Wow, we had some fun in the comments of my first wheels article didn’t we? Apparently I’m alternatively lazy, immature, and on my high horse (joke’s on you, I can’t ride a horse). The car design process is fundamentally broken. Even worse than all that though, I’m merely a stylist! I can feel a knife slipping between my shoulder blades here!
Don’t ever call a designer a stylist. Nothing winds them up more and it really belittles what a designer actually does, which after all is why I’m here to give you reprobates an idea what goes on behind the top secret closed doors of an automotive design studio.
It’s not all flashy unrealistic sketches, sipping espressos and standing around pointing at clay models. That stuff you see in videos cover a very small part of a designers working life. The rest of a designer’s time is spent getting covered in clay, prepping models for review, creating images for product meetings, chasing up modeling teams for parts, and sitting in meetings arguing with engineers and suppliers who want to chuck all your hard work out the window to save $2 on a component.
If you’re lucky you might get to play with competitor vehicles from time to time as well.
There’s a lot of problem solving going on. How are we going to attach this grille so you can’t see the fixings? How do we avoid having sink marks in these injection molded trim pieces? Can we manage this 3 way shut line intersection so it doesn’t resemble a bottomless void like a designer’s soul? These things are decidedly not glamorous, but are intrinsic to what it means to be a car designer, and not just a superficial stylist.
The sketch work with its unrealistic proportions and big wheels is the very start of the design journey, and lasts maybe a couple of months at most depending on how well it goes. So while it might seem disingenuous to draw ideas this way, it really doesn’t affect how a cars wheels are sized going forwards. Commenter redfoxiii likened these initial drawings to haute couture, which is an excellent analogy I wish I’d thought of while writing the original piece.
Haute Couture serves as an inspiration and direction for fashion you can actually buy – it’s exaggerated to emphasize certain visual ideas and characteristics, almost to the point of parody.
Above I’ve taken an image released by Kia, and programmed The Autopian Graphics Workstation (actually a series of various 8-bit computers daisy chained together running a software package Torch found on a floppy disk that came with the Changli) to ‘right size’ the wheels and glasshouse.
Compare to the original unaltered render:
You might not agree, but the original looks much cooler and has more drama to it. The doctored version is fine as it goes, and is kinda representative of the actual car. But it doesn’t really leap off the screen as something that makes you want to get in and drive. It’s just not as exciting, and doesn’t ‘read’ correctly because it’s neither an expressive sketch nor a 100% accurate representation like a photo would be. There’s a dissonance going on, like an uncanny valley. With the original image, you know it’s warped and stanced so your brain gives it a bit of leeway in it’s interpretation. Here’s the actual car.
And in case you thing this is a new affliction affecting designers desperate to look cool, it’s not. Initial sketches and renders have always been exaggerated. Let’s take a look.
Here’s a Pontiac proposal from 1944. Check out the wheel size and tire width on that bad boy:
A Cadillac proposal from the legendary Wayne Kady from 1965 is below. Check out the overhangs and the length of the front and rear decks. You could crash land a stolen enemy F14 on that thing! Ding, ding, hard a-port, helm!
A couple more, from GM designer Allan Flowers [Editor’s Note: This is the guy behind the Nissan Pulsar NX! – JT] :
So even in the analog drawing days when you were expected to wear a tie to the studio (thank god that’s no longer the case), designers were pretty liberal in their interpretations of a car’s proportions to create drama and flash. The tools may have had a digital upgrade, but the process remains exactly the same.
Hopefully this will clarify some of the more common misconceptions that cropped up from the last article. If you’ve still got questions, hit me up in the comments!
I mean, I don’t care for haute couture either. There’s something to be said about art for it’s own sake, but insisting that the starting point of practical design has to be outlandish design just feels… I dunno, wasteful.
I get that in the real world it’s necessary to generate excitement to promote something, but haute couture and hyperexaggerated car concepts both feel like a bunch of people in a room all just trying to shout and wave louder than everyone else so they’ll get picked first. It works, and it’s evolutionarily favored by the people who pay the money–those who don’t get noticed starve. But at the end of the day it’s a lot of noise and effort for the purpose of grabbing attention that gets immediately discarded by everyone involved once no longer needed in favor of real-world requirements.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I find the process fascinating even if I don’t always vibe with the results, and I love getting the little peeks behind the curtain.
