I've been pondering this one for a while, and I find it curious that we don't often discuss cars as architectural objects; has to be more interesting than how many times a week to change the oil. So what makes us notice a shape as attractive - or the opposite? And does it affect our feelings as to whether or not we'd want to have one?
Shapes that work
I'll start with one I've had a long time to appreciate, the one I may be about to send down the road: the first generation Volvo S60. It is defined by two linked features: the distinct shoulders at window level that all big Volvos of that period had, and the continuous strong curve that starts at the front indicators and runs the length of the car. Importantly, the curve is higher at the back than at the front; I'll come back to this.
The shape scales well, too; the S40 was essentially the same, although spoiled by a fussy third side window, and the current S80 is no less elegant for its extra size.
For another example, perhaps the most familiar of all: the Golf. The remarkable thing here is how, over 40 years and seven generations, VW has managed to retain one distinctive - although hardly unique - feature, the thick rear pillar, and to keep it unmistakably 'Golf' while changing almost everything else. A current Golf has none of the cheeky angularity of the original, and is nearly twice the size, but we still know immediately what it is.
I think, incidentally, that that continuity contributes to desirability. I could buy a Golf today and be confident that it will still be recognizably a Golf in five years. Ford buyers, for example, don't have that confidence; today's Focus looks nothing like the startlingly original 1998 one - and not much like one from 2012, thanks to the latest And-Now-For-Something-Completely-Different Ford corporate front end.
Shapes that don't
Single curves can go wrong as well as right. Take the Jaguar S-type - please! A single curve the length of the car that ought to give it similar athleticism to the Volvo, only instead of rising, it falls, leaving the car looking as if it's dragging its nether regions on the road. Jaguar realized the mistake and tried to correct it midlife, but they stuck with the fussy, outdated reverse-curves around the rear window and the awful toilet-seat grille for a car that always looked stuck in the past. Jaguar got the design message just in time, with the second XK and the XF.
And one from here that set me thinking about this: the Mazda 6. Someone here described it as a particularly good-looking car, but I think it's a complete mess. It has curves shooting off everywhere and does nothing to disguise its bulk. To me it's a typical product of a maker that designs for world markets without a real feel for any of them; it wants to do something distinctive without any real idea of what that ought to be. It's not quite bad enough to put me off altogether, as the S-type would - but it wouldn't pull me into a showroom on looks alone.
So, how often should you change the oil in a Mazda?
};---)
|
I had one of these in the 80's, same colour too. I thought it looked pretty cool, and bought it purely for the way it looked.
www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C509450
|
|
There have been some I liked, in the same way as I do a Land Rover, but has there ever been a good looking Volvo? I can't bring one to mind since the P whatever it was.
|
|
I quite liked the 480ES. It was different, at a time when the roads seemed to be littered with rubbish like Escorts and Maestros.
|
|
I thought the Mk 1 Elise was a thing of beauty. Later versions much less so, although familiarity may have crept in by then.
|
I had one of these too in the 80's, they still look the biz today IMO: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieONpxAXOMU
|
In a word, Manatee, yes. The 90s V40, the folding-hardtop C70 (compare the proportions of that with the Focus CC that provided the mechanicals, or the Megane) as well as the examples I mentioned.
For the others, I'd like to know what it is that you like about the look of those machines. What is it that makes a good-looking car?
|
>> In a word, Manatee, yes. The 90s V40, the folding-hardtop C70 (compare the proportions of
>> that with the Focus CC that provided the mechanicals, or the Megane) as well as
>> the examples I mentioned.
The 90s V40 does not jar, it's true, but I can't see it as nice looking.
bestsellingcarsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/volvo-v40-sweden-1999.jpg
Similarly I can't see a lot wrong with the shape of the C70, but I had no idea what one looked like - no stand out at all for me.
>>
>> For the others, I'd like to know what it is that you like about the
>> look of those machines. What is it that makes a good-looking car?
I don't think Land Rovers are pretty - but I can see why they are as they are, the designer has followed function even if the execution has sometimes been flawed.
Driving back from Cambridge yesterday evening I made a point of looking out for good-looking cars - I didn't see any except for a Mk2 MX5 - probably why I have one. The hint of a swoop over the wheels front and back that is absent from the other versions is what does it.
