Car proportions

[nota]

EDIT: the suspension on that bottom Volvo is suspiciously well-sprung. methinks it might have just been publicity

Hint: The point was not about Volvo suspension, but that 'skinny' pillars need not be weak pillars. And yes that guy was there to publically demonstrate that the doors could still be easily opened & closed


Btw my W126 Mercedes S-Class is over well over 20 years old, the model itself debuted in 1979. But the vision is fantastic compared to the cocoon-like experience inside my mate's current-shape Falcon. The Merc doesn't feel like a safety compromise despite the thin pillars (or curb weight of under 1600 kg) and I suspect it would still fare better as regards roof-crush or head-on impact than any Falcon yet built

Speaking of clever publicity, you're probably too young to remember this ..
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1428174512

[Fiorano]

funny enough about safety and such, when some would say that prototypes (LMP cars) and Formuals cars crash and roll over defense for the occupant is quite exacting and extreme- similar tech was used to build the Enzo, and Carrera GT, and these have odd proportions as well. It appears the trend for bloat, is simply design- and an Anime cartoon ish quality to the look of cars.
The gold could easily be smaller than the new type, even the Civic can be smaller, but a lot of bitchin and moaning goes on for interior space and such..
the original Miata MX-5 has sold 2 million cars- those proportions seemed right and classic and it survived crash test, even if it it "diminutive"
design is getting silly for the most part, flowing carved out bars of soap is more the fashion than a drivers car with real style (exceptions exist of course but in general the appliances most companies manufacture is appaling.)

[Ingolstadt]

Well, the thing is, you have to produce something better than your competitors, hence a few mm gain in either direction, directly affects interior space. Well, it's a saddened fact as well, Gordon Murray did mentioned bout the alarming growth of modern vehicles.

But there are some good cars (thou bulky in appearance) that saves weight while they grow, without sacrificing safety. Take Toyota Altis for example, weighing in at a mere 1050kg, reasonably comfy, and good crash results.

[henk4]

the problem is that adding weight to cars will result in other cars having to have better safety protection, adding more weight etc etc....and when we have to deal with idiot designs like SUVs and truck as the determining factor what happens in a crash, the trend for heavier vehicles can be easily explained.

In my car the A-pillar is already so large that is difficult to spot cyclists and cars coming from the left side...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Hint: The point was not about Volvo suspension, but that 'skinny' pillars need not be weak pillars. And yes that guy was there to publically demonstrate that the doors could still be easily opened & closed


Btw my W126 Mercedes S-Class is over well over 20 years old, the model itself debuted in 1979. But the vision is fantastic compared to the cocoon-like experience inside my mate's current-shape Falcon. The Merc doesn't feel like a safety compromise despite the thin pillars (or curb weight of under 1600 kg) and I suspect it would still fare better as regards roof-crush or head-on impact than any Falcon yet built

Speaking of clever publicity, you're probably too young to remember this ..
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1428174512

Very effective video - i've seen print ads from within the past 10 years with a similar story to tell - only this time with an A-Class.

I think having good outside vision is the best active safety system any car can have. but these days cars are designed to be driven by suing morons, and as such need to keep the inside as safe as possible. stuff the outside world.

my E30 has fantastic vision, the Jeep ditto, and as such i can see whats going on around me and react accordingly. however not all of us are as talented at driving as me

[john14]

Originally Posted by Ferrer
I remember seing (I'm afraid I don't know where I found it) a picture with the profile of the current Civic and the one three generations before, one after the other, and the difference was painful...

Ferrer, I agree with you comment. I have a 1982 Honda Civic and in my opinion, the proportions of the car are much better than the proportions of the "newer" Honda Civic's. The last two generations of Civic's just don't look as good as the Civic's built in the early 1980's. Simply, they are too large and fat to be a small car.

However, I am very biased because because I love old Honda's, especially my old Civic.

[Ferrer]

Not only the Civic, but on recently published spy pics of the Fiat Bravo, the car was parked next to a BMW 3-series E46. The BMW almost looked like a scale car...

[jcp123]

Mostly, I'm not into the blocky fronts of newer cars, a la Chrysler 300c and the new Rolls Royces. I'm also not a fan of forward rake, except in certain instances.

What I do like is the high beltline/low roof look, it recalls the bathtub styling of cars like the Hudson Hornet and the its contemporary, the '49-'51 Mercury.

[henk4]

What I do like is the high beltline/low roof look, it recalls the bathtub styling of cars like the Hudson Hornet and the its contemporary, the '49-'51 Mercury.

that was more a matter of a low roof, the cars ran on simple 15 inch rims, which don't look out of proportion.