Adrian,
You are the first guy I’ve ever “met” with a metric ton (tonne?) of artistic talent that can take criticism and disagreement in stride (and even seeks it out!!!). I didn’t know guys like you existed, honestly.
My faith in humanity is somewhat restored.
Thank you, but I’m really not that rare. It’s important for any creative person to able to take constructive criticism or to consider alternative viewpoints. After all it’s why recording artists seek out certain producers and film makers work with editors and directors of photography.. Even artists have patrons or gallery owners directing them to a degree. You need more than one pair of eyes (or ears).
You don’t really see it online, because the level of discussion doesn’t reach a sufficient level of maturity, and enthusiastic amateurs don’t have the necessary understanding of design. This is why it’s crucial for anyone wanting to get into car design to go to the appropriate school, because you need to learn how to take criticism. Online courses are no substitute.
Come on. You have to go full RC car with this stuff.
https://imgur.com/a/2yNlHPz
God that would be a job to have, designing for Tamiya.
I have many mixed feelings on this.. I don’t know why some people seem so passionately opposed to the big wheels but I’ll admit I don’t personally get it either. You could exaggerate the wheels slightly, more aggressive offset and maybe some sharper edges on body lines and it would achieve more ‘drama’ while still remaining within the realm of what a production version will look like.
Those crazy designs would be like me ‘designing’ a hamburger with hand-raised, individually named cows, organic toppings, artisan cheese and a bun made by the finest bakers in the world.. and at the end of it I’m handed a McDonald’s cheeseburger.
The amount of effort that goes into making the ‘food’ for commercials and photos is unbelievable. I listened to a podcast about it a while ago. There’s a guy who designs the contraptions that fling the ingredients through the air that are then captured in slo-mo.
I’ve seen snippets of that and man, it’s actually pretty fascinating!
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/flying-food/
I thought it was cbc’s ‘under the influence’ but it was 99% Invisible before I got tired of Roman Mar’s Schlick.
Excuse my ignorance but I was wondering is it the designer or the stylist who puts shit where you can’t see, find, or work on in a car? Those people suck. FYI I could have guessed you were a designer know stylist would have gone with that hair style! I kid but you do look like the indigenous American character in Ghost. A great show if you haven’t seen it.
Packaging and designing for repair is not really considered. Some design for service is accounted for, but the main concerns are making sure everything has enough space to operate safely in all conditions and how it will be built.
Thanks for the compliments about the hair, although I don’t have the fake dreadlocks anymore (that was just a picture I had to hand when David wanted a mugshot). I currently have a mowhawk.
“Packaging and designing for repair is not really considered.”
I knew it!!!!!! Though I think that there are some sick bastards out there that set out specifically to make repair as unpleasant as possible. “We could put the oil filter on the left where it is easy to reach and change, or we could put it behind this sharp metal part that can only be reached by dislocating your elbow”
If it’s a choice between saving cycle time or saving the skin on customers knuckles, which do you think wins out?
BMW (and by extension, Mini) design their cars so that to remove any one part, you have to remove at least 2 others to get to it. Who buries an electric water pump under a turbo and over a sway bar and steering rack?
Glad to have been of some service! Just because something is weird doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve a purpose, you just might not understand what that purpose is.
I think in the last post someone mentioned Hotwheels being some sort influence. I disagree with the idea that something so specific could influence large industry trends, but I will say that the current rendering fashions give the designs a very toy-like appearance, especially compared to the older examples you added today which emphasize very different design aspects.
Also, it needs to be said, that KIA render is giving me major “HUEHHHH” vibes with it’s chin stuck out like that =D
I think I’m the one you think was calling you a stylist when I was talking in general about the types of designers who don’t understand function, not calling you a stylist. It had limited relevance to the practice of drawing big wheels—which I defended—and I think you took it the wrong way (unless it was another commenter you’re talking about) when I believe we were ultimately in agreement that a designer ISN’T a mere stylist and should have an understanding of the manufacturability and function to qualify for the title. I can’t remember how the convo turned, but my point to another commenter was that not all designers earn that title and it wasn’t directed at you. So, if that was me, I apologize for not coming across clearly.