Even our Roomster is a more interesting design than most modern cars on the road, which seem to be designed to stay under the radar as much as anything.
goo.gl/fNjy78
The Outlander on the other hand is no looker at all.
|
|
Whilst some cars could, I suppose, be described as attractive when viewed individually the problem is that a mass of painted metal is inherently ugly. No one finds a car park or a road clogged with parked cars attractive whatever the design of the cars. The worst thing about most modern cars from an aesthetic point of view is that they are just too big and out of scale with their surroundings.
|
>> Whilst some cars could, I suppose, be described as attractive when viewed individually the problem
>> is that a mass of painted metal is inherently ugly.
I once saw 200 Ford Capris parked at Brooklands. I can assure you that was, in no way, unattractive.
|
|
Well I suppose you could appreciate the symmetry and design in that but in general a mass of cars in a car park is not attractive whatever vehicles are parked there.
|
>> Whilst some cars could, I suppose, be described as attractive when viewed individually the problem
>> is that a mass of painted metal is inherently ugly.
The contributing factor to that is the general shift towards more metal and less glass. It's difficult to make any car elegant with thick pillars and letterbox windows. Even my 11-year old Saab 9-5 looks light and airy compared with some of the modern monstrosities.
And tinting the glass from the B-pillar back doesn't lighten the effect, whatever your opinion of the drug-dealer look.
|
No one finds a car park or a road clogged with parked cars attractive whatever the design of the cars.
True, but that's about clutter, which is offensive whatever it consists of; handmade suits, Riedel wine glasses - they can all create a mess of just left to pile up.
|
Too many "sporty" cars these days look as though they have been sat upon by a whole row of sumo wrestlers.
Pancake cars, I call 'em.
|
|
True, but the trouble with cars is that they are a lot bigger than wine glasses and the sheer number of them tend to cast a blight on our whole environment making it difficult to appreciate their individual design . I can't think of any view that is enhanced by a car or any vehicle that is more loveley than a tree
|
I'd agree with that, CGN. But there are some that can be appreciated as works of design - I wouldn't go so far as 'art'.
As for Roger: really? Maybe 40 years ago there were the things my mum used to call 'sat-on' cars, but now the pancakes are mostly inside the occupants, which means that the car has to be taller and bulkier than ever.
The car whose purchase I may be about to complete this week is a two-door 'coupé' (more of a saloon, if we're honest) that I wouldn't even have tried to get into 20 years ago. But there's room not only for my head and hooves but for two and even three fair-sized humans with me. I think it's a side-(or top-) effect of cars' increasing length; they've increased in height to maintain the proportions, with beneficial effects on headroom.
|
>> As for Roger: really?
Evoque?
|
There are 2 things I dislike about current car designs.
One is the front end look which I'd describe as "whale with gob open to scoop up plankton" or "car ferry with missing bow doors". That's epitomised in the Mitsubishi ASX.
The other is designs which feature triangles and acute angles all over the place. That's particularly evident in the latest Toyota Aygo.
It's all very personal though, isn't it? In my case, there are only two cars which will turn my head every time - a Lotus 7 and a Nissan Cube. I think function wins over form in both cases.
|
On a wet afternoon a couple of weeks we went to the transport museum here in Austria, one of the gems, amongst the cruddy MIG jet fighters, and various other vehicles and motor cycles, was a Borgward Isabella 2-door saloon in silver. still a handsome car despite being c.60 years old. Not an angle on it, just attractive curves.
Out the back, looking rusty and forlorn, are 3 or 4 MIG fighters from the cold war. I chuckled when I read the notice alongiside them that roughly said "Do you have a plane that you want to get rid of? Call this number". Doesn't everyone have a MIG cluttering up the back garden?
|
Didn't spot any MIGs at a quick glance..... :-)
|
>> Out the back, looking rusty and forlorn, are 3 or 4 MIG fighters from the cold war.
