Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Puffy-ness of modern vehicle bodies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    2,037

    Puffy-ness of modern vehicle bodies

    The body designs of most modern vehicles look more "puffed out" that vehicle bodies of the 70's, 80's,90's. The designs of those eras didn't have flat areas, but, on the whole, they look flatter than modern cars. Is there some technological reason for the change in body style? Or is it just fashion?

    Maybe car bodies follow the trends of human bodies - the shape of the the general population is getting puffier.

  2. #2
    Probably a combination of style preferences, a need for better aerodynamics for fuel efficiency, and more available freedom of design from technological advances in the last 20 - 30 years in computer design/manufacturing and sheetmetal forming. Now you can CAD a body part, CNC the die, and have a robot stamp it. Back then you needed a drafter, model maker, a die maker, and a lot more time and effort to put it in the manufacturing line.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    In addition to what Andrew said you also have advancements in materials technology that mean fewer limitations on what a designer can do. Then you have the new Tesla E truck that, as far as I can tell, has no curved surfaces.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Aerodynamics takes a big nod for a lot of this because even incremental increases in fuel economy are meaningful financially for the auto manufacturers over the fleet average. Doug is also correct that the industry is less constrained when it comes to materials and fabrication due to modern techniques. Automated assembly also helps with this. One thing, however....there is a "remarkable similarly" between many vehicles across multiple manufacturers in style and implementation and that's likely both for marketing and functional reasons...the latter being "what works" for the aforementioned average fuel economy targets as well as strength at the same time for meeting safety expectations.

    Of course, if you look at some of the 1950s and early 1960s vehicles, there were some pretty flowing designs! Mostly on a larger scale, however.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    6,903
    One other thing is that a panel with compound curves and/or multiple creases (AKA "character lines") can be made from thinner/lighter material without sacrificing structural rigidity. Every ounce counts.
    Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
    "Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
    We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
    The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
    The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
    You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.

  6. #6
    You also have more stringent safety requirements, so things like headlamp height and side curtain airbags and whatnot have to be accounted for.

  7. #7
    The old Studibakers were really rounded,looked like a plane with no wings. But ...they did not look puffy

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hot Springs, VA
    Posts
    763
    I don't see anything puffy in the new Tesla truck . For me just simple ugly,
    Ed.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Eduard Nemirovsky View Post
    I don't see anything puffy in the new Tesla truck . For me just simple ugly,
    Ed.
    There is ugly, plain ugly , and two flat planes ugly

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,981
    Last I heard it had 146,000 pre-orders so not everyone thinks its too ugly.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Last I heard it had 146,000 pre-orders so not everyone thinks its too ugly.
    Over 200K orders now, I believe.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    6,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Eduard Nemirovsky View Post
    I don't see anything puffy in the new Tesla truck . For me just simple ugly,
    Ed.
    It just doesn't look right without the flux capacitors on the hatch lid.
    Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
    "Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
    We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
    The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
    The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
    You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    6,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    Over 200K orders now, I believe.
    If P.T.Barnum was right about "one born every minute", that's over three months' worth.
    Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
    "Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
    We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
    The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
    The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
    You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Tashiro View Post
    The body designs of most modern vehicles look more "puffed out" that vehicle bodies of the 70's, 80's,90's. The designs of those eras didn't have flat areas, but, on the whole, they look flatter than modern cars. Is there some technological reason for the change in body style? Or is it just fashion?

    Maybe car bodies follow the trends of human bodies - the shape of the the general population is getting puffier.
    The auto manufacturers are under a lot of pressure from the government to make them more fuel efficient. That translates to making them more aerodynamic. It's also why it's getting more and more difficult to tell one car from another. It used to be you could tell a Ford from a Chev from a block away.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    10,304
    I agree with you Stephen. A lot of vehicles look like the designers puffed them up like an inflatable doll -- I guess because they think buyers want vehicles which look big. It is the McMansion phenomenon applied to vehicles.

    I've been driving pickups for thirty or forty years now. Today's truck has a bed which is the same size as those forty-year-old trucks, but the whole truck is three feet longer, a foot taller, and at least a half foot wider. That's puffing up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •