. The current fad is for scoops and scallops and over fussy designs, which is a sort of reaction to the press "moaning" about simpler designs being "boring". Controversial designs will always polarise opinion, and the perpetrators are gambling that enough people will like what they produce even if others are so repulsed that they take their money elsewhere. Sometimes the quest for boldness goes too far and everyone turns against what has been produced - like the Aztec, and the Ssangyong Rodius, and if you believe the lack of sales, the MINI Coupe. But for everyone who hates the Mercedes A, B, CLA, GLA, SLK, SL, it would seem that there are others who actually like them. Just as there are those who lmbast Audi and Skoda and SEAT for producing something too plain. Even the cars which by common consent are the closest we are getting to truly "beautiful" at present - the Alfa 8C Competizione, the Jaguar F Type and er, well there must be more but I cannot think what they are, have their detractors.

Of course the real disaster is when the stylist produces a pug ugly munter and the thing is a dog to drive and unreliable. Step forward Peugeot who did that with the 207 and 308 which were truly canine in just about every respect. It has taken them 10 years to realise that they were heading further and further down the wrong path and that may be too late, but at least their latest cars look better, and drive better and would appear to be more reliable. 

[SVT666]

Are you trolling with the Insight?  It looks almost identical to the concept and really looks no worse or better. 

[Raza]

I guess, but the market has been gravitating towards a taller vehicle, anyways. I really wonder why anyone romanticizes old cars, when they suck. IMO, new cars (especially new small cars) are so much more ergonomically correct, so much more comfortable, so much more thoughtful....

Yeah, but new cars are all ugly and they generally get worse looking every generation.  E90 to F30 is a great example of moving backwards in new cars, not only stylistically, but in other areas as well. 

[Raza]

The problem isn't the design, it's the constraints given to the designers. Safety and packaging come before design. There's a reason concept cars are usually very nice designs and the actual production version has faults.

99% of concept cars look like they were designed by 12-year-olds on acid.  Dude, let's give it 30" wheels that are neon green and no windows at all and boobs and machine guns and boobs that shoot machine guns!

[2o6]

Are you trolling with the Insight?  It looks almost identical to the concept and really looks no worse or better.

They're quitr different, the top one is an earlier build in the project, and the bottom one is proportioned far worse....

[12,000 RPM]

Are you trolling with the Insight?  It looks almost identical to the concept and really looks no worse or better.

There's subtle things. The production model has more wheel gap and a bigger metal to rubber ratio. The concept just looks cleaner and smaller.

[93JC]

They're quitr different, the top one is an earlier build in the project, and the bottom one is proportioned far worse....

See, this is one of those times where you're "wildly inconsistent and almost deliberately contrarian" as I put it...

The proportions look almost exactly the same. The details are a little different, particularly the fact that the later concept has 'real' bumpers, but otherwise they're almost indiscernible.

[2o6]

There's subtle things. The production model has more wheel gap and a bigger metal to rubber ratio. The concept just looks cleaner and smaller.

It isn't a "concept", its a design proposal, using engineering data and chasssis hardpoibts. Most of these design proposals don't see the light of day, and usually there are several, loads of cross checking witb engineering, focus groups, etc.


There's a good write up on the MK1 Mondeo on the forums, and shows several design proposals from all of Ford's studios.

See, this is one of those times where you're "wildly inconsistent and almost deliberately contrarian" as I put it...

The proportions look almost exactly the same. The details are a little different, particularly the fact that the later concept has 'real' bumpers, but otherwise they're almost indiscernible.

Ok the top model has

- less glass

- more tumblehome

- longer wheelbase and slightly shorter overhangs

- wider track

- faster roofline

- ass end tapers quicker

[Raza]

What the hell is a tumblehome?

[Laconian]

It's how the body tapers inward as it goes up.