The Zombie-Mobile: Car brands no longer reflect differentiation
medium.com
medium.com
I would argue that Honda started the category with the CR-V. Front-wheel drive, unibody construction, emphasis on utility for a typical family, yet has the high driving position of a SUV. They have sold millions of them.
Also, while the author mentions aerodynamics, the one thing that is driving cars to uniformity these days is legislation. Both the European pedestrian safety standard, and the soon-to-be-draconian US CAFE fuel-economy requirements.
"The hood of most vehicles is usually fabricated from sheet metal, which is a compliant energy absorbing structure and thus poses a comparatively small threat. Most serious head injuries occur when there is insufficient clearance between the hood and the stiff underlying engine components. A gap of approximately 10 cm is usually enough to allow the pedestrian’s head to have a controlled deceleration and a significantly reduced risk of death[3]. Creating room under the hood is not always easy because usually there are other design constraints, such as aerodynamics and styling. In some regions of the hood it can be impossible. These include along the edges on which the hood is mounted and the cowl, where the hood meets the windshield. Engineers have attempted to overcome this problem by using deformable mounts, and by developing more ambitious solutions such as airbags that are activated during the crash and cover the stiff regions of the hood[4]. Some models, like the Citroën C6 and Jaguar XK feature a novel pop-up bonnet design, which adds 6.5 cm (2.5", C6) extra clearance over the engine block if the bumper senses a hit. In 2012 and 2015, the Volvo V40 and the Land Rover Discovery Sport have a under-the hood airbag with operates if the hood senses a hit. The airbag also covers the windshield pillars to provide better protection in all areas struck by the pedestrian's head." there's a great wikipedia article about it.[1]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_safety_through_vehi...
A car like the mid-70's Aston Martin Lagonda with it's knife-edge grill will never be built again.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Aston_Ma...
You want differentiation? Every Subaru (save one) has AWD, and one of the best AWD systems on the market at that. Subaru never really sold cars on the basis of looking cool (save that same one).
As for the wind tunnel- that's a smart connection. A large amount of the stylistic similarity can be traced to the wind tunnel. But that is because we are slave to wind resistance, and the optimal shapes for fuel efficiency are pretty well known.
Statements like this:
The wind tunnel’s usefulness has been perverted to legitimize the destruction of progress.
I cannot even figure out how to parse. The wind tunnel is now an excuse to gain fuel efficiency and avoid progress, where "progress" means "striking bodystyles"?
Or:
Wiedeking’s use of the word “fickle” is telling. To translate, “People with taste are picky. The only way to make money is by satisfying those who can’t discern quality.”
Wiedeking's problem with the sports car market is it fluctuates wildly no matter how good a car you make. It is the canary in the coal mine that is the greater car market.
Point in case: the Citroen AX has a drag coefficient of 0.31, which apparently is the same as for a Porsche 997 Turbo. The AX looks like a box on wheels.
We aren't the slaves of the wind tunnel, as in that case we'd probably have some pretty mad shapes driving around, but slaves of wanting to look, well, the same as everyone else, to avoid any risk. But this is more a feature of entrenchment in the car industry than anything else. There is really no incentive for the big OEMs to do anything risky.
Put all these things together, and the basic shape is that of an enlarged classic mini cooper. Then put this somewhat large, somewhat tall vehicle in a wind tunnel and sculpt it for efficiency, and you arrive at today's crossover.
You're right that aerodynamics does not leave us with only one possible body. We still have sports cars, vans, sedans, etc, each with a basic shape dictated by basic goals. But drag sculpts the shapes that go into the wind tunnels in generally uniform ways, because the wind treats a Dodge the same as a Ford.
As do safety regulations and testing bodies. Hence the same high belt and hoodline, same lack or rearward visibility, same super-thick A-pillars that trade visibility for roof strength (and in my opinion, this final design point ends more lives than it saves).
I think it would be very fair to say that car companies don't spend much time branding their crossovers - look at the flagships and sport cars for that. Crossovers are functional vehicles - be comfortable, transport kids and groceries, be safe at a decent price. Every vehicle is a compromise - some are more extreme than others - the Hellcat for instance drives a hard bargain, but still has to make concessions to be street legal.
