Questions About Car Design

[Condraz23]

Hey everyone. I'm here to ask a question that has been bugging me for the last few days...

Why do all cars from the 1980's have straight corners and no curves whatsoever? Did vehicle manufacturers not realise that curves help with aerodynamics?

And what do you think of the new "roundish" look that's so common on cars these days?

 

[daan]

Not all 80's cars are all straight lines and no curves.

That Civic you pictured does not really care about aerodynamics. It's not going to be going fast enough that it matters.

 

[Metar]

It was the design that was popular back then. Just like the Muscle-car design wasn't so efficient.

 

[toyomatt84]

Back in the '80's, besides it being the style of the time, angular metalwork was easier and more cost effective to produce. As time moved on, the sophistication of vehicle production increased, thus why we have more smooth body lines on current vehicles. daan, I don't think you posted a great example of less rigid body lines with that Cosworth. To me, that car is as boxy as the Civic EE hatchback.

 

[daan]

The Sierra is curvy, or was for its time. It was pretty aerodynamic too.

and its not a Cosworth. It's an XR4i. The Cosworth didn't have the pillar in the side rear window.

 

[viperpilot]

i think every era has its own style, beginning with the muscle-cars till nowadays, we'll see how cars look in about 10-15 years!

viper

 

[Tornado]

How square the car is does not necessarily detract form the cars aerodynamic, either. Yes, there were cars like the Countach which had cd's well into the .40's, but there was also things like this:

which still have low cd's even to this day.
And besides, some round-ish cars have very high cd's. The Dodge Viper, for example, is very rounded in the front, but it's large amount of frontal mass still gives it a cd of over .5.
In addition, that Civic's very closely realted brother only had a .cd of .29, and it wasn't exactly round.

There is also this and it's brother, both of which had uder .3 for .cd:

 

[YSSMAN]

The best answer I have is that it was "trendy" to have the cars look like that. Car design was indeed overly-square in the post-'73 world here in the US, but much of that had to do with automakers dealing with new safety regulations that baisically destroyed otherwise great-looking automobiles. In the '80s, some automakers got clever and figured out a way to make the cars look good enough, but obviously they aren't "ticksy hobbitses" like they are today.

But why did things go all round on us? Who knows... We're still on the retro-thing with many cars today as well...

 

[Hugo Boss]

Mostly it's just trend indeed. Those trends however are influenced by certain factors. Safety regulations and cost-effective production are already mentioned. New construction techniques allow for more complicated shapes as well.

During the 60's, people got fed up a bit with the glamorous styling of cars and the sober/boxy designs proved to be succesful.
That continued to be popular until fuel prizes started to influence the designs and aerodynamics became something that got more attention. However as a negative result cars started to look more and more the same, resulting in manufacturers opted to distinguish themselves by means of technique. I think that's still the path manufacturers walk now...

 

[AlexGTV]

I never lived in the decade, so I don't have an insight, but I believe the trend for cars with simple lines came from the overall culture and how lines and grids were popular in architecture, art, package drawings and so on. That was transfered to cars as well. There is also the trend I've observed that companies who offer affordable cars will take design cues from the premium makers. So be sure that if the premium carmakers of the 80's went with a round body the other companies would follow.

For the future I don't think curves will leave us anytime soon.

 

[stumpydino]

Just as an example, mercedes had streamliners in the 1930s so it's not down to technical limits or concepts, the designs typical of the 80s like that civic is purely trend. crisp angular shapes were considered futuristic then. the 959 and the corvettes were reasonably curvy... about all i can think of!

 

[Eric.]

Mostly it's just trend indeed. Those trends however are influenced by certain factors. Safety regulations and cost-effective production are already mentioned. New construction techniques allow for more complicated shapes as well.

During the 60's, people got fed up a bit with the glamorous styling of cars and the sober/boxy designs proved to be succesful.
That continued to be popular until fuel prizes started to influence the designs and aerodynamics became something that got more attention. However as a negative result cars started to look more and more the same, resulting in manufacturers opted to distinguish themselves by means of technique. I think that's still the path manufacturers walk now...

Wow. 4+ year gravedig.

 

[RenoRanes007]

Give me my straight lines and angles anyday!

 

[daan]

Wow. 4+ year gravedig.

Not by Hugo though. There's a post there, or rather not there, you can't see, or can see but it's not there for you to see it, so it's not, so you can't....

 

[turboash78]

Angles FTW! And the boxier the SUV, the better (ie Isuzu Trooper, Mercedes G-class).
Holy! Sept 30 2006!!

 

[DKLion3s]

For the '70s & '80s time-frame, boxy design was about capacity, as far as the masses were concerned. The abillity to haul as much people & stuff as possible, for a given income level.

10 to 15 years after, fuel effeciency (aerodynamics) is in demand and design once again tries to incorporate body styles that will fulfill this capacity. Sleeker rounded designs crept back into the industry.

