|
Cars are designed by lots of groups of people with each group fighting for a space to put their particular part. The next time you're complaining that it's difficult, for example, to change a headlight bulb just think where you would position the particular part that is making your life difficult. And you're not allowed to just delete that part!
|
To take your example of a headlight bulb, it's not the position that's the problem. Headlights go on the front corners.
But on my Almera, the expansion tank sits neatly behind the headlight on one side and the battery and tray get in the way on the other.
I don't think it's the number of people involved that causes the problem, it's that simplicity of replacement or repair seems grossly undervalued or totally ignored. So although I couldn't design a car better I (and lots of others) can point out where the designers are missing the point.
|
Cars are also designed to a brief.
If the brief said 'we want this car to be easily maintained by purchasers' ( as is the case with airlines as maintenance costs to the airline are a massive issue) they wouldn't be designed like they are now.
This only leads me to the conclusion that the brief contains an instruction to make life slightly difficult on some run of the mill repairs so the dealer network can keep the service bays busy. It's not in their interest to stop you spending money with them on revenue costs.
|
Re: the headlight example.
I saw this the other day in the CBCB entry for the Volvo V50,
"..Useful self-maintenance feature: by pulling out 2 metal slides you can remove the entire front lamp unit to change side, head, main beam bulbs and indicator.."
So some manufacturers are capable of user-friendly design, others would prefer you to have to visit the main dealer more often and pay through the nose.
|
"..Useful self-maintenance feature: by pulling out 2 metal slides you can remove the entire front lamp unit
Same on Mondeo Mk3. Very easy. Don't know about the new ones though.
|
|
More comfortable suspensions. Most modern onroad cars seem to be designed for billiard table surfaces, which don't seem to exist in this country.
|
Stainless bodyshell so it doesn't corrode;
Anonymous design so it doesn't date (well it would really)
With simple electronics and parts availability should run for ever - Ideal green car that you never replace.
No-one would buy them though!
|
One piece of design that seems spectacularly silly to me is the lack of rear legroom in most mid-sized cars.
Honda had the right idea in the last model Civic, the one before the new Amstrad-designed obscenity. The 2001-onwards Civic was stretched by about 5 inches in the middle, with all the space allocated to rear legroom. I worked brilliantly, and produced a mid-sized hatchback with as much rear legroom as many super-posh monsters.
Renault now seem to have done same thing with their stretched Modus, but I have no idea why all manufacturers don't do it at the start. Six inches more metal costs peanuts and makes little difference when parking a car, but it makes a lot of difference to have rear seats which can be comfortably used by adults who haven't left their legs at home
|
i dont think rear leg room is an issue most cars i see on the commute to work are very big cars with just the driver in it . really , if you want a holiday car hire one, the savings will be very nice indeed, and on the subject of six more inches of metal does cost a lot ,new furnaces, new moulds, more polution, more weight, more fuel so it all adds up so my design would be a little car with max comfort to get to work on the cheap
regards tony
Edited by tonyrees68 on 22/05/2008 at 19:58
|
|
|
|
|
I could try to persuade designers that the ability to see out is more important than style. There are quite a few excessively thick A-pillars about, and as I've said many times the blind spot at the rear of some new designs borders on the dangerous (e.g. Honda Civic, Renault Megane, and the forthcoming SEAT Ibiza).
|
i think more effect could be made to avoid water/mud traps that then cause rust in later years
exhaust pipes could made without low spots that collect condensation and rust
more thought on fastner use , copper nuts on all exh parts, maybe some stainless ones here n there , no hex key ones in stupid places
|
|
|
I could try to persuade designers that the ability to see out is more important than style. There are quite a few excessively thick A-pillars about
Maybe, but it's a very effective way of making a car strong in those oh-so-desirable crash tests.
Alternatively the doors could be made much smaller with a huge sill to step over, Mercedes gullwing style!
|
As for the original question, I'm sure most of us would struggle to design the components any better, but it seems we would all fight for different things when specifying the car design!
Truth be told, it's like that anyway. The stylist wants it one way because it looks great, the design engineers want to make changes so the parts can be made better, the production engineers want changes so it can be assembled more easily, throw in some feedback from technicians about maintenance too....
What it needs is a few more Backroomers in there with loud voices ;-)
|
I had wondered while reading a previous thread on loves/dislikes, whether car focus group leaders would get such a well written series of points about the good and bad things in our cars anywhere else - over decades on this site of course!
We do seem to be led towards excessive safety - the whole width of cars now is the safety aspect, the huge weight increases and so on. Further, programmes like Top Gear focus on speed and cornering which drives the low profile tyres/hard suspension business. Would I buy a car with no side airbags/protection etc? Of course. Sensible - don't know. But I do know people drive their padded up Volvos to go hang-gliding.
I prefer the 1970s shapes [only] of many cars still being produced - 911, Mini, E-type [versus XJF], 1980s Escort [over the Focus], Saab 900, Audi 80 for starters.
|
|
|
|
|