It’s all good, I recall our conversation (in fact I’ve been reading back through the comments on the other post to try and get a feel for what the main issues people had were) and I think we were somewhat in agreement.
Other people alluded to it though, and it is something that comes up a lot, and I wanted to try and put the issue to bed once and or all.
“You might not agree, but the original looks much cooler and has more drama to it.”
You are correct… I do not agree. I think the original looks worse and the version you created with right-sized wheels looks way better and is the one I’d rather buy/drive. But the reason for that is because I’m an Educated Car Buyer who knows enough about vehicles to understand that bigger is not always better.
Though I do agree the original image has more drama… but not in a good way.
“Here’s a Pontiac proposal from 1944”
Note how that proposal has tires with a decent amount of sidewall and still looks great.
“A Cadillac proposal from the legendary Wayne Kady from 1965 is below. Check out the overhangs and the length of the front and rear decks.”
And yet it also manages to look good without oversized wheels and with tires with a decent amount of sidewall.
“A couple more, from GM designer Allan Flowers”
Which are a couple more examples that look good AND do not have oversized wheels AND have tires with a decent amount of sidewall.
Your examples only back up what I said previously!
And these last two in particular look like they could go into production without much change to the look and not get a flat tire on the first pothole you hit.
The point is they’re all exaggerated in some way, and not remotely realistic.
I used to have a job where I had to put into reality what the designers came up with for biz jet interiors.
Lots of nods and smiles.
The better ones amongst us tried hard to capture the spirit of the design. The bad ones would manage to turn a circle into a rectangle.
Plus, that ’44 Pontiac concept is gorgeous.
I’ve not done aircraft interiors but my understanding from people who have is you’re very limited in what you can do in terms of materials, because of legislation and weight.
Commercial aircraft is very constrained, especially when it comes to flammability. Business jets a bit less so, especially if the owner is re-doing the cabin. They get a bit more leeway in the “hey, this stuff you spec’d burns a lot faster” department.
That Wayne Kady sketch is just awesome. I love it so much.
There’s something about those old renders isn’t there? I guess with hindsight we know that never made it but it shows how far ahead they were thinking.
Plus the pencil/pastels/colored paper medium is so evocation of a moment in time. That sketch would have taken some time though, and if you muck it up you’re screwed.
Working digitally is so much cleaner, faster and more flexible.
We did the Canson paper rendering exercise in design school and I remember my des. comm professor saying “This is great, so much of the color is already there!”
It still took me a damn long time to do it.
When I sketch on paper, I sometimes find myself looking to “ctrl + z” something I just did in real life. My brain is more broken.
The good thing about sketching on paper in pen is it forces you to commit. You can’t just erase something because you don’t like it.
Also if you fuck up your sketch you learn how to save it.
Makes me want to get a big pad of newsprint and a giant black marker again. That was committing to the lines in extreme.
And I kinda miss the smell of those markers, though I have a larger collection of brain cells without them.
It really depends on what markers you use. Chartpaks are the evil ones but their big plus point is they don’t bleed ballpoint linework. Copics are the industry choice (they’re the rounded square ones with colored ends) but they’re expensive. They will smear ink though so work best with pencil. They are refillable though and have the biggest range of colors.
I still have a collection of Chartpaks that are on the plus side of 20 years old and a lot of them are still pretty juicy. We seemed to be a bit slow to get Copic here in the US. I used Tria’s and their “air marker” thing for a while too, but those, while refillable, dried out fast. Also, they would stay wet on vellum, but in a bad way.
I haven’t used markers much outside of rough ideation for a long long time.
Those of us with an S in our degree have a hard time understanding what people with an A in their degree are even talking about. This article is a great example.
Well I’d probably have a hard time understanding what you’re talking about! I try to make it as accessible as I can, but short of teaching a class for you guys there’s only so far I can go.
Hahaha. Very true. I am a chemist and tried reading something by my younger cousin’s gender studies professor and couldn’t make heads or tails of anything in it.
