Possibly the easiest question?

August 14th, 2006, 10:36 am

User avatar
Robert Kirby
Posts: 14
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 3:45 pm
Location: London, England
"What is car design?"

Purely as a gut reaction no matter how short or long - please leave what your answer would be. Hopefully will get some convo's going!


Cheers,

RK
Impossible is nothing...

August 21st, 2006, 12:58 am

moderator
step three
step three
Posts: 183
Joined: January 17th, 2006, 2:56 pm
Location: golden
dead
Good design does not have borders

August 23rd, 2006, 10:14 am

User avatar
Robert Kirby
Posts: 14
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 3:45 pm
Location: London, England
moderator wrote:dead
Interesting comment - what makes you say that? Do you think the industry isn't moving as much as it should or is purely not doing enough in terms of pushing designs and breaking barriers?

Many thanks for your initial post


RK
Impossible is nothing...

August 24th, 2006, 12:38 am

moderator
step three
step three
Posts: 183
Joined: January 17th, 2006, 2:56 pm
Location: golden
The breakthrough designs never get to market. A security veil of blandness gets draped on top of the best designs . Once the final product gets to market, the design has been osha-ized.
A ten on the drawing board ends up an eight at best when seen at the dealership.
Good design does not have borders

September 4th, 2006, 12:54 pm

Stewie
step two
step two
Posts: 70
Joined: January 5th, 2006, 2:47 am
Location: Home Counties UK
little boys who want to draw cars all day...

Am I just jealous? Maybe...
We all grow through exploring new ideas.

September 15th, 2006, 8:57 am

User avatar
Robert Kirby
Posts: 14
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 3:45 pm
Location: London, England
Ok then, shifting this slightly across how well do you think car designers are doing in accomodating rapidly evolving technology in cars such as the iPod, aftermarket sat nav as this seems to be moving faster than car design is?

And the environmental angle; I read an article today saying that by 2030 all city centres will be car free with hydrogen, electricity and biofuels supplied at the majority of fuel stations by 2050. How realistic do you think this will be and what impact will switching fuels have on car production, in particular the monitoring of carbon emissions?

Will the cost of upgrading our infrastructure of factories, fuel stations and development centres start to reduce the environmental impact that switching fuels will actually have in the long run?
Impossible is nothing...

September 15th, 2006, 12:32 pm

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5831
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
New technology is not only being brought in by designers. I'm sure marketers, hungry to be associated with success, even if it is not theirs, probably pushed for the iPods in cars. Most stereo makers (Kenwood, JVC, Sony etc) have started to look at adopting memory card slots of headphone jacks as inputs for all sorts of add-on audio equipment. Mainly because the iPod only accounts for half of the mp3 market.

Anyways, there is technology sneaking into design. Just today, I was reading about the new new Mini (2007 model in Europe) has an option for color-changing LED lights in the doors. Kinda kitsch, but well-integrated, and definately a design option. LED tail lights and headlights, whether designers are pushing them or not, are certainly changing the way cars will look in 10 years.

As far as the environment goes...I think we are stuck with gas in NA without government intervention. The cost of infrastructure change-over is just too high for any gas company to do voluntarily. Perhaps in countries like Sweden and Norway, where people prefer more government involvement in the economy, this changeover will be forced through. I guess that would be boon to protecting the Scandinavian auto industry!

September 18th, 2006, 3:27 pm

wellfellow
Posts: 9
Joined: September 18th, 2006, 9:09 am
Location: US
Mr-914,

Government intervention is precisely the reason why we are stuck with gas in NA! This is intensely frustrating to me. It's like saying "if only it rained more, we could stop this flood." Look into US oil subsidies. More gov't intervention will most certainly NOT help the current mess we are in, for it is the very genesis of said mess. What needs to happen is for the government to step away, to stop subsidizing the oil companies and let the price rise, that's the surest way to a real incentive to develop alternative fuels, not by beaurocratic decree, but by genuine market pressure.

You say that the infrastructure change is too costly. That is only true given the artificially stunted gas price. Right now it's too cheap to give up. Let the price go up, let the market function, and the change-over cost won't seem so insurmountable.

