Vox's car design video gets it spectacularly wrong

"AMC/Renauledge" (n2skylark) 12/14/2016 at 17:40 • Filed to: None

30

43

It looks like the folks at Vox.com have a new video up about the history of car design. And it’s wrong about, or oversimplifies, almost everything. Including the years of the vehicles in its opening graphic.

European cars, especially those penned by Italian designers, led the way to boxiness starting in the mid-1960s in an effort to modernize their holdovers from the postwar rationing era. Cars like the Volvo 140-Series, Fiat 124 sedan, and Lancia 2000 were major early examples of this extremely square trend. By 1971, you had flat Italian wedge designs like the Countach and Stratos concepts wowing the auto industry from Wolfsburg to Tokyo.

1975 AMC Pacer, designed at the same time as the Euro Golf. Hardly a flat, straight line in sight.

At the same time, Americans were having a love affair with the curve. The 1968-82 C3 Corvette reached peak curviness. Chrysler launched their curvy “fuselage” cars in 1969. The 1975 AMC Pacer was widely derided as too bubbly in an era of square VW Golf/Rabbits, Fiat 131s, and Volvo 140s. And countless other examples of Detroit Iron were proudly sporting “Coke-bottle” sheetmetal as the ‘70s began.

Straight lines! They’re everywhere on the Euro car!

The real reason American cars switched to square shapes in the mid ‘70s was to follow European fashions as imported car sales grew in the US. An example would be Ford’s curvy Maverick (below), which was supposed to be replaced by the boxy Granada. The Granada even sprouted “ESS” trim, which stood for “European Sport Sedan,” and featured ads comparing it to the very European, and boxy, Mercedes-Benz S-Class and SLC.

The 1969-77 Maverick started out curvy...

After the Energy Crisis of 1973-74, American manufacturers also used square designs to provide maximum interior space so they could downsize their big, curvy cars into the smallest, lightest possible packages without sacrificing interior space. Anybody who’s admired Volvo’s old boxy Swedish designs can tell you that this concept pays dividends because you can fit more in a square than a circle with the same diameter.

...then Ford turned it into the 1975-80 Granada, which was pitched as a Euro S-Class lookalike.

American cars went boxy in the ‘70s as their first steps at becoming more efficient. By the ‘80s, almost every car - foreign or domestic - was boxy. So the better designers began to distinguish their new designs with curves again, and could afford to do so as gas prices worldwide began to ease. Aerodynamic research also improved, but that didn’t have nearly as much effect on improved efficiency as lightweighting and improved engine design and technology. It also isn’t true that streamlining a car body is cheaper than making an engine more efficient. Car bodies cost far more to design, engineer, and tool for than engines do. And that’s always been true.

Vehicle styling, much like clothing design, goes in cycles and trends. And there’s never been a clear “Euro = curvy, US = boxy” delineation. Or even “curvier = more efficient.” We see cars go from curvy to boxy, back to curvy and back to boxy again. Look no further than the C-body Chrysler New Yorker vs. the Chrysler LHS vs. the Chrysler 300.

All the curves.

What bothers me about the Vox article isn’t as much the history it gets wrong, but the presumption that European designers knew more and were more sensible in their vehicle designs all along, and that American designs were always dull, clumsy, and excessive. And Vox attempts to couch this European superiority vs. American excess in terms of curvy vs. boxy. It’s just not true, though. Not in terms of car styling, anyway.

Boxy but good. And definitely European.

What’s worse is they call the boxy car in their opening graphic a 1977 LeBaron. It’s actually a 1980-81 LeBaron. The 1977-79 had a curvier roofline! And Dodge didn’t even make the Neon for 1993. It came out in mid-1994 as a ‘95 model!

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 17:42

11

Vox oversimplify? Never.

Jcarr > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 18:16

6

Vox gets [insert anything here] wrong.

Shocking.

RT > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 18:23

2

The Ford Taurus needs to get off its high horse.

http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/curbside-classic-1983-1991-audi-5000100-c3-a-picturebook-story-of-the-very-model-of-the-modern-car/

N.Guise > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 18:26

12

Not to mention the advancements in materials, manufacturing, and design.