>>
Mention of planes reminded me of seeing a Pitts Special in an exhibition at the Design Museum. I found it rather beautiful, and curvy with it. It was a bit like a child's toy, not that there's anything wrong with that to my eyes. I was amazed at how small it was. It was positioned next to an original Mini, which rather emphasised that aspect.
|
|
To be obtuse, I'm much more interested in the interiors of cars than their exterior designs. Cars which make you feel cosseted, where the seats are just so, the controls fall naturally to hand, the steering wheel feels blissfully comfortable, the sound system can cope with the highest operatic top notes as nonchalantly as it does with Nickleback on max. An unstressed ability to waft rapidly in splendid isolation from the outside world. Does the rear wing kick up or down? Who cares? Does the car release you after 400 miles feeling like you could easily do it all again after a cup of tea? That matters to me.
|
|
This is where the Saab excels, particularly in the top spec of the Aero - the ventilated leather seats with fan cooling are particularly invaluable in the summer.
|
This is such a personal thing, and is also highly complex. However, if I had to generalise, I would say simple designs generally work better than fussier ones.
A classic example:
www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/9_mini_3.jpg
Still looks absolutely brilliant to my eyes. Simple, clean design which still works nearly 60 years after it was first penned.
As does (at the other end of the price spectrum):
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Ferrari_F355_Coup%C3%A9.jpg
Elegantly styled cooling ducts for the mid mounted engine and rear brakes, the simple central crease that lines up with the bumpers, and not a single bit of bolt on tat or LED christmas tree lighting in sight. Clean, elegant, beautiful.
Contrast this approach with BMW's hideous new 3.0 CSL Batmobile concept.
static.stuff.co.nz/files/CSL-2.jpg
Fussy and nasty to my eyes.
|
The combination of shapes and transport leads me to this rather lovely page. I'm sure it all could go into production right now. These are from 1936.
imgur.com/a/6X4Mr/
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 29 May 15 at 09:47
|
>> The combination of shapes and transport leads me to this rather lovely page. I'm sure
>> it all could go into production right now. These are from 1936.
>>
>> imgur.com/a/6X4Mr/
That first one became the Fiat 600 Multipla.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_600 (scroll down)
|
"That first one became the Fiat 600 Multipla."
Or the ball-barrow! Who's going to tell James Dyson that the Chinese thought of it first - or was it German?
|
Who could disagree on the BMW batmobile, if older than 14? Yet I think BMW designs have worked well enough over the years - I can't think of a 5 series I didn't think looked both balanced and immediately recognisable. I dare say the concept will be toned down by about 90% if it ever emerges as a production model.
If we are looking at historic designs then I find it hard to ignore Jaguar. Trite but true to say the E-type is a classic but I also love the XK120, Mk1 saloon, and the Mk2/240/340 - less so the stopgap 1960s S type which unusually for a Jaguar never looked "right" to me as a junior car spotter.
The swage line of the 1990s S type echoing the waistline and teardrop shape of the Mk2 doesn't work for WdB but it did for me. Without it, and the "face" that WdB also dislikes, it would have been an "OK" shape but nothing special - a Volvo maybe!
Did the 2004 Callum makeover improve it for you WdB? It was a clever piece of work I think - less retro/pastiche but still with a distinct appearance.
|
I enjoyed seeing the Mk1 Jaguar pop up in Endeavour (the Morse 'prequel') and had forgotten how subtle and effective were the changes that turned it into the Mk2. The efforts to recapture the design in the more recent models are a failure, IMO.
The last BMW I liked was the 2002...
|
...2004 Callum makeover...
...helped a bit but only by raising the boot line a little and putting the lights at the top to try to create a more athletic impression. But there's still the feature crease on the doors that is lower at the back than the front, and the reverse curve around the rear window is stuck in the 1960s.
It all seemed so cynical; Inspector Morse was at the height of its popularity and Jaguar was trying to cash in on the association. But it was too expensive for the Mail- and Telegraph-reading middlebrows* (who bought Rover 75s instead, not that it did Rover any good) while those with the funds could have a BMW 530i instead - a truly modern car, even if the wipers did point the wrong way. I suspect Jaguar would have sunk if Callum hadn't updated its design language just in time with the XK and the XF.
*Full disclosure:Morse has been part of our cultural life too. We even named our cat Lewis after his habit of being sociable but slow on the uptake.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 29 May 15 at 16:48
|
"Borgward Isabella"
How could a car not be attractive with a name like that? I do just about remember them, too.