TomMetcalf: You ain’t woke enough????
I absolutely understand why big wheels and almost excessively raked windscreens are a thing in such drawings. It makes the drawing look way more dramatic and dynamic so to say, compared to a drawing with normally sized wheels and a normally raked windscreen. Drama sells.
Bravo, have an espresso!
This may be true if we are talking to someone who has no familiarity with the process – but surely Design Studio heads and corporate people know how the sausage is made? If an architecture student presents a render with a bunch of hawt photo models walking around in it, an experienced Studio Professor will tell them to get rid of the hotties as it is unrealistic and distracts from the design.
Of the three Kias, the actual car wins hands down. The original sketch is butt-ugly; the corrected render is a bit better; but the actual car is where it’s at. It’s not just the wheels that are way better, also the greenhouse finally has a size that looks kinda sorta okay, instead of ridiculous. The drawings look as if some giant had stepped on them.
The altered picture looks great, the giant wheels give me an instant headache. It’s like looking at a car in a funhouse mirror, but sure, “cool”
So what I have gotten out of all of this is that huge wheels on car drawings are the same as massive anime “tiddies”. Not realistic but obviously people prefer them.
To each their own. I don’t take an anime seriously if that’s the direction it takes.
Oh I agree, just saying there must be a reason they slap them on everything (giant wheels and tiddies).
Did you ever watch Knights of Sidonia? The first series was great, really BSG like in it’s ‘desperate last attempt to save humanity’ every episode.
The second series completely descended into terrible ecchi tropes and was unwatchable.
I replied to a comment similar to this on the previous article, and I’ll repeat what I said there.
I think that’s reductive, unfair and insulting.
I don’t really see what it would be insulting, reductive and unfair. None of the reasons stated by you actually seem to justify it (to me that is). No hate or anything but out of both of the articles I pretty much end up that the executives want giant wheels OR the artists know the executives want giant wheels so that is what they get. I literally can see zero point artistically or logically as to why the wheels are so big. To me they look comical and cartoonish (hence the anime comparison). And I love anime.
Also sorry if I insulted you but it is just my opinion after reading the articles but I am also not a car designer. Just an IT guy with a visual arts and design degree.
Drawing female characters with enhanced features is very deliberately done to appeal to a certain fanbase, with all the negative connotations that implies. So to be directly compared to that is pretty insulting.
If your take away is ‘executive want big wheels’ then you’ve really not been paying attention to what I’ve written, and your opinion is not worth the paper your degree is written on.
No hate, just my opinion (see how that works?).
It’s a similar scenario, there are ones that are much larger than average but not impossible, and then ones so large my mind can no longer comprehend them as what they are supposed to be.
I have to admit, i dont get the ire from commenters about the big wheels. It feels like a misunderstanding of the idea of concept sketches, and pre-production renderings.
This all started with “re-imagining” of some classic car designs which appeared, to troglodytes like myself, to be just exaggerating the wheel size, chopping the greenhouse, adding a few vents, and calling it a day.
While we were welcome to our opinions, they were clearly wrong because we didn’t understand the design (or is it styling?) game.
Some people will take a contrary stance because the reality of what I’m saying doesn’t align with how they think things should be done, and therefore what I say becomes a focal point for all their frustrations with current car design.
Also, because internet.
I think it’s more like a little goes a long way. Nothing wrong with turning your average econobox into a GT but turning it into a comic strip removed from reality doesn’t work for me. But so what people seem to love CGI but when it has characters doing crap that isn’t possible it still looks super fake to me. I liked super heroes when I was a child but when I became an adult I put away my childish beliefs. Now boys are keeping them for far to long. Not a problem if they accept an adult dose of reality Interspersed and separate but in reality these guys are Captain Sweatpants and noone is getting Penny unless they are worth millions.
Two things:
Do you miss designing by drawing with a pencil?
What would a modern Cimmaron look like?
Since the Cimarron was just a Chevy Cavalier, it would be the current Chevy Cavalier contender; which I would suggest was the Cruze until it was killed in the Conformity Utility Vehicle wars. So ultimately, there would be no modern Cimarron.
while it’s not a sedan, the current awful, cheap entry level chevy is the trax (or trailblazer), and the Cadillac XT4 is already pretty close to them.