September 18th, 2006, 8:16 pm

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5831
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
Your right, to an extent. Looking around the web, I found a statistic of about $5 billion/year for US oil subsidies. However, the state and federal take on gas tax is $50~60 billion/year. If the US is like Canada, that means $25 billion for the feds. This doesn't quite even out.

Moreover, what are those subsidies? Is it just money given to the oil companies with no strings attached? I doubt it. It is probably subsidies into plastics and alternative fuel research...which is what we all want. If anyone has more info on this, please post it.

The US is doing an acceptable job in discouraging fuel consumption through the gas tax. The unfortunate part is that the government has not adequately funded realistic alternatives to automobile transportation. Here in Montreal, I can leave my car parked for months (well, ok, I have to move it to avoid tickets). I have a multi-billioni dollar transit system at my door that costs less to use than owning a car (I've done the math). I used to live in Phoenix, AZ. Phoenix has a larger population than Montreal, but a mass transit system that is out of a wild west film. They have infrequent buses, running bizarre routes, they charge customers too much and, worst of all, you have to wait for the bus in 120 heat. Give me some car keys PLEASE!

That is where there is not enough being done in the US. Because its people, me included, have not demanded an efficiently run society. We've demanded liberty.

Who says democracy doesn't work?

September 19th, 2006, 9:04 am

wellfellow
Posts: 9
Joined: September 18th, 2006, 9:09 am
Location: US
Mr-914,

You could also factor into the US gov. subsidies the expenses accrued for foreign endeavors who's primary goal is to secure the low gas prices. My guess is that the amt. poured into that alone topples any direct subsidy.

As far as people demanding an efficient society, it's a fool's errand. One expert's idea of an efficient society might well be quite opposite of another's. Unfortunately, an economy is much to complex for any voter to even understand just what would make it function efficiently, let alone be able to factor in any unintended consequences of tampering with an organically developed market. There are just too many variables, the market too dynamic, for top-down central planning to have any positive effect beyond a few decades. Unemployment rates in Sweden and Germany come to mind.

"We've demanded liberty." Thank God! Societies that have demanded anything else are generally riddled with institutionalized oppression of the least powerful class.

"Who says democracy doesn't work?"
Socrates for one. Democracy is just another path to tyranny, the mob is the dictator rather than the individual. Democracy is a good tool, but not an end in itself because the majority tends to steamroll over the rights of the minority. That's why we have to demand Liberty!

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box. I've just found governments to be the least competent actor to tackle any real problems. Occasionally they're downright oppressive. I tend to shy away from giving them any more power than they already have!

September 20th, 2006, 9:14 am

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5831
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
We are way off topic, but who cares. This is now the most interesting thing that I've read on Core all week.

It's true that US foreign policy is effected by oil. This is nothing new, foreign policy has traditionally been about securing trade routes, securing export markets and securing scarce resources. The war in Iraq is no different, however I think liberals have often misunderstood it. Only the most ignorant people could have thought that a war in Iraq would have lead quickly to reduced fuel prices. The war is about securing future energy reserves.

Compared to Saudi Arabia, Iraq's oil has not been exploited as much. So Iraq is the real value in the mid-east. Another aspect is fear. This war has shown other countries that the US government will invade any country it wants, regardless of it's popularity at home or abroad (despite what any survey says, I think the US population was 50/50 the day the war started).

Then there is the domestic political strategy of the war, but I don't want to go there.

In any case, the oil companies don't receive any of this money directly, and one could argue that that wars like this are protecting the entire US economy. In fact, looking at how contracts are never given to Iraqis might lead one to think the whole war was a job creation scheme...but that wouldn't be very conservative would it?

When I mention efficiency, I don't mean central planning. However, capitalism is only at its most efficient when dealing with physical goods. When it comes to services, ideas and information, capitalism can swing wildly away from efficiency. Two extreme examples:

The weather report: once one person knows the weather report, they can share this information freely. There is an incentive for people not to buy the weather report, when they can get the information free from someone who has seen it. So what is the producer of the report to do? Sue everyone that gets the report from a friend instead of purchasing it directly from the source? It's unwieldly.

Health care: There is a vast over-investment in US health care. Mostly because there was no incentive for doctors and hospitals to control cost when people had old-style health insurance (ie not HMO). For example, there are enough mamography machines in the US to do twice the number of screenings as are needed.