On a slightly tangential note, did Ford buy Aston-Martin just to pinch the grille shape? It seems to be appearing on everything they make (as Ford tends to do with a design idea) including a hideous fat, black version on the Transit! Because I associate the shape with Aston-Martin, I think it looks plain silly on the Fiesta, and making it ubiquitous probably doesn't help the sales of A-M's either...
|
>> There are 2 things I dislike about current car designs.
>>
>> One is the front end look which I'd describe as "whale with gob open to
>> scoop up plankton" or "car ferry with missing bow doors". That's epitomised in the Mitsubishi
>> ASX.
>>
The new Audi corporate nose could well be described as "whale with gob open". Not attractive.
|
|
While I'm wittering, I caught 5 minutes of a car restoration programme yesterday, featuring a Fiat 850 Spider that looked gorgeous. Mr Bertone takes the credit, I think.
|
I think the S-type is particularly attractive, actually.
I think the back end of my Accord estate is as ugly as hell. But I don't have to sit behind it, and the car passes the Humph 400 mile test.
|
This page has some relevance to the discussion:
www.bloomberg.com/ss/09/10/1028_50_ugliest_cars_of_past_50_years/1.htm
There are two or three vehicles I rather like on there, apart from the Nissan Cube.
|
>> This page has some relevance to the discussion:
>>
>> www.bloomberg.com/ss/09/10/1028_50_ugliest_cars_of_past_50_years/1.htm
Some nice looking cars there. The Wartburg was horrid but looked OK for 1965.
Nothing wrong to my eye with the Volvo 245, Citroen BX, Fiat Multipla, or Roomster (obviously).
|
"The Wartburg was horrid"
I beg to differ. The estate, in particular, was roomy and comfortable, and the whole car was designed for ease of maintenance. It was extremely tough (ladder chassis) and was fun to drive once you got used to its 2-stroke idiosyncrasies, like the free-wheel (immortalised in our house by the then Mrs JBJ's remark, "which one's that then?").
The earlier model 311 was prettier, though..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartburg_(car)#/media/File:1._Magdeburger_Oldtimertag_(5743550733).jpg
|
>> "The Wartburg was horrid"
>>
>> I beg to differ.
Happy to be corrected. I was just recalling the acrid smell of burnt oil. My Dad nearly bought one - I was seriously relieved when he went for a Vauxhall Viva.
Those freewheels were fun, up to a point. In about 1983 I bought a second hand Saab 96 for the boss. It was a V4 4 stroke, but still had the freewheel as a hangover from the 2 stroke days.She loved it, but I banned her from touching the freewheel handle after trying it one day and frightening myself down a long hill.
|
I concede that the free-wheel was a mixed blessing. It was necessary on a two-stroke, which could run out of lubrication on the overrun (the oil being in the fuel) but it made extra work for the brakes, which were drums all round on the Wartburg!
The exhaust smelt much nicer if you added a bit of castor oil (=Castrol R)...
|
Some real horrors there, but not Manatee's four - nor the Twingo, which (like the Roomster) can plead form-follows-function, like a lot of jolie-laide French designs - the BX for one. The Matra Rancho isn't that bad either, although it's the grandaddy of all those mouth-and-trousers soft-roaders that blight our towns today. Leave out the Zastava too, which was a hacked-about Fiat 128 - and the 128 always looked very neat and well-proportioned to me.
Those could vacate a space for the Mini Clubman (especially in brown and silver, like the one my former neighbours had) or the BMW X6, or the Cayenne - or indeed the S-type. All of those owe their ugliness to designers' whims rather than to anything functional, and they deserve extra opprobrium for that.
|
>> the 128 always looked very neat and well-proportioned to me.
And like most small Fiats was willing, with that chunky feel to the controls.
Did a lot of miles in a crap-green one in Algeria, up an endless hill in searing heat, the damn thing stopped with some sort of fuel-lock condition, everything evaporating under the bonnet in the heat. Lots of disassembly of the fuel line, removal of sand from everywhere, blowing and sucking on tubes, tickling the hand pump thing to get a squirt of raw petrol, people standing around smoking the while. An uncomfortable afternoon, many hours to go until beer in the evening. Tsk.
|
New shape Twingo looks awful in production form but has a classic at its heart. The first Twingo looked good too and was practical.