Funnily enough get on with a pencil, I think because I’m a little heavy handed (I have Dyspraxia). When working on paper, it’s a cheap Bic ballpoint all the way. When I was learning to sketch, I spent a fortune on different pens; rollerballs, gel tip, fineliners depending on what style I was trying to emulate that week.
Eventually I circled back round, like nearly all designers do, to the classic see thru Bic. I do still work on paper for initial sketches quite a lot. In fact, the next ‘A Designer Draws Your Ideas’ article has pen sketches, although I cleaned them up and added some flash in Photoshop after the fact.
A new Cimarron? Added to the pile for the future.
That should say ‘could never get on with a pencil’. D’oh.
I hate to think we might run off the source of a cool series of content based on wheel size.
Still, that doctored Kia picture looks much better to me. Just due to what I’m looking for from the picture: Fantasy with a nudge toward reality. None of us here are looking at enough sketches to need an exaggeration to set it apart. The nature of being an unrealized vehicle is enough.
I am fascinated by the aspect of car design, but I feel a bit melancholy about design in general, as it seems largely driven by profiteering. I don’t have any automotive expertise to speak of, but I can generally recognize the silhouette of a Lamborghini or a Ferrari. Sad to say that the cost of cars and their necessary repairs along with my low stature in the working world means that I’m mostly used to the boring samey bean cars. I will defend my 2017 Civic Hatch to the death though. I am likely one of many wondering what the future of car design and even ownership will look like.
Well building cars is about making a profit, the ideal being if you come up with an attractive and emotive design customers will want to buy it and enjoy it.
Not every company places the same value on the design of it’s cars though – Toyotas don’t sell on their looks, they sell on other characteristics.
I think car personal car ownership is here to stay though. I’ve written about this recently elsewhere, but the bottom line is companies have tried subscription models and mostly failed. People like having their own car to use at their own convenience and human nature what it is, I don’t think that’s going anywhere.
I’m still skeptical myself after reading about the OEMs dipping their toes in trying to charge for basic features like a subscription. I fear that especially with these battery packs being so expensive that one day we may not fully own our transportation. I’d be happy to see humanity prove me wrong but I’m cringing with every new article I read.
I think the features thing is like touchscreens for everything. They’ll try it but there will be so much pushback they’ll eventually give up. What companies seem to forget is you can drop a subscription if you no longer need it or cannot afford it. If you’re heated seat/steering wheel/pre-heat package is costing you $30 a month, you might decided you don’t need it or can live without it.
Yeah feature subscriptions a nogo but subscription for car use is what you will see. Different body’s on the same chasis order a family truckster, a pickup, a road trip vehicle pay by the mile/hour. That is how it will happen. Subscribe to the dealer or manufacturer and have free range of vehicle once they all look alike and come with all the same options or pay more for extra options. More money by the mile less over the long term. Mark my words.
I disagree with individual ownership staying around. Now it will never dissapear but we are 2 steps from having computer designed cars. In the 50s thru the 80s you could name/recognize a car by a very little of it. Now you remove the badge the CEO couldn’t pick out his companies cars. As all designs merge into 1 there will be just one and will be a subscription service. Not having any faith in automated driving cars it will take longer but imagine the savings buy a subscription when you need a vehicle order one up pay for everything while using it and leave it when done like a rental/hotel room. Now until they have storage lockers at parking garages to store your personals it won’t happen but when every car looks the same ten years max.
I’m sure I’m not the only one, but I don’t even like to loan my cars to relatives, never mind some soulless sod who will give it more air time than the Wright Bros flyer. Remember, there is nothing faster than a rental car.
I’m glad I finally got to see Top Gun this past weekend, or I wouldn’t have gotten that fine reference. Not worried about spoilers, I’m pretty sure I’m the last person on Earth to see that movie that actually cared about avoiding spoilers.
One of my friends only saw it during this past week as well.
I was there on preview night (a Wednesday here in the UK) and paid extra and drove further to see it in IMAX.
Blasting the OG OST all the way there. And back.
