"David Talmage" (davidtalmage) 08/05/2014 at 17:09 • Filed to: None

1

15

Everybody on Jalopnik and Oppositelock seems to love older cars. There's style and a romantic quality about them that many of us don't find in modern cars. Yet, compared to modern cars, the older ones are unsafe. What's stopping the car makers from building modern, safe and affordable cars with the beautiful, romantic body styling we love?

Nibbles > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:12

1

I had a nice spiel written here but realized I can sum it up in one word: Stupidity.

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:13

4

I think today's bulbous car designs are a result of some pedestrian safety regulations which try to mitigate the damage a two ton car will do to a 100-200 sack of flesh in the occurrence of an unscheduled rendezvous.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:13

4

Aerodynamics, cost, and cowardice, but mostly cowardice.

HammerheadFistpunch > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:13

2

this forever. there is no way to make cars a lithe and sexy a they once were...at least for volume makes...but small firms sure can. i hope the small firms eventually get to that point

PS9 > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:13

4

There's too much generalization in this. Lots of classic ugly cars, lots of modern pretty cars and vice-versa.

Biased Plies > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 17:13

2

Unfortunately, many safety regulations detrimentally affect the styling efforts. The higher belt-lines, trunks and hoods are the biggest things [pun not intended] that are due to safety mandates.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager 08/05/2014 at 17:14

4

This is very true. Clearly defined lines have been mitigated "for the children".

norskracer98-ExploringTheOutback > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 08/05/2014 at 17:17

3

Damn the children!! I WANT LINES!!!!!!!!

GhostZ > David Talmage 08/05/2014 at 18:25

3

When it comes to styling, safety is less of a concern than cost . I made a great post a while back (I'll see if I can find it) on a FP article about this.

The long and short of it is, there are two contributing factors to out appearance in a car, the shape of the frame/subframe, and the shape of the body panels.

In case 1, to increase strength of the subframe (making it more safe) you have to do it one of 3 ways:

1. Use a stronger/lighter alloy (This is expensive, and high strength alloys require very precise machining, which may not have been available at the time) this includes carbon fiber or aluminum, which are all stronger per unit of weight than steel. Titanium would be the next step, but is significantly more expensive.

2. Use more metal. This adds weight, but adds frame strength obviously, and that's what they did in the 60s. However,

3. Change the shape to a better design . This is what basically is going on. To maintain safety without adding weight or using expensive material, automakers are limited to only a few basic shapes that have good impact dispersion properties . This means that design-wise, unless you can use a carbon fiber frame, you're still limited to the same basic shapes.

Back in the 60s, the marginal cost of using hand-molded assembly line body panels vs machine ones were incredibly low. Basically, there weren't machines making body panels, and it would have been insanely expensive to do it back then.

But as manufacturing machines got better, we got better at creating body panels. In the interest of cutting costs (and improving other aspects of the vehicles) we started using rolled/formed panels, stamped body panels, and ultimately hydroformed body panels. All of these affect the outer appearance of the car, and that, combined with aerodynamic research, are the reason why 80s cars look a certain way and 90s cars look different: because certain shapes were cheaper to build.

Since manufacturers are all using the same basic machining process (the one who does not ends up with a more expensive, inferior product) they tend to all follow the same trends. The best they can do is slap chrome and unique trim on top of the same shapes, but this is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Good designers are extremely expensive because they have to be able to design something unique and different when no one else can figure it out. By nature they are notoriously difficult. It's much easier to higher a bunch of cheap, average designers who will make sure your car isn't so ugly that it wouldn't sell, rather than pay for the most expensive designers in the world who will ensure that your car looks beautiful, at any cost.

Rico > Biased Plies 08/05/2014 at 21:47

2

The higher belt lines, trunk and hood are what bugs me the most, instead of hitting people in the legs hit them in the chest!

Captain of the Enterprise > GhostZ 08/06/2014 at 10:58

0

I think the issue isn't that new cars aren't as good looking as old cars but rather that old cars have become more special. Older cars are different looking than newer cars and are seem much less frequently so they are more appreciated.

Take a 1974 Duster and see one on the street today and even in beige there is something cool about it, they are time capsules to sometimes better and sometimes worse times but that comes with an inherent desire for them. Plus think of the attachment you had to your first car or one your parents had, that's what makes the older cars great and someday that will apply to the newer cars on the market today.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > HammerheadFistpunch 08/06/2014 at 12:58

1

...and if they're selling in small enough numbers, the regulators leave them largely alone.

HammerheadFistpunch > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 08/06/2014 at 13:00

2

Exactly, Singers are nice and the eagle speedster is sexy as hell, but how about a fresh new design in the spirit of a 250 California or BMW 507, or E-type. Not clones, but low, sleek, with high revving, low torque small displacement v12's or I6. YES!

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > HammerheadFistpunch 08/06/2014 at 13:03

1

Hell yes.

David Talmage > GhostZ 08/07/2014 at 14:04

1

Thank you, GhostZ, for a thoughtful, informative, and well written answer.