| ▲ | klik99 16 hours ago |
| Probably in the minority, but I actually like the look of them. I find so many modern car designs indistinguishable from each other. Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform. |
|
| ▲ | m463 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think when it comes to vans they've kind of let go of traditional designs. like https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Dodge-Ra... Now they've gotten the european influence to be very square: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/2015_For... or like the european designed mercedes sprinter, very tall too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Mercedes... |
| |
|
| ▲ | Oarch 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Like wet putty https://www.blackbirdspyplane.com/p/why-do-new-cars-look-lik... |
| |
| ▲ | klik99 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Good article, though I do like some matte paints and some of the dulled color looks. The problem for me is not that these aren't good paint choices by themselves, but how uniformly dull every car is. Most cars come in 3-4 shades of grey or a dull red, if there is color more often than not it's that wet putty look. I legit felt sad a couple of times looking at a big parking lot and the total lack of color. If people had a variety of color cars, then a few of those wet putty dulled out versions would be part of that variety. There's almost certainly strong market and logistical reasons for this trend, and I bet some HN reader knows why to an unreasonable detail (I'd be interested to hear it!), but it still bums me out. | | |
| ▲ | shiroiushi 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think there's two parts: 1) A lot of car buyers worry about resale value. For the same reason a house with a purple and pink paint scheme won't sell at top price, a car with strong colors won't either. You might like seeing cars in a variety of colors like bright orange, bright green, etc., but those colors will absolutely turn away a significant fraction of the potential buyers, thus lowering resale value. If you could just press a button inside the car to change its color, it wouldn't be this way, but as it is, repainting a car is prohibitively expensive. 2) Just look at the way people dress these days. Boring colors are in, bright and bold colors are out and generally associated with the 1960s. We're in a very bad time now as far as color palettes and styles go. |
| |
| ▲ | chongli 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is that writer from Philadelphia? Very quirky and colourful writing style! | | |
| ▲ | telcal 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Was it the jawn? That article was by Jonah Weiner who grew up in NYC. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | grogenaut 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If successful and widely deployed they'll become iconic and part of the gestalt. And if the pattern holds I'll be dead before the replacement is put in place. |
|
| ▲ | mschuster91 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Cars such a narrow range of design that's considered "good aesthetics" that everything looks so uniform. The issue is fuel efficiency. Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well. However, these mail trucks don't travel 85 miles an hour, most of them will be on average less than 25 mp/h or less, where aerodynamics plainly just does not matter (it's v-squared), so they can prioritize safety and driver comfort over anything else. |
| |
| ▲ | klik99 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't fully buy this - if you optimized for aerodynamics and safety you'd get cars so far outside the aesthetic it would be ridiculed. No-one is making fun of the new USPS trucks for lack of fuel efficiency, they're saying it looks like a platypus. I can see a weaker version of what you're saying, that the intersection between the aesthetics a mass car market would accept and an acceptable fuel efficiency/safety yields a very narrow design space. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not really sure what you think would change if you did this? | | |
| ▲ | klik99 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe I wasn't clear because I wasn't talking about doing anything, or suggesting that car manufacturers do anything, just I don't think this comment is the full story: > Modern cars are all built to be as aerodynamic and fuel efficient as possible, and the constraints are virtually the same, so the designs are very similar as well. |
|
| |
| ▲ | abeppu 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know that efficiency is really an explanation.
If you look at a list of very aerodynamic cars, there are a bunch of older ones with very different designs.
https://carbuzz.com/features/most-aerodynamic-cars/ And the still-not-released Aptera looks very distinctive and is claimed to have a drag coefficient of 0.13.
https://electrek.co/2020/12/07/aptera-super-efficient-electr... | | |
| ▲ | ggreer 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Older cars had fewer safety regulations, so they could play around with more designs. Also a lot of the old photos in that post are of concept cars or race cars, not production vehicles. The Aptera has a unique design because it is considered a motorcycle in the US, so most Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards don't apply to it. | |
| ▲ | bsder 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's aerodynamics and safety combined. Those bars that you smack into everytime you get into your car and those bars that give you enormous blind spots to hit pedestrians? Yeah, they're there because of safety regulations. When you put the requirements to be able to roll over and not cave the roof along with aerodynamics, the design constraints are pretty heavy. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Being able to roll without crushing the cabin doesn’t take that much. It’s airbags that are causing wide blindspot inducing pillars and there’s options that maintain good visibility. |
|
|
|