Danger Zone and Take My Breath Away got all the glory, but Cheap Trick’s Mighty Wings is where it’s at.
TBH they whole thing is glorious, but you’re not wrong. I absolutely adore the Top Gun Anthem. If you’ve not watched the video on Youtube, check it out. It’s so eighties it’s glorious (it wouldn’t surprise me if it too was directed by Tony Scott). All back lit aircraft in a hanger and Steve Stevens looking like he had nothing to wear on the day of the shoot so raided his drag queen girlfriends wardrobe.
I’ll endure giant wheels for sentences like “…raided his drag queen girlfriends wardrobe”.
Is that original Top Gun, yeah you’re way behind. New Top Gun I haven’t seen it not worried about spoilers because I don’t plan on ever seeing it
I went there expecting to shit on the movie the whole time. I didn’t, it was awesome, go see it.
It is better than the original in my opinion, which did not age well with my pre-theater re-watch.
“It’s not all flashy unrealistic sketches, sipping espressos and standing around pointing at clay models.”
This is why I quit design school…….
If only we had time for that in design school. Both my final years (BA and MA) were 12-14 hour days for a year. In the holidays I was practicing rendering and one summer spent learning Autodesk Alias.
I was actually dreaming Alias and waking up with one hand on an imaginary mouse and the other on an imaginary keyboard.
I never really knew what being underslept was like until having experienced my Industrial Design BS program.
I woke up like that once although one hand was on a joystick the other on an imaginary titty.
“It’s not all flashy unrealistic sketches, sipping espressos and standing around pointing at clay models.”
Exactly. It’s the marketing guys that get to see the flesh-and-blood models.
Don’t you mean “stylist” school?
I’m JOKING…jeez
Also, I don’t understand why there’s so much backlash about the big wheels in the initial design sketches. Part of the reason tiny windows and huge wheels look so dramatic on paper is because you don’t see them in every day life. They’re not practical. When you’re drawing something that needs to be dramatic and sexy and jump off the page, “practical” is probably not something you want to aim for.
The illustrations you used to bolster your point are doing the exact opposite. Yes they are all oversized compared to a production model, but they all look like reasonably realistic wheels fitting inside reasonably realistic wheel wells. Whereas what is in the original KIA sketch looks like automotive equivalent of R. Crumb drawing boobs.
If you’re focused on the old sketches’ wheels, you may be missing the point, which is that concept cars have always been cartoonishly proportioned. Today, the wheels are cartoonist. In the past, the length and width were hilariously unrealistic, with front and rear decks that would make the car 30′ long if actually produced.
It’s not that concept wheels have always been bizarrely oversized, but that some seemingly-arbitrary feature has always been bizarrely oversized. It just happens to be wheels these days.
Thank you for getting it!
Well, he’s defending his ridiculously cartoonish wheels and fenders, and urges us to “check out the wheel size and tire width on that bad boy” and provides a design sketch featuring mildly exaggerated wheels and tires that fit proportionally with the overall design–unlike the cartoonish monstrosity that is in the unaltered Kia sketch. Also, while yes the overhangs and decks on the Caddy sketch are all kinds of ridiculous, the last sketch is pretty darn close to the production G-Body, and isn’t festooned with cartoonish or “bizarrely oversized” features; it’s a very nice design sketch pointing to a production vehicle.
As I look over the images though I think I am starting to have an inkling of the why behind the stupid wheels. If you look at the photograph of the production Kia the wheels are very close in size and proportion to the exaggerated wheels in the following sketches. After years of people noticing how much better the wheels in sketches and on concept cars look and clamoring for that look in production cars (without considering the practical implications of making wheels that big) manufactures just started slapping big ass wheels on cars. I get that drawing realistic sized wheels in new design sketches doesn’t pop the way it used to, but I, being (much like SquareTaillight2002) a troglodyte, don’t think drawing taut bulges all over the place is the correct response.
None of which detracts at all from the content that Adrian has provided, and that I have really enjoyed.
His dumb wheels notwithstanding.
They’re not only my dumb wheels, it’s the car design professional communities dumb wheels! I’m not taking all the blame here. My shoulders ain’t that broad.