Think how much more complex designs could become as CAD developed. Simulated Airflow dynamics modeling has been able to produce incremental design changes, long before they were even prototyped.

Manufacturing techniques have also allowed for more complex design and compound curves to be produced much more affordably. Platform sharing has gone from simply sticking a different grille insert and badge on each car to entirely different vehicles (Honda Element and Civic for instance).

Material advancements, like urethane bumpers/body panels and composites are now mainstream, also allowing for more affordable “curves” and easier to manufacture components.

Incidentally, the current”Boxy” Chrysler 300 has a drag coefficient of 0.32. A “curvy” 96 Concorde was .31. It’s not the amount of curves, it’s how you use them.

LongbowMkII > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 18:26

1

I want to commend your comment On tavarish’s ‘article’ today, can’t reply on jalopnik, but here I can!

Good jorb.

AMC/Renauledge > LongbowMkII 12/14/2016 at 18:28

0

Thernksh!

AMC/Renauledge > N.Guise 12/14/2016 at 18:29

3

Absolutely. 100% THIS.

Phatboyphil > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 18:33

24

But if no one oversimplifies these things, how am I suppose to be a smug psuedo-intellectual asshole to everyone?

AMC/Renauledge > Phatboyphil 12/14/2016 at 18:40

4

Yeah, everyone is susceptible to biases like that. I happen to like a lot of what Vox does, but it seems to me that they should stay in their wheelhouse on issues like this.

Berang > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 19:21

2

I made fun of the gloopy styling of 90s cars a lot in a post on here a while back, but I still have no idea what lead to the trend other than that 80s cars were mostly very angular and it probably seemed like a good idea for making cars look modern at the time.

Cars don’t necessarily have to be soft and gloopy looking to be aerodynamic either, although more than like most of those 70s and 80s American cars probably had ridiculous drag. I remember reading in some ages old magazine that Peugeot (or maybe Fiat?) had been one of the first to use computers to figure out how to make a boxy three box style body aerodynamic.

Jag > N.Guise 12/14/2016 at 19:41

4

The economics of manufacturing techniques influences so much of all aesthetic designs more than most people know. Some Engineers know, and most industrial designers know, but most others don’t.

N.Guise > Jag 12/14/2016 at 19:49

1

Yeah, I’m an Industrial Designer myself.

Otto-the-Croatian-'Whoops my Volvo is a sedan' > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 20:20

2

A great read. This should be on the FP.

I know Vox tends to be a tiny bit very biased, but there’s no denying that their videos look amazing. I could watch all that shit for days. The transitions and all the textures and overall style of animation is just wonderful. I love it.

They do tend to rush their fact-checking tho...

Hot Takes Salesman > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 20:42

2

Vox is a garbage website and I hope that five years from now it is fully and totally contained within the noxious dumpster of internet history.

jimz > LongbowMkII 12/14/2016 at 20:49

0

what a bunch of petty assholes.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 21:02

8

To be fair, this is from the same magazine that posted this article:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Top quality reporting there, TOP quality...  

LongbowMkII > jimz 12/14/2016 at 21:18

0

It’s kind of funny. PG is mad at the drive for taking jalopnik content, mildly changing it and reposting it. Because jalopnik would never do such a thing.

Mike > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 21:54

3

Vox oversimplifying something something for their pseudo-intellectual audience to throw around in an effort to look smart? I’d never have guessed!

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > AMC/Renauledge 12/14/2016 at 22:43

5

The moment the narrator says “Porsh” you know where this video is going.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 09:11

1

A Vox explainer gets nearly everything wrong, engages in a set of unwarranted and witless smuggeries, and somehow ends up less than useless? Impossible. Next you’ll tell me that somebody at Vox alleged there was a bridge between the West Bank and Gaza. Oh wait, they did that.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 12/15/2016 at 09:13

1

FUCKING THIS. Hai guiz we just noticed that the series has war in the title so we’re going to pull something out of our ass to make that seem like a Cool Fact.

BrownManualWagon > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 14:14

10

Torch sent me.

James May is my spirit animal > Phatboyphil 12/15/2016 at 14:16

1

When you’ve been out there as long as I have, you learn to play the game. Oh, I’d be out there, laying my rap. I’d have girls literally thinking I was an astronomer. I’d be pointing out constellations and harvest moons. “Oh, there’s Pluto!”