Sometimes capitalism breaks down, and government can step in and conserve resources for more important things. Two examples from Canada:

The weather report: the government invested money in satellites and meteorologists to create a freely distributed weather report. This ensures that everyone has access to weather information, very important in the lightly populated Canadian north. It also helps the economy in general by providing data for shipping companies, airlines, farmers etc. Industries that can succeed or suffer according to the weather.

Healthcare: The US government spends as much money per person on healthcare as the Canadian government. The strange thing is that the US only provides insurance to 20% of the population, and Canada can to 100%. The answer is that Canada spends less than a quarter of what the US spends on administration and accounting. That's the benefit of a single-payer health insurance scheme. Despite the savings, Canadians enjoy a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than the US. This creates efficiency by freeing up monies to spend on other things.

Americans (even many liberals) consistently fought alternatives to "free-choice". Healthcare is only the obvious example.

September 20th, 2006, 3:51 pm

wellfellow
Posts: 9
Joined: September 18th, 2006, 9:09 am
Location: US
Off topic indeed! :)

I concur, no one should have thought that the Iraq war was for immediately cheaper fuel. My earlier sentiment about the complexity of calculating subsidies had more to do with the money/effort allocated to securing energy reserves, like you mentioned, and just what the difference in fuel prices would be if that governmental support weren't there. Indirect, sure, but there all the same.

"but that wouldn't be very conservative would it? "

LOL, there's nothing economically conservative about this administration!

The next part is where I disagree. The idea that an individual would have to pay for every datum of information they desire in a capitalist system is inaccurate. Websites where-in advertisers bear the cost and the consumer pays nil are a good example. There are many ways to skin a cat, the least effective being with a combine. This is the problem with government run entities. Aside form using a heavy hand to handle complex and delicate problems, there is no incentive to innovate because there is no competition. There is virtually no accountability save for elections where the largest mob dominates anyway. Examples of failed federal entities are ubiquitous.

As far as health care, the aforementioned example is really a false dichotomy. The US system is hardly representative of capitalism in any real sense. Most of it's problems stem from government intervention. Trade barriers and the ridiculous FDA being two examples.

Life expectancy and low infant mortality rates are deceiving metrics from with to judge a system. For example, a third world society could conceivably have an extremely low infant mortality rate. Because of technological advances in the US, say, more fetuses are brought to term that would otherwise have perished had prenatal care not been what it is. Not all of the infants go on to live long lives, though. A fetus that perishes before birth does not factor into the infant mortality rate. I'm not saying that Canada is like this (I hope not!), but just illustrating that better health care could appear worse given incomplete statistics.

Anyway, I digress.

"Americans (even many liberals) consistently fought alternatives to "free-choice"

If only that were true!

September 22nd, 2006, 7:38 am

User avatar
Robert Kirby
Posts: 14
Joined: July 27th, 2006, 3:45 pm
Location: London, England
Cheers guys for your replies, it's made very interesting reading, and a good insight into the differences between US and Canadian policy workings. To gently guide the conversation back somewhat - there was an interesting point made earlier by wellfellow...
You say that the infrastructure change is too costly. That is only true given the artificially stunted gas price. Right now it's too cheap to give up. Let the price go up, let the market function, and the change-over cost won't seem so insurmountable.
This does make sense in theory in terms of economics but do you think this is what would truthfully happen? Especially here in the UK the percentage of tax that the we as customers already have to pay for fuel has caused the price to steadily rise over the last year or more. When this price is compared to what others in Europe and you are paying in the US, even once any government subsidies are taken out of the equation it would probably still mean cheaper fuel for us! However some type of legislation over here restraining other parts of the industry such as the manufacturing stages and development as to their emissions may prove influential - similar to the Kyoto Protocol.

It does seem the case that the motor industry and its infrastructure will have to take several steps back, and in the short-term be worse off for it, in order for the industry as a whole to progress to a more environmentally friendly position. In my opinion it's only going to be a matter of time until one of the large fuel companies does this as the environment is coming more to the forefront of conversation with more and more people are concerned with it. Highlighted by the widespread introduction of biofuels at this years British Motor Show - most manufacturers want to be seen to be helping or looking for a solution. The company that makes this brave move first will hope that it will bring them more custom due to them appearing to be 'the only one that cares' whereas in truth the main reason maybe for financial gain. Maybe we're being too harsh on these fuel companies, but at the end of the day they are profit run organisations!

