With cell phones it is also about moving the physical device out of your consciousness so you can better utilize the actual application. And because each app does a different and unknown thing, you can’t design your hardware around your software.
However, with cars I think that doesn’t hold. Cars don't need to disappears into the background. Yet every car is converging on an unholy child of a minivan and a small crossover SUV. They are all the same and they are all equally ugly. Sacrificing a bit of aerodynamics for any level of personality would be a welcome shakeup.
> Yet every car is converging on an unholy child of a minivan and a small crossover SUV
Because it's a local maximum of utility. Most people don't care that their car "lacks personality" or "looks ugly to auto enthusiasts" - they just want it to be safe, efficient, and capable. Crossover-type vehicles generally get you the best combination of the three.
To add to this: I see anonymity becoming more desired by the general population as surveillance and threat of law enforcement, car thieves, and road rage amplifies.
Blending in feels much safer these days. Much like herd animal behavior.
I had a friend who had his local company logos all over the car.
After 2 or 3 years he had enough of „hey I saw you passing by can you do small thing for us while you’re around”.
I think he also went with as generic looking car as possible after that.
When I was 20yo I thought cars are cool and having car that would stand out would be great.
Closing in on 40 I couldn’t care less. If it is safe, doesn’t break down, gets me to places I am happy.
I have my own ways to express myself as a person, car is definitely not the thing.
Same. I just bought pretty much the cheapest used EV I could find that looked alright to me and had enough range. Happy as a clam.
I'm not interested in wasting tens of thousands of dollars on slightly more comfortable seats and stuff like that. I could, it just doesn't seem worth it. I'd rather have the money for other things.
Maybe next time I'll buy a slightly more premium car like a Volvo EC30 or something like that, if I can find a nice used one for a decent price. I don't see any reason to buy new cars. In my market a 4 year old car (still under warranty) is literally less than half the price of a new one. I don't think the warranty is worth that much.
Strong disagree on crossovers providing the "best combination of the three." People seem to think this, assuming that their purchases are influenced by thought... But based on my observations (and physics); Sedans, coupes, or anything with less mass will be safer, more efficient, and more capable. It's actually the tendency of people to purchase crossovers and even more massive vehicles that results in smaller vehicles being seen as "less safe". It has created an arms race of sorts, but doesn't change that F=ma. Car companies want to sell you a crossover because it's good for them, not us. Just stop and think for a minute why there are no SUV motorsport series... Enthusiasts have competitions for almost every type of vehicle except the type that most people buy. SUVs / crossovers are like dull, heavy knives wielded by the inexperienced and uncaring.
> Sedans, coupes, or anything with less mass will be ... more capable
I beg to differ. They may be safer and more efficient, but they get those advantages by trading off cargo and passenger space. A crossover can carry a heck of a lot more than a sedan and still fit 5 people - hence why it's the "local maximum."
SUVs and crossovers actually tend to have less useable interior area than vans or station wagons. Another advantage of vans and station wagons is that they're built on chassis similar to sedans which allow you to maintain a low center of gravity for better handling.
Most people don't really care about cars. It's a tool that gets you places and carries your stuff. Ideally for the lowest cost. People care a lot more about safety ratings, fuel efficiency, and resale value than they to about unconventional design.
This seems intuitively obvious, new car buyers overwhelmingly put design way down the list of priorities.
I think it was the same in the 50s and 60s, just that the then car manufacturers hadn’t figured out how to compete in the other more important aspects as effectively.
I don't believe that. The pre-CAFE cars had soul. The new ones are all boring jellybeans.
Proof: look at a 1970 'Cuda. Tell me you wouldn't buy it in an instant if you had the cash!
https://www.classicautomall.com/vehicles/264/1970-plymouth-a...
Have fun with your jellybean! (Sorry)
I do have the cash, but I'm happy with my Opel Corsa-E that I bought used for mostly money I had sitting in my checking account.
It has heated seats, heated steering wheel, AC, backing camera/sensors, uses electricity which means it costs practically nothing to drive, doesn't make noise, isn't hard to get going in an uphill, and probably about 100 other advantages.
