The Conflict of Evolution vs Revolution

"pauljones" (pauljones) 08/15/2013 at 10:48 • Filed to: Evolution, Revolution, pauljones, Bacon, Underwear Gnomes

1

7

It’s a notion that we’ve heard all the time, most particularly with regard to automotive design in vehicle product lines spanning multiple generations. Any number of cars that you can think of just off the top of your head have asked and answered this question in different ways. From the 911 and the Corvette to the humble Civic and Corolla there have been as many different approaches to the question as there have been cars.

But, as I was reminded last night in a completely unrelated anecdotal story, few things are ever so simple as black or white, left or right, or evolution vs revolution. Rather, things usually tend to be a little more complex, and there’s always a third, fourth, etc. answer to add different shades to every question.*

In this case, the third answer to the question of evolution vs. revolution is quite simple – neither. If it ain’t broke, etc.

Revolution is a fine thing. Sometimes, it just feels right to take everything that was ever done before is thrown out the window in favor of a totally fresh start. It may even be necessary to do so. Euclid already defined his algorithm thousands of years ago? Too bad. It’s gone, and we’re re-deriving it for ourselves. It is this fresh approach that tries not necessarily to fit into the present environment, but to create a new environment unto itself. Cars like the Shelby Cobra, Ford GT40, and the Jeep Wagoneer were all very revolutionary cars. Not all survived to see the present day, but all are legends, and all served to alter our collective schema of the automotive world.

Evolution of a theme is a fine thing, particularly when you start off with a good formula, like, say, the Corvette. When you get so much right on your first try, the goal is not to throw it out, but to refine it until you perfect it.

On the other hand, evolution is always something of a semi-asymptotic concept; assuming a constant set of conditions, evolution will slow and possibly even stop once a creature has reached the most optimal form for its environment that they are capable of achieving. Cars will behave much the same. The 911, for instance, appears to be have slowed dramatically in its evolution. Like humans, modern technology might make them work just a little bit better, but at the end of the day, they don’t work any differently than they have for a while now.

Nothing is changed, because nothing needs to be changed. It may even be that nothing really can be changed. The optimal has been achieved for that environment or context, and it cannot be changed or improved upon in any significant way. As such, it simply continues on to dominate its niche until such time as that niche changes itself and forces it to either change or die off.

So, with those three alternatives to what was originally a rather binary question, which is the best option? Is it better for a car to evolve? Is it better for a car to be revolutionary? Is it better for a car to be left as-is until such time that change is notably required?

Tell us your thoughts, and give us some examples of what you think and why.

Also, keep the Kinja commenting system parallels to a minimum. I know how you all feel about changes to it.

*Yes, there’s probably a Fifty Shades of Gray joke in there somewhere. Fuck off.

Mikeado > pauljones 08/15/2013 at 11:00

0

On the 991 911, it's evolution outside, but revolution on the inside (to borrow from that excellent Audi R8 ad). While it had no choice but to have the layout and silhouette of its forebears, it's actually 100% new, for the first time since the 996.

But back to your question, I don't lean towards one or t'other that strongly. I just find it annoying when people think evolution is lazy, because that's a very ignorant comment to make. As long as a car company only fixes what needed fixing, that's fine by me. If the design was fine before, you need only evolve it. If the mechanicals were shit, overhaul them and make a step-change improvement there. And so on.

That said, I could easily fly in the ace of what I just types when it comes to Aston Martin. The "New DB9" is literally the Virage with a different name. I can get as pedantic as usual about it and still come to the same conclusion. But then, maybe they're just a bit short on cash to spend having done the One-77?

RMudkips > pauljones 08/15/2013 at 11:01

1

I did a similar comment in another thread, but it bears repeating.

A little bit of both is always good. On one had, with evolution you can continuously improve on your great ideas and make them fit for today. Again, not only with the 911, Vette and CJ comparisons, but also with niche things like Morgan cars and Sevens, constantly improving on a great idea for a car (lightweight wood frames and better materials and engines)

On the other hand, there are the rebels who push forward. There's the F40, the GT40, the 787B, the Quattros, and the Prii of the world that open our eyes to evergoing new technologies we can use for our cars. Without them, we might as well be stuck back in the 70's gas crisis with land yachts.

Ultimately though, it's both that will help modern autos grow. Revolution and evolution can grow hand in hand, for example, the 930 Turbo was a revelation, the idea that turbos could finally power an almighty legendary icon, the 911. Ferrari tries putting some turbos and removing some weight on its series of exotic craziness, a series that today spawns the LaFe- F70, with a hybrid gas-electric engine that 10 years ago was laughed at in the form of the Prius.

Even mainstream cars can benefit from evolution and revolution; the '06 Civic design was back then seen as a radical change to a line-up, and might as well became the last Civic that we actually liked.

With a bit of insanity and a bit of thought, we could make great cars for everyone. It's not that neither is good, it's that both used properly is good. You can't fix what ain't broke, but you could sure see what there is to make it nicer.

Were it not for the two, we'd never have today,

Sn210 > RMudkips 08/15/2013 at 11:11

1

Your Civic example is perfect and I one I was going to share. In 2005 I swore up and down that you would never catch me in a Civic. In 2008 I bought one new. So the revolution from 7th to 8th gen Civics worked well for me and Honda, but I think we all know how the evolution from the 8th to 9th gen civics went in 2012... They've already evolutioned it again

RMudkips > Sn210 08/15/2013 at 11:12

0

Yup, evolution working in hand with revolution right there. Or rather, evolution working in hand with evolution working in hand with revolution.

How's your Civic?

Sn210 > RMudkips 08/15/2013 at 11:26

1

It's been a great car! 5 years and 61k miles later I've only replaced brake pads, engine oil, cabin filters (DIY), and transmission fluid once. I got it with a manual and I've swapped some SI parts onto it, like the body color grill (sans SI logo) and the rear sway bar. I also put 17" alloys from the crosstour on it, which look surprisingly well. My only complaints are in the "fun" department, but the trade off is 32mpg.

472CID > pauljones 08/15/2013 at 12:35

0

Fortunately there's enough models in the market place for both to occur. For example Jeep wanted to try something completely different with the Cherokee, meanwhile the Wrangler marches on.

I like evolutions of classic shapes/styles, but we need revolutions every once in a while otherwise we'd still be driving horseless carriages.

IFTNFS > pauljones 08/15/2013 at 13:07

0

Neither evolution nor revolution can guarantee success in every situation. Each is an ingredient, along with proper timing, execution and understanding what Customers want and that point in time. Thinking about numerous automotive examples, I can't say there's really any hard and fast rule aside from "What the market demands".

For instance, there are a number of products that have evolved, some very slowly, that lived long and healthy lives such as the beloved Panther-platform Fords, the Ford Ranger, or the Jeep CJ/Wrangler. They remained popular despite very few changes over a 15-20 year period because they performed their respective tasks well, and their Customer base generally preferred a proven, solid design over something that was constantly changing. The same can be said for the Miata or 911 - though they've seen numerous refreshes, the general styling and many attributes of the car remain unchanged because the buyers simply want it that way. Any revolutionary changes, or even the suggestion of them, results in a large outcry from their faithful fan base.

Others, due to market demands, saw large, revolutionary changes - take the Ford Explorer for example. Long a body-on-frame design and the top-selling SUV for a number of years, the latest iteration is based off of the Taurus - a complete flip (pun intended) from its rough-riding, truck-based origins.