Something else that I've recently read was suggesting improving public transport schemes (also mentioned by Mr-914) including light railway and cycle networks but allowing them to be 'door-to-door' i.e. from your front door to your office. Have you guys in the US had any similar suggested ventures or already had any successful schemes like this?
Impossible is nothing...

September 22nd, 2006, 8:26 am

User avatar
Mr-914
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5831
Joined: January 12th, 2004, 7:44 am
Location: Montréal, QC
When Phoenix began looking at alternatives to its bus network, it contacted alot of designers and architects who had unorthodox views of mass transit. I believe there was one designer who suggested a rail network with 4~6 passenger cars. The idea was that one would always be ready for next group of people, essentially eliminating the wait time that is always a problem for rail users. It didn't go anywhere though.

Here's the link:

http://www.valleymetro.org/rail/

One thing that I've found comparing Boston, Toronto and Montreal subway systems is that, as a designer, I wanted to use the subway more when the stations were clean and of an interesting design. The subway in Boston is pretty ugly, and in fact it felt downright dangerous in downtown. Toronto's is very clean, but every station looks the same. Montreal's subway is the youngest, started in the mid-60's. Almost every station is different, with really nice artwork and sculptures. Almost every Montrealer I've asked is proud of it. I know which I'd rather ride.

For those who read french, or like beautiful photos:

http://www.amazon.ca/M%e9tro-Montr%e9al ... &s=gateway

A wide view of rail transit can be found here (note how small the french cities with subways are!):

http://www.urbanrail.net/

On a side note, I think the recent biofuels push by automakers is more abot advertising than action. Having said that, the environmentalist in me will take whatever he can get!

OH, and, happy "no car" day!

September 22nd, 2006, 10:23 am

wellfellow
Posts: 9
Joined: September 18th, 2006, 9:09 am
Location: US
"the end of the day they are profit run organisations"

As if that were a bad thing. I get the distinct feeling that many designers look down on business and profit rather than recognizing them as essential tools toward manifesting your values without the ethically messy compulsion/force baggage.

A perfect example is Whole Foods. Do they make a handsome profit? Absolutely, and good for them. Do they charge a premium for recognizing and accommodating the values of their consumers? Absolutely. Is it a viable business plan? Again, absolutely. Smart companies will learn from this an leverage environmental values to attract savvy consumers. Another example: Patagonia. These businesses are doing quite well and prove that cumbersome, ill-conceived and often costly legislation is really unnecessary.
(don't even get me started on CAFE or Kyoto!) :)

Robert, you ask,

"This does make sense in theory in terms of economics but do you think this is what would truthfully happen?"

Without a doubt. It's the price differential.It's functioned for every other 'scarce' resource throughout history. As a resource becomes more scarce, the price will naturally rise (sans any meddling). Eventually it will rise to a point where the consumer no longer thinks it's worth it. This combined with the market incentive to innovate, case tested by the likes of Whole Foods, Toyota or Patagonia, spells environmental responsibility and big profits.

You also said:

"most manufacturers want to be seen to be helping or looking for a solution. The company that makes this brave move first will hope that it will bring them more custom due to them appearing to be 'the only one that cares' whereas in truth the main reason maybe for financial gain."

That nails it! That's exactly the way it will go. And if they do that, they deserve financial gain! I look at that as a feature, not a bug, of the system. Everyone wins. I think designers should embrace this instead of fighting it. It's all part of the larger design problem. Design a product that:

1)works
2)expresses your values, environmental, social, political, whatever
3)appeals to, and educates the consumers
4)rewards the investors for caring about people and values so they do it more

Nobody wants to be punished or reprimanded into submission and when that's the case, they'll do the bare minimum. (CAFE standards)

Anyway, I'm way off track. (no pun intended) Great posts, and great info on mass transit. It would be great if there were an active dialogue about mass transit. Here's my question, is there a way to make it financially viable? The Boston T is a terrible example.
Reply