• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

BMW Simple concept car

The vehicle is pretty cool. I would love to try it.

I've long been an advocate against form over function. I know most engineers are, but I take it to the extreme. I believe nothing should be designed for aesthetics and the only thing that matters is function.

I want a utilitarian SUV-type of vehicle that is built from interchangable parts (e.g., if a single bolt size can conceivably work for multiple applications with a little tweaking, there'd be no reason to use two different bolt sizes). The vehicle should be designed to be as user-accessible as possible for shade tree repairs. Nothing should be buried under 5 other parts so that a 5 minute repair to replace a sensor requires 4 hours to access it.

One color only. Everything is bolted on and no plastic clips. Standard maintenance tasks should be possible to be done in an hour or less with basic hand tools and minimal training. Wiring should be accessible by opening a panel, not by ripping out interior panels and upholstry. Electrical wire gauge should be larger than the minimum requirements. The vehicle should be built with a high enough wheel base that you don't need to jack it up to work under it.

The same model will be made for at least a decade, with no cutesy upgrades to raise costs between years. Save development money where possible by using parts from other vehicles (that meet the quality standards). Simple, rugged, reliable, and easy to fix when it's broke. The ultimate triumph of function over form.
You two, on the other hand, are sucking all the joy from my exhaust vents. ;)
 
The Pontiac Aztek had function over form and look how well it's selling.

Indeed. I've gone car shopping with enough people to know that your average car buyer cares much more about form than function. They want a car that looks "cute" or "stylish" or "powerful"--whatever message it is they want the vehicle to convey about themselves.

At the end of the day, a car is a conveyance and just about any car will serve that purpose. So, the real competition is in things like amenities, cargo space, and styling.

The Aztek was fucking hideous. I'm normally not one to notice a car for its looks, but the first time I saw one I was just taken aback. I could not believe something so blocky and ugly made it to mass production in this day and age. Its sales numbers bear that out.

It's not like you can't have function and form, anyway. Toyota cars sell primarily on dependability, fuel economy, and affordability, but I imagine they wouldn't sell nearly as well if they were just flat-out ugly. They aren't especially attractive cars but they also aren't hard on the eyes.
 
Nobody wants an ugly car. It's really that simple.

Back when I was carshopping, the Pontiac RAV4 was the top rated small SUV in Consumer Reports. However, it was also an ugly piece of crap. No way would I buy it. (Plus the controls were shit, it was uncomfortable to sit in, and the people who ran the dealership were total dicks.)
 
There have been a lot of similar concepts as some have already pointed out. Today, I saw something pretty cool. It initially looked like your regular motor scooter, but then I saw it had two wheels out in front, and as it turned, both wheels leaned in with it, and there was one wheel out in back. A bit similar to the motorcycle version I've been seeing a lot of on the streets lately that looks like something like a self-powered sidecar with two wheels in front and one in back. Not sure what they call them, but they seem to be catching on.
 
^the Can-Am Spyder? http://www.gizmag.com/go/6823/

I have been doing some car shopping on the internet just to waste time and finally noticed that Ford and Chevy have made a nice change in they're small cars. They finally realized that the public would buy small cars if they had the amenities of large cars. Hence the Cruze and the 2012 Focus can get alot of the same options as the big cars. Heck, the 2012 Focus even has automated parallel parking!

I seriously think my next car is going to be the 4 door hatchback 2012 Focus.(check it in that candy blue color) Due out this spring. Awesome looking car.

I like the Cruze too, but no 4 door hatch model for the U.S.
 
And it's a chunky, less-sexy ripoff of the 25-year-old
1983 GM "Lean Machine":

http://www.maxmatic.com/ttw_leanmachine.htm

gmlean.jpg

Fascinating machine, I wonder why nothing ever came of it?


I had a friend who worked for GM and really loved the idea of the Lean Machine (we both rode motorcycles together).

For one, GM makes cars and the internal politics of the company didn't want anything to do with motorcycles.

For the other, the corporate lawyers had strokes warning them of the liability problems of producing an 'unusual' motorcycle.

In other words, they chickened out and we lost a potentially nice vehicle....
 
Nobody wants an ugly car. It's really that simple.

Back when I was carshopping, the Pontiac RAV4 was the top rated small SUV in Consumer Reports. However, it was also an ugly piece of crap. No way would I buy it. (Plus the controls were shit, it was uncomfortable to sit in, and the people who ran the dealership were total dicks.)

Toyota RAV4. I too think they're ugly, and they also have a tailgate that belongs in the 1980s.
 
Nobody wants an ugly car. It's really that simple.

Back when I was carshopping, the Pontiac RAV4 was the top rated small SUV in Consumer Reports. However, it was also an ugly piece of crap. No way would I buy it. (Plus the controls were shit, it was uncomfortable to sit in, and the people who ran the dealership were total dicks.)

Toyota RAV4. I too think they're ugly, and they also have a tailgate that belongs in the 1980s.

Oops. Why the hell did I say Pontiac? :guffaw: :alienblush:
 
I want a utilitarian SUV-type of vehicle that is built from interchangable parts (e.g., if a single bolt size can conceivably work for multiple applications with a little tweaking, there'd be no reason to use two different bolt sizes). The vehicle should be designed to be as user-accessible as possible for shade tree repairs. Nothing should be buried under 5 other parts so that a 5 minute repair to replace a sensor requires 4 hours to access it.

One color only. Everything is bolted on and no plastic clips. Standard maintenance tasks should be possible to be done in an hour or less with basic hand tools and minimal training. Wiring should be accessible by opening a panel, not by ripping out interior panels and upholstry. Electrical wire gauge should be larger than the minimum requirements. The vehicle should be built with a high enough wheel base that you don't need to jack it up to work under it.

The same model will be made for at least a decade, with no cutesy upgrades to raise costs between years. Save development money where possible by using parts from other vehicles (that meet the quality standards). Simple, rugged, reliable, and easy to fix when it's broke. The ultimate triumph of function over form.
Henry Ford produced a vehicle like you describe from 1908 to 1927. It was called the Model T.

BTW, I assume you mean “ground clearance,” not “wheelbase.”
. . . Yea, this. BMW has just come up with an uglier version of 25 year old technology.
More like a 60-year-old concept. Does no one remember the BMW Isetta and the Messerschmitt bubble car?

isetta-messerschmitt.jpg


. . . You two, on the other hand, are sucking all the joy from my exhaust vents. ;)
Spoken like a true Italian!
I'm surprised you didn't say the Yankee RAV4.
The Rav 4 -- is that the SUV for rabbis?
 
I think automobile companies build concept cars to just show at car shows, the things they end up getting out of them could actually end up on vehicles that are far different than the concept car.

Car manufacturers build some cars to meet certain legal requirements, I think this is why you sometimes end up with strange cars that nobody seems to want, of course the manufacture can just be wrong sometimes as well.
 
I think it's more to give all those millions of engineers and designers something to do... and to eventually improve technology.

Problem is, as JustaFriend pointed out, car companies chicken out. Very few of these radical departures come to fruition. Look at the history of the airplane vs the car. The first airplanes were made of fabric and wire, with a prop driven by an engine that would be underpowered in a lawnmower these days. Now, they use advanced turbine engines and can cruise at supersonic speeds. The evolution of the technology is quite obvious.

Cars... are more or less the same. Yes the engines have improved, yes the safety has improved, yes the manufacturing and comfort and all that jazz has improved, but it still uses the same concept which was the same as the Model-T. What is it with these damn devices that everyone clings to like they're sacred icons? They're just cars, learn to let go and move on already. Something new has to come along eventually.

And also give us auto-driving cars, because driving is damned boring.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top