Then they’d start to fact check you with the Internet. Google singlehandedly cut into my ability to bullshit.

Cramping your style?

Big time.

Making you a better person?

True.

*****Video only to show what movie the quote came from. Not the actual scene. *****

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 14:20

14

One of my professors used to say something along the lines of, “Whenever I hear politicians and reporters talk about issues I’m an expert in, it astounds me how much they get wrong and don’t understand. And what scares me the most is everything else that I’m not an expert in that I take their word for.”

AMC/Renauledge > BrownManualWagon 12/15/2016 at 14:21

1

Welcome! Feel free to post a boxy Euro car and/or a curvy American car if you like.

Country Mac's Ocular Patdown > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 14:25

3

Either you had the same excellent comment on FB or someone stole your post verbatim to slam the Vox video. Either way, good shit.

BrownManualWagon > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 14:29

6

The very European and totally curvy NSU Proletariat (shhh, it’s a 1975 Oldsmobile Starfire).

AMC/Renauledge > Country Mac's Ocular Patdown 12/15/2016 at 14:29

2

That was me. :)

cream wobbly > AMC/Renauledge 12/15/2016 at 14:50

3

What bothers me about the Vox article isn’t as much the history it gets wrong, but the presumption that European designers knew more and were more sensible in their vehicle designs all along, and that American designs were always dull, clumsy, and excessive.

Okay, curves/angles aside. They might be incorrect in their reasoning, but the presumption is correct. American designers have always always looked to Italy for inspiration. The pinnacle of American car design, the original Mustang, is copped from Italian styling cues. And clearly, looking around the field here, the fact that it hangs together at all is more by luck than design.

The first Corvette isn’t so much a beautiful car as it is striking in its designer’s audacity, aping Italian design. The second gen Stingray was a fucking mess of ugly, not least the way it draws your eye to the split (or not) fishbowl. (I hate fishbowls.)

The oh what’s the point? If you can’t appreciate fluid expressions of nimbleness in car design cues, then you’re missing something.

But you taught me something—I never realized that whole “fuselage” thing was a thing. That’s exactly what’s wrong with all those cars where the wheels and arches look like afterthoughts because they are . I want to take a rolled-up newspaper to all the designers who pushed that mode of wrongthinking and swat them telling them “Cars! They have wheels! Start with the wheels! ”

The evidence is in all the European cars that were made lumpish and parts-binnish when they were brought to the US (but! some didn’t get that treatment, like that Merc up there), and the US designed cars that had to be trimmed up and facelifted for the European market to make them look like cars rather than a crappy cockpit-without-wings.

I mean, how do you explain this, if not for the fact that American car designers are shit? This isn’t about curves and straight lines. This is about ugly and elegant.

AMC/Renauledge > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 15:04

22

1. Literally everybody has always looked to Italy for design inspiration. Whether you’re talking about Hyundai or Volvo or Isuzu or Ford.

2. Why do you assume I don’t appreciate fluid design? Where did I say or even imply that?

3. Sergio Pininfarina (Italian), Raymond Loewy (French), and Sir William Lyons (British) all considered the 1963-65 Buick Riviera the pinnacle of car design.

4. Are you honestly suggesting that the Vauxhall Chevette is an elegant design? Do you know that a big part of the reason the two cars look different is because of US government regulations that necessitated different bumpers and lights? Did you consider that the US Chevette’s larger standard engines needed the additional cooling the open grille provided? Would you like me to show you a US Chevette with the same level of trim as the Vauxhall?

5. If you want to compare Chevettes, which I find bizarre, why don’t you also consider the Morris Ital? Observe the clean European lines improved by Italian pens! What style! What grace! What cleanliness!

cream wobbly > Phatboyphil 12/15/2016 at 15:09

3

You’re right, this is oversimplification. There’s no boxy vs curvy, except along a timeline. Which they’ve messed up to fit the incorrect point they’re making.