Also, as other commenters have pointed out, there are well differentiated crossovers that are not pictured: The Element, the Crosstour, Ford FLEX, etc.
A large part of the brand image of a vehicle is its front end sheet metal and grille, which are not shown in the picture. For example, if you look at the Buick and Chevrolet, you'll see that they are the exact same vehicle in profile. Headlights, Grille, Front end, taillights, and components set them apart.
Disclosure - I work for GM. These opinions are my own only.
Big, station-wagon-y cars with extra height, that's what we've got in various different iterations. But the station-wagon is still "uncool" so we invent special names for such things, but really they are the same damned thing.
Some "crossovers" these days are literally sedans on jacked-up suspension with plastic body cladding. The Subaru Outback (Legacy), Subaru Crosstrek XV (Impreza), and Mazda CX-3 (Mazda2) come to mind. The latter two are especially egregious, as the "compact crossover" market does no thing well: there's no additional cargo/people capacity, worse handling manners, no safety improvement from more mass, and no additional off-road capability over the (often cheaper) compact sedan or hatchback these vehicles are based on.
And that's the point this article is really making: we're collectively punishing real innovation by buying into the marketing-hyped version of reality that "bigger is better" and "crossovers are for families", and we're not holding anyone accountable for these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon's_Vacation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FamilyTruckster.jpg
It has the distinct handicaps of being Real American Steel, trimmed to the gills and loaded within an inch of its life, not to mention the wonderful color scheme.
My point is, it would take an act of some minor deity to unseat that mental image.
The design presentation linked is revealing in that its a car that was designed for something and totally missed, but ended up being different anyway.
The Honda CRV which is in the same class, is in the car lineup in the article and impossible to find. The element would have stuck out.
i don't understand this article, is he arguing that car makers should stop making these massively popular vehicles and focus on design passion projects? if the people demand a bunch of wacky bespoke 50s style vehicles then the companies will make them.
He fails to note that there are actually many hundreds of other substantially different vehicles available for sale today.
He is also evidently unaware of what happens in the absence of competition: far from some sort of designer's utopia of unique individual self-expression, you get one vehicle to pick from, and you have to wait for 10 years to get one -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
It's not to say that there isn't a lot of conformism, like in many industries. This leads, for instance, to the use of less-durable features like those silly plastic wraparound headlights; everybody has them, but because they aren't protected from the sun, they quickly fog and yellow; their complicated shapes also mean they're very expensive to replace for no good reason.
And none of those look like say a Mustang Super Snake or a R8 or a Porsche 911.
That, and maintenance. The car purchasing field is so dodgy and rife with weirdness that people are a bit distrustful of the reliability of older cars. Whether that is just a perception thing from false advertising or actual fact, I don't know.
But for me, at the end of the day, I want security and reliability, and the easiest method to that (from what I can tell) is to generally stay at the "newer" side of the market.
They all have the same apps that 90% of people use (Facebook etc), they all have the same core features that 90% of people use (texting, internet and calling) and yet.. many people upgrade often.
I expect its just a newer = better mentality that humans share.
The Lumia 920 was released in 2012, and has an 8.7 megapixel camera with an f/2.0 Carl Zeiss lens, and supports 1080p video capture. You are not limited by the camera.
(There's also the fact that for many, the upgrade is effectively "free" with their contract.)
My use case is perhaps in the minority (I used my iPad primarily to read, watch movies via Air Video, browse the web, keep up to date with friends via social media, bedtime email etc), but still did it 5.5 years strong.
The system auto-updates your apps, whether you want to or not. Eventually, the newer apps simply refuse to run on older versions of the OS, and you can't get OS updates for that phone anymore.
The result is that to the extent that you care about using any apps, you have to buy a new phone, even though your old phone's hardware is still more than adequate in a technical sense.
They had stopped releasing new OSes for the 3GS some time ago. The Uber app had been auto-upgraded and now simply announced that it refused to run on such an old OS.
I was left standing there without transportation.
I'm not a car owner, but I've always felt that many people don't actually want a nice car, but instead the recognition of having one.
People hang on to cars much longer now than they used to.