True, but it's boring :-)
Funny, I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or sincere because I can’t tell the difference between that car and a Mustang or a Charger from the same decade.
I am sad for you.
In any case, the '67 and '68 Mustangs are the best looking of the Mustang line, and the '68 Dodge Charger is to die for.
If you cannot tell the difference, may I suggest you spend a wonderful evening watching "Bullitt".
When I was in high school, a friend of mine bought a '67 Mustang for $200, so of course he offered me a ride. I had never ridden in one before. I barely had the door closed when he stomped on the gas. What can I say, it was a transformative experience! I soon acquired one for myself. Converted it to a 4-speed, hopped up the engine, and had a grand time with it for years until a garbage truck turned it into an accordion.
I still miss that car.
But I did wind up replacing it with a 72 Dodge Challenger, which is close to being a Cuda. I spent a lot of money on its engine in the machine shop. I enjoy every second driving it, and giving friends rides in it.
Like me before I got the ride in the Mustang, you gotta get a ride in one before you dis it.
My friend had a 72 Dodge Challenger, in beautiful primer gray, that he paid $500 for. Nice car for a senior in college at the time.
I'd still rather have my 20-year-old 350Z.
If you want the Z, go get it!
That’s hilariously ugly.
The prices they fetch today suggest otherwise.
Nostalgia accounts for that.
I'm mixed on touch screen vs physical controls happening. A Tesla has physical controls for shifting, turning, cruise control, current media and I guess you can include accelerate and brake. That said, I want all cars to be the same. I want them to have Android Audio, Apple CarPlay. I do not want custom apps in each car. I just want to connect my phone in and have it do all the things unrelated to operating the car itself.
So at least in some ways, I want them more the same, not less. I live in an area where Waymo is common so I see self driving cars all the time. In other words, unlike people not in an area like this, I have actual experience with them working and working well. As soon as they are available for purchase I will buy one. Ideally one with no controls. No steering wheel, no accelerator, no brake peddle, no turn signal. At which point, I suspect, like phones, they may get even more alike. All that stuff is un-needed in a level 5 self-driving car
I'm sure someone is going to respond such stuff will be needed for emergencies or whatever. I think that middle stage will only last 5-10 years and then they'll take out the manual controls. They took out manual controls from elevators 70 years ago. They're taking out almost all controls now. IIRC Toyota already has such vehicles. I know Honda showed of designs years ago. They're a platform that carries a box. The box can be a cargo box, a food truck box, a 12 person passenger box, more comfy 6 person box. No driver's seat.
Elevators still have manual controls, if you open a secret panel with a key, and turn another key to change the operating mode. See Deviant Ollam's talks.
You change gears on Teslas by swiping on the screens.
God, I have no idea if you're kidding or not.
Having driven the Model 3 my dad got as his retired old man car, this is not true. There's a "Drive/Neutral/Reverse" lever on the steering column. It doesn't have a transmission. That's the great part about electric motors. The power is always right there. It's never in the wrong gear.
One part of what's driving cars to all look the same is mandated fuel-efficiency targets, which make aerodynamics a primary design factor that overrides nearly all others. Sacrificing any amount of aerodynamics is unlikely to happen under that regulatory environment.
This just isn't true.
It's very possible to make highly aerodynamic sedan, hatch and SUVs. Drag coefficients are available for most cars.
A bigger difference is detailing: things like mirrors make a huge difference.
In that case, estate cars would like a word with the current crop of SUVs
I think that's why cars like the PT Cruiser had decent sales and positive views, despite being an absolute piece of trash mechanically. I mean I thought it was ugly as hell, but it didn't look exactly like every other car which was nice.
So Cybertruck.
You just get burned alive when the computerised door handles stop working and the reinforced windows can't be broken.
The product demo showed how to handle the reinforced windows.
More like the Mazda cx5, Toyota rav4, and Honda crv. Those things are everywhere and then some.
People like them, and buy them. Not sure why the mystery.
I was talking about car, not Home Depot refrigerator specials from 2010.