Absolutely fair. Didn’t see this until after I wrote my last screed, so please amend “the way he draws wheels” to “the way the industry draws wheels”.
I want to be clear here–I know that I am being kind of an ass about this (please cf. my user name). I get that there’s probably a very good reason, professionally, to draw wheels that way. I get that Adrian is a very talented man and I am sure he’s very good at what he does. I know for certain that Adrian knows in even in his most incoherent, most cogently challenged, knocked down drunken state more about design off-hand than I will ever know, (or care to know) about it at all. And I know that I (and many others) cannot stand the way he draws wheels, and that the one thing (the opinion of the unwashed masses–yeah I’m being a dink again) has nothing to do with others (his ability and standing as a designer). Look man, it’s always going to look weird and ungainly for those of us who find it weirdly and ungainly.
Last thing, I promise. Adrian, you always stir up quite the conversation, and you’re game to came wading into, and if I can’t appreciate ludicrous, Crumb-esque wheels (sorry I can’t help it–scorpion/frog thing), I can certainly appreciate that.
I get that people ‘don’t get it’, and that’s fine. There’s lots of things I don’t understand (to use an example from the other thread, coding or anything like that baffles me) but for people to insinuate that it’s bad design or lazy because they don’t get it or don’t like it is a different matter entirely.
tatty. Be fair back then the cars were about 28 feet long. See today shitbox Ford. So added 2 feet. I see the difference as the old days highlighted the features of the car today its the tires. Like speedbuggy his dune buggy proportions were close to normal just the tires were played with.
I have a standard link I show people who don’t understand the distinction between style and design. It references graphic and web design, but holds true across all disciplines:
https://alistapart.com/article/bathingape/
Bloody hell that’s borderline unreadable. If my prose ever starts coming out like that, shoot me. I will plow through in an attempt to see if the author has a discernable point in there anywhere.
Glad I’m not the only one. I was going to say that, while I had read it, I need to let it steep for a couple days before going back to see if I can sift through the value judgments to find the bare bones of his argument.
Then again, I’m damn wordy, so maybe shouldn’t be throwing stones.
It takes him a loooong time to get to the point, but there is one. I’m not crazy about the writing style, but I appreciate the message.
The problem is the guy has a writing style, but not a writing design.
“If my prose ever starts coming out like that, shoot me.”
Instead of shooting you, can we just give constructive advice instead?
:-p
I gave up reading that word-vomit after the first two paragraphs. Could you please direct me to where i can read a TL;DR version of this? More words are not always better.
We are not under misconceptions. We understand it is a game. We just don’t like it.
Also, I believe your before and after yellow Kia pictures are reversed. The language is rather convoluted so it is hard to determine which were actually released by Kia and which were “right-sized”.
The first image is the one I Photoshopped. The second is completely untouched.
Of the Kia pictures, the second isn’t more dramatic, it’s cartoonish. It’s silly. It is certainly not good design. The big wheels and overfull wheel wells actually distract from the design, and not just a little. Your photoshop is a huge improvement.
Of the historic design drawings, anyone can pick and choose examples to make an outrageous point, if the audience isn’t aware of the rest of design history. But even so, you’ve bolstered the counter-points more than your own with your choices!
In that green Pontiac, the rear fenders appear to be part of a scarab back, as part of the very point of the design. Now look at the front. Much more ordinary, un-stanced wheels, without overly flared fenders. Rear = this car’s theme, front = normal.
In the Wayne Kady, you barely see the wheels at all. Something other than the wheels has been exaggerated because that other factor is the design element being highlighted. And I’m pretty sure that this drawing wasn’t part of an individual car’s development but instead as an exercise to explore the limits of extreme design. I’m pretty sure it was an intentional strike on the border between serious and silly. Like something drawn long before a specific project is defined, or in between projects.
The first Flowers design is also silly. There are a lot of silly designs in automotive history. Flat car is flat. Again, I suspect that this is more of a “brand theme” or “styling theme” design, drawn to express certain ideas and elements, and not created as part of a specific car project. This would be the type of drawing where huge wheels, stance, or flared fenders might be welcome. You can see that it does not include all three, and even where included, those elements are pretty restrained.
