In recent threads, IJWS has remarked that the Skoda Octavia has a better boot than the larger Citroën C5, and I've been impressed by the extra space in the Superb compared with the similarly sized and configured Volvo V70.
There was a time in the 1980s when manufacturers made interior space a selling point in smallish cars - the Austin Maestro was particularly impressive in this respect. Stronger structures for crash safety have changed that, but what is this mysterious 'packaging', and how do some makers seem to do it much better than others?
|
alas, the designer of the shape (call them the styling house) and the designers of the practicalities, (call them the usability house) are constantly at war, because they are mutually incompatible, always have been always will be. Sometimes one has political weight, sometimes the other.
Rule is Ugly=practical, pretty=impractical.
Take your examples.
Maestro, really well packaged, Ugly as sin.
Superb, Really practical, rear end hideous.
Multipla, really practical but with looks designed strike you blind.
Take Austin/BL
Never produced a pretty car in their lives, but always practical - that was the philosophy of the company.
Some of course manage to bend the rule a little, take RTJs passat CC, ugly and impractical. ;)
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 12 Nov 11 at 08:54
|
>> Some of course manage to bend the rule a little, take RTJs passat CC, ugly
>> and impractical. ;)
>>
>>
No thanks, he is welcome to it!
;-)
|
>> Rule is Ugly=practical, pretty=impractical.
Unlike Zero, I tend to see shades of grey not just black and white, but in black and white terms he's dead right.
Funny thing is, owners polarise as well - those who can't bring themselves to consider a car that's not at least reasonably suited to its purpose, and those who wouldn't be seen dead in a Multipla, or in a couple of cases I know, any sort of "estate".
Note that there is such a thing as a practical sports car - it's just practical at being a sports car, not carrying furniture. [I've just had this discussion with myself, we're off to see the daughter today - would have given the MX5 a run out, but we promised to take a blanket chest :-( ]
|
|
I was overtaken by a Multipa the other day - Crocs are what came to mind, worthy, comfortable, practical but hideous....not for me.
|
>> I was overtaken by a Multipa the other day - Crocs are what came to
>> mind, worthy, comfortable, practical but hideous....not for me.
>>
Says the man who had a Vroomster, and CRV III. Not that I'd have a problem with any of them.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 12 Nov 11 at 10:44
|
>>>some makers seem to do it much better than others?
But it's not simply a case of doing it better is it. Many folks never use the max space in their cars so designing for other attributes as a priority just offers alternatives that suit many folks better.
|
>> But it's not simply a case of doing it better is it. Many folks never
>> use the max space in their cars so designing for other attributes as a priority
>> just offers alternatives that suit many folks better.
Yes but no but... it's not just other forms of practicality, it's form over function we're talking about.
Of course, an economist would say that for some the appearance is the utility ;-)
|
Of course designers have to fit so much more gubbins within the cars footprint than they used to, not to mention crash structures which Im sure restrict them aswell.
I was cleaning an Audi A4 the other day and I couldnt get over how small it seemed inside given how vast it looked outside, even the boot isnt all that big.
I think the tide is turning though because with so much emphasis on economy, making a car smaller, lighter and more space efficient go hand in hand with bringing down emissions and raising mpg.
I expect if you see what is actually accomplished in deisgn terms, what they do with each new generation is likely to be quite impressive, combining an ever increasing level of tech and parameters into an ever decreasing size of car.
|
>> of tech and parameters into an ever decreasing size of car.
Well that has 50 years of history to overcome then, because for all that time the exterior dimensions of cars have grown exponentially.
|
Current Mazda 2 is shorter than previous model, couple of other models, cant recall without combing thro roadtests, have also got slightly smaller, it was mentioned in the articles.
Also if you actually read what I said, I said tide WAS turning, not HAD turned. the current Ford Ka is excatly the same length as the previous model yet look what they pack into the same footprint.
|
>> But it's not simply a case of doing it better is it. Many folks never
>> use the max space in their cars so designing for other attributes as a priority
>> just offers alternatives that suit many folks better.
>>
Don't think I have ever filled the boot of the C5 even when I took the boys camping in the summer.
Comfort and personal space is more important to me in my car, but Mrs B's car is a different story as it serves a different purpose
|
Packaging: what is it and how's it done? - Zero