Present day, there's a combination of fuel (aerodynamics) & capacity in design to once again satisfy the masses at various income levels.

There, however, has always been design incorporating boxy & sweeping lines or any combination thereof, throughout the ages of the modern automobile.

 

[Azuremen]

Not by Hugo though. There's a post there, or rather not there, you can't see, or can see but it's not there for you to see it, so it's not, so you can't....

Is this thread now a test of Faith in the moderation?

 

[Keef]

Angles and straight lines are cool, but European angles and Japanese angles are very different to me. Like that Audi, most 80s German cars were simply boxy. Japanese cars were properly angular and looked much lighter and sportier.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Hey everyone. I'm here to ask a question that has been bugging me for the last few days...

Why do all cars from the 1980's have straight corners and no curves whatsoever? Did vehicle manufacturers not realise that curves help with aerodynamics?

Aerodynamics for consumer vehicles was only in its infancy during this time period. Even the super cars with their 'wedge' hoods are quite poor when you compare them to the slippery designs today. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) as well as a host of other engineering tools grew and flourished just as computers did.

And what do you think of the new "roundish" look that's so common on cars these days?

Blame women.

I forgot where I read it, but focus groups perceive rounded/curvy cars as being safer than their boxy counterparts. Compared to the 80's, women have more money and a strong influence on purchase decisions in a marriage. Women value safety higher than any other feature in a car.

 

[Keef]

I forgot where I read it, but focus groups perceive rounded/curvy cars as being safer than their boxy counterparts. Compared to the 80's, women have more money and a strong influence on purchase decisions in a marriage. Women value safety higher than any other feature in a car.

Could it be because people relate boxy designs to these older cars, which are obviously thinner and flimsier in design than modern cars? The doors are 4 inches thick - today they're 8. The pillars are very thin - today they're a dangerous blindspot in themselves.

It seems obvious that people think curvy cars are safer because modern cars are safer, and just happen to be curvy. Old cars are relatively unsafe, and just happen to be angular. I feel that this study comes to the wrong conclusion unless they also compared the perception of an average 1985 boxy sedan to its 1985 curvy competitor. There weren't any curvy competitors. This study tells us an obvious direct relation between car design changes and safety perception changes over time.

I feel the main reason aerodynamic designs have flourished over time is for efficiency's sake. The most common thing I've ever heard for the reasons behind curvy/feminine design cues is to attract female buyers, which is something makers have been trying to do for a long time. I've also heard that this strategy hasn't necessarily been successful.

 

[Jim Prower]

On the other hand, this here is nothing BUT curves...and has abysmal drag characteristics.

So curves don't immediately mean aero. Low frontal area typically does...although, at near mach speeds, the area rule kicks in, and that's why the F-102 refused to break Mach...

but, eh, that's not really relevant.

 

[Crash]

Jim is right, frontal areas matter more. Also, curves don't automatically mean good aero, and edges do not automatically mean poor aero...

 

[Jim Prower]

That's true...I mean...Hell...look at this thing...

And it flew pre-tty damn well, in part because of the flight computers, but at least it actually got off the ground...

 

[Azuremen]

That's true...I mean...Hell...look at this thing...

~ Stealth Fighter~

And it flew pre-tty damn well, in part because of the flight computers, but at least it actually got off the ground...

It only can fly because of the computers.

Front area impacts drag less than the shape of rear of the object in most cases, as drag is generated by the trailing surfaces more than leading.

 

[Keef]

So curves don't immediately mean aero. Low frontal area typically does...

Jim is right, frontal areas matter more.

That's why Miatas, which have a pitifully small frontal area, are among the most horrendously un-aerodynamic cars on the road...

Ah, Cody already brought up the point I was getting to. The short length and abrupt roofline and rear end of Miatas impart serious drag consequences. They have the same drag coefficient as a Subaru Forester at .38 according to Wiki's list, Escalade Hybrids are .02 lower than that, and the current Lexus GX SUV is lower than that. My RX7's coefficient of drag is .33, while a Boxster, being a convertible like the Miata, is clear down at .29. That's the same as a 1985 Subaru XT...

Subaru XT. As slippery as a first-gen Prius, and they didn't even try.

Actually they did try. The deep front air dam blocks air from getting under the car and mingling with the mechanicals, in turn increasing drag drastically; the curved rear glass allows air to wrap around the side and fill the void behind the greenhouse; and the sharply cut rear end and trunk spoiler (the surface curves up slightly at the rear) gives air a clean surface to flow off of. You can see this trick used on modern cars, especially on the Prius.

Funnily enough, the second-gen CRX has a .29 drag coefficient. So much for angles, right?

 

[Crash]

I stand corrected on that, however, I think you can agree with my other point that edges do not automatically mean bad aerodynamics.