Examining the second Flowers design, smooth panels and crisp lines are the highlighted element. It has large wheels, but altogether ordinary fenders. No stance. No flares. (Is this part of the 1978 GM A Body redesign? It’s very similar to the 78 Buick Regal, Pontiac Grand Prix and the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Because it looks like a generic version of those cars.)
Each of these historic designs is exaggerates a different element, to highlight that specific element. In each, that exaggerated element is the featured theme. Each does not exaggerate the same thing every time, like your repetition of “cool” (or is it “fool”?) wheels in so many of your drawings.
There’s a difference between a drama and a Transformers movie. Auto designers have lost the ability to discern the difference in their work. This is passed on to the public as “good design” even though it’s actually entertaining or titillating, but certainly not “good” in a way that strives for excellence. At least when it comes to the wheels, flares and stance.
When you get used to living in a world with wildly exaggerated proportions, apparently you lose some ability to see subtleties. I honestly think you’ve internalized all the rules that get things approved these days and are defending the system rather than your own vision. Apparently the current system is to add in “fashionable cool” elements rather than presenting your design ideas as cleanly as possible and letting them stand or fall on their merit.
The absurdity exists. It is not your fault. It is simply the state of things right now.
I don’t mean to troll you, or personally attack you in any way. What I do see is that your entire world has funhouse windows, when viewed from the outside looking in. The distortions you see as ordinary and proper look like a giant waste of time and effort, and a distraction from the real work to be done.
The trend of huge wheels, stance and fender flares is making truly excellent design more difficult to find and recognize.
My whole point is that sketches have always exaggerated certain things, not just wheels or glass house.
Again, I’ll make another point I’ve been making repeatedly yet it appears not to be sinking in. The initial sketches are one small part of the process. They are literally only used to pick which themes to take forward. Most of the design work is carried out in 3D on clay and digital models, which are on package and in proportion.
I think it’s possible that on some subconscious level, people may be trying to say that they don’t like how the wheels look, even though they are actually posting that the wheels look silly when big. I get that they look kinda weird in the initial concept, but that’s just a rough draft. I see the important parts of the drawing (the wheel designs, the headlights, the hood curvature, the grille, etc) are staying true all the way to the finished product, and the wonky proportions obviously come down to reality.
Well, you’ve just about summarized what I said about them in the first place: it’s a dog and pony show for the decision makers, and for whatever reason, wheels, fender flares and stance are the currently popular set of easy go-to items to add in the sketches “used to pick which themes to take forward”. So in this stage, it is simply approval-seeking.
My whole argument is that adding this specific set of trite elements is an exercise in obfuscation. The best designs simply don’t need them to stand out (see the historic designs above), and they won’t be carried forward anyway.
What isn’t sinking in? That it’s a small step along the way? It seems to me that we’re talking in circles now. If you choose to respond, I’ll leave it at that.
I guarantee you if you saw the initial sketches for what you consider “the best designs” they will be cartoonish in some way, and if they were done in the last twenty five years or so they will have larger wheels.
Very rarely does a design spring fully formed from one sketch and make it through to production unchanged.
Yeah but our point is completely illustrated by your statement “if they were done in the last twenty five years or so they will have larger wheels.”
THAT is the crux of the issue. WE as a majority here think huge wheels with rubberband tires are stupid, pointless and ugly. BUT we understand that is where design has taken us and obviously what the public wants. I don’t begrudge any designer for giving the company what sells but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.
I don’t think anyone here is unaware that sketches go through design stages until they make it to production. We just find it sad that huge wheels are the current trend.
“My whole point is that sketches have always exaggerated certain things, not just wheels or glass house.”
Yes, but some things can be exaggerated and look great, as in those older drawings. Raked front ends, bulbous back ends, low-slung bodies, etc. Huge wheels just look ridiculous, IMHO. Obviously some people disagree and think enormous wheels look great, but apparently not many Autopians are in that group.
So cut us some slack. Quit telling us we’re misunderstanding or “doing it wrong” or whatever. You like big wheels and you cannot lie, but these other brothers (and sisters, presumably) CAN deny… (Man, that just doesn’t flow as well as the original. There goes my career as a rap artist.)
+1… very well said.