There is an ugly vs. elegant angle to the same story, and that’s where I think simplification can be useful. Not to be smug, pseudo-intellectual, or assholish to anyone, but just as a point of fact in industrial design: American car design focuses on cheapness, slapping nasty pieces onto an upscale car, or overdressing an econobox. European car design tends to (but not always) keep the target market in mind, and fit the vehicle up appropriately. This is why we get the enormous ugly grille on a Sonic or a Chevette, but their counterparts in the UK have much more appropriate grilles for the pricepoint and target market of the vehicle concerned.

To be smug, pseudo-intellectual, and assholish to you (after all, I’m English by birth so I have the requisite snootiness, and American by choice so I have the brashness to express myself), this likely precipitates from the lack of a class system in the US. European countries were pretty much founded on feudal societies with strong class divisions. The US has never had that (but there’s a semblance of it in systemic racism). Once that’s recognized, American car design starts to make a lot more sense.

LeftHook > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 15:23

7

you lost me when you said the C2 was ugly.

HOW DARE YOU, SIR.

cream wobbly > LeftHook 12/15/2016 at 19:28

0

No, I’m not saying it’s ugly. I’m saying it’s an utter bloody travesty. I mean, ignoring the fake-woodie sides for just long enough to glance at that schnozz, just what? what?

Edit: Oh, sorry, I confused the US Chevette with the second generation Corvette. I thought you were saying “C2” in reference to the images I’d posed. Oh well. Easy mistake to make.

So... that aside, I’ll edit again in a few moments to add my thoughts on that ... thing.

LeftHook > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 19:37

0

you will never convince me that this is not the most beautiful American car ever designed.

cream wobbly > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 19:47

0

What would’ve been edit 2: Okay, let’s see.

Front wings: what? Why are they peaked like that over the wheels?

Nose area: it’s all    Why? The original was grounded. This one is all “oh shit the ground is waaaay down there!” Headlights: an afterthought. Obviously. Grille: ,  , hiding behind the chrome.

Vent fakery:a long American tradition of bullshitting

Rear wings: what? Wheels aren’t that shape underneath! Are they... wait... I think the front and rear wings are trying to evoke an outboard mudguard look... in a full-width chisel-shape.

Squared-off wheel arches: what are you, a Jeep?

For the convertible: the boot lid is alright. It’s enough Jag to be considered right.

For the hard-ish top roof and fishbowl: It looks fantastic from the top. Really. It’s a real shame that those lines translate to a clumsy |_| in side elevation. In 3/4 view, especially in black, the rear section looks like a miner with his donkey jacket collar turned up, head down, black woolly hat jammed down, shoulders hunched against the cold.

The round inset rear lights: Oh we couldn’t be bothered to put proper turn indicators on because it can’t go round corners . No surround, just cheap as hell. And round, because y’know all those other design cues we nicked off the Italians? folds, vents, humps, bloaty-window, pointy front ... We couldn’t decide which to use, so we added yet another one .

The chisel fold all the way around: just emphasises how ugly the tacked-on design elements are in this arrangement.

The individual design elements are fine. They are worthwhile. But they just do not belong together. It’s a platypus of a car.

LongbowMkII > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 20:04

6

This feels like bait.

Mr.FightRaceRock > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 12/15/2016 at 21:25

0

I like vox. I really do. But their slogan really should be Oversimplify the news

LeftHook > cream wobbly 12/15/2016 at 22:05

0

schererna > cream wobbly 12/16/2016 at 10:27

1

I think those are both kind of ugly.

Under_Score > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 12/16/2016 at 17:58

0

Vox thought Trump was gonna lose too.

Under_Score > Hot Takes Salesman 12/16/2016 at 18:00

1

Like Gawker

cream wobbly > schererna 12/16/2016 at 18:32

0

Fair enough. But one is consistently ugly, and comes up clean. The Chevy version is ludicriously overworked on the front and sides, but the rest is untouched.

AMC/Renauledge > cream wobbly 12/16/2016 at 20:38

1

Two can play at this game. Here’s an overwrought Vauxhall Chevette.

Most US Chevettes had much cleaner styling, too. But thanks for taking an optional outmoded styling fad and painting a whole country’s car designs with that brush.

Here’s the Opel version of the same car. It’s no more restrained than the Chevy version. Now if you don’t mind, I’ll be over here pondering the Vanden Plas 1500/1750 with “that look of distinction.” What a clean-lined European car this is!