Saw a Skoda, smallish chunky thing, outside Sainsbury's today. Immaculate in my favourite colour, grey, with my favourite decor, all brightwork in shiny black including the alloy wheels. The thing looked absolutely wonderful to my eye, perhaps too immaculate and perfect to carry real conviction. But then I was always a slob and cars look better with a bit of patina.
|
>> >> the 128 always looked very neat and well-proportioned to me.
>>
>> And like most small Fiats was willing, with that chunky feel to the controls.
>>
You never owned one did you ?
The plastic clips the seat belts hung on at shoulder level on the B-pillars which broke in no time at all.
The cheap and nasty seat releases (I often heard referred to as bar steward metal) in the seat bases to tip the front seats forwards that snapped if you did not eat a Mediterranean diet and weighed more than 8 stones.
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 29 May 15 at 23:06
|
|
Agree entirely about the X6 - it's hideous!
|
After that 50 list, I am now questioning my own tastes, as I actually like a lot of stuff on there.
The Volvo 240 is a classic big estate car. Nothing offensive or ugly about it. I've always liked the Rancho, and considered the Subaru Brat one of the most distinctive pick ups of all time.
As an 80s kid, and perhaps influenced by the Back to the Future link, I think the DeLorean looks great (even if the drive sucked by all accounts). The BX, Twingo and the RAV4 are also good looking cars in my opinion.
The Prowler's driving experience was apparently lousy, but the styling I thought was amazing, and as for the latest Beetle, I think it finally nails the modern retro look it was aiming for to begin with. In that metallic brown colour with the 60s aping chrome wheel trims, it looks brilliant to my eyes.
I clearly need a sight test :) Although the 70s and 80s American flotsam on that list was depressing enough.
Last edited by: DP on Sat 30 May 15 at 11:15
|
>> The Prowler's driving experience was apparently lousy, but the styling I thought was amazing ...
I agree about the styling, the more so when I saw it from all angles on this page:
www.boldride.com/ride/1999/plymouth-prowler#gallery/5
I really like the Subaru Brat too.
|
>> I think the S-type is particularly attractive, actually.
The 1990s one?
Maybe the 1960s S type wasn't that bad by the standards of other cars of the time, but it had a Mk2-like front and a Mk X-like boot, that seemed just a bit too long.
Jaguar in the old days seemed to have a knack of getting designs to look right. The S type jarred. I was 10 or so, and my favourite Corgi toy was a Mark X (jewelled headlamps, opening bonnet and boot). Lost in a house move around that time - £135 on ebay now.
goo.gl/oHz1BS
|
|
Beam rear axle 3.4 or 3.8 was a great car but tail-happy. The S Type had a Mk X-like rear end, and indeed Mk X type irs. Uglier and less sporting than proper Jaguars of the day.
|
>>S-type
Yes. The bonnet was so beautiful you could have put anything at the back!
|
|
My Dublin uncle had a MkVII, manual I think, for many years, a capacious luxurious old bus. Eventually swopped it for a Mk X through his fellow Dublin businessman in the car business. The Mk X wasn't nearly as good, big and wallowy, harder to manoeuvre in tight places, with auto transmission. Things kept going wrong with it.
|
>> >>S-type
>>
>> Yes. The bonnet was so beautiful you could have put anything at the back!
>>
Sounds like Alfa Romeo, the designers get bored at the B-pillar and the cleaner finishes the design off.
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 29 May 15 at 23:08
|
Humph is noticeable by his absence in defending the svelte lines of the undertakers express.
I suppose sows ear and all that ;-) He knows the limitations of the Xerox menders wagon of choice.
|
Even I wouldn't describe my car as pretty. Purposeful in appearance maybe but certainly no beauty queen. Love it though. One of those cars which seems to add up to a lot more than the sum of its parts.
Tangentially, I think a lot of Seats look like Hitler and some Skodas look like Alan Carr. Most cars designed on the Pacific rim jar with me in styling terms. European designs seem so much more "together" somehow. Selective perception on my part no doubt.
|
Shapes that work, shapes that don't - Dog
