Shapes that work, shapes that don't: Motoring Motoring Discussion forum

Motoring Discussion > Shapes that work, shapes that don't	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: WillDeBeest	Replies: 54

View Threaded

Wed 27 May 15 07:15

Shapes that work, shapes that don't - WillDeBeest

I've been pondering this one for a while, and I find it curious that we don't often discuss cars as architectural objects; has to be more interesting than how many times a week to change the oil. So what makes us notice a shape as attractive - or the opposite? And does it affect our feelings as to whether or not we'd want to have one?

Shapes that work
I'll start with one I've had a long time to appreciate, the one I may be about to send down the road: the first generation Volvo S60. It is defined by two linked features: the distinct shoulders at window level that all big Volvos of that period had, and the continuous strong curve that starts at the front indicators and runs the length of the car. Importantly, the curve is higher at the back than at the front; I'll come back to this.
The shape scales well, too; the S40 was essentially the same, although spoiled by a fussy third side window, and the current S80 is no less elegant for its extra size.

For another example, perhaps the most familiar of all: the Golf. The remarkable thing here is how, over 40 years and seven generations, VW has managed to retain one distinctive - although hardly unique - feature, the thick rear pillar, and to keep it unmistakably 'Golf' while changing almost everything else. A current Golf has none of the cheeky angularity of the original, and is nearly twice the size, but we still know immediately what it is.

I think, incidentally, that that continuity contributes to desirability. I could buy a Golf today and be confident that it will still be recognizably a Golf in five years. Ford buyers, for example, don't have that confidence; today's Focus looks nothing like the startlingly original 1998 one - and not much like one from 2012, thanks to the latest And-Now-For-Something-Completely-Different Ford corporate front end.

Shapes that don't
Single curves can go wrong as well as right. Take the Jaguar S-type - please! A single curve the length of the car that ought to give it similar athleticism to the Volvo, only instead of rising, it falls, leaving the car looking as if it's dragging its nether regions on the road. Jaguar realized the mistake and tried to correct it midlife, but they stuck with the fussy, outdated reverse-curves around the rear window and the awful toilet-seat grille for a car that always looked stuck in the past. Jaguar got the design message just in time, with the second XK and the XF.

And one from here that set me thinking about this: the Mazda 6. Someone here described it as a particularly good-looking car, but I think it's a complete mess. It has curves shooting off everywhere and does nothing to disguise its bulk. To me it's a typical product of a maker that designs for world markets without a real feel for any of them; it wants to do something distinctive without any real idea of what that ought to be. It's not quite bad enough to put me off altogether, as the S-type would - but it wouldn't pull me into a showroom on looks alone.

So, how often should you change the oil in a Mazda?
};---)