Why did the government kill car design?

File: all-cars-look-the-same-fuckin-seriously-bro.jpg (290KB, 1920x625px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1920x625px

Seriously, though?

Why did the government murder car design?

So you can survive a crash jaywalking busrider.

>>17513932
>So you can survive a crash
How many lives are worth aesthetic improvement to our daily lives?

>>17513937
all of them

cars should still not look as retarded as they do now. besides pedestrian safety there's no reason they can't look boxy and masculine again. they can still have crumple zones and thicc pillars. normies just buy hand soap looking cars because they think anything boxy is old. but square has been making a comeback recently.

File: np_oldcar_6.jpg (349KB, 1648x1304px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1648x1304px

The "all new cars look the same" meme is my favorite meme

File: SantaAnitaParking-lotJPGImage_2.jpg (767KB, 1412x1120px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 1412x1120px

>>17514982
This

>>17514982
all new cars look the same

>>17514942
none of them are worth the A E S T H E T I C improvement of popups.

File: 9-64Lot1b.jpg (116KB, 1300x889px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1300x889px

>>17514982
I tried to post that at the exact same time as you. You won.

>>17513918
When they wanted to enforce >muh emissions and >muh pedestrian safety


>>17514942
Fuck off. People that run a red light and kill someone deserve full punishment. The pedestrian that has the brain too stuck up in their own fucking ass and cellphone like to watch where they are going deserve death.

P A R I T Y

>>17514997
>>17514982
Except these all look good. Modern cars look the same and they look like shit.

>>17515075
Do you know how many people thought 80s cars looked like shit in the 80s and 90s? Muh real 60s and 70s car design.

2010s babies will be nostalgic for today's shitboxes in 2030 and call them the pinnacle of automotive design amid the autonomous, windowless crossovers that look the same.

>>17514982
Those cars were new at some point in time, and they had similar design.
I never understood why someone stuck the 928 in there though, it's a 70's rounded design, not an 80's boxed design.

>>17514997
wtf none of those look the same
>>17514982
and yet it's easy to tell those apart from a distance

>>17515091
No. The cars in OP have 0 striking features. The 80s hatchbacks had several striking features (pop up headlights, abrupt change in shape as you move down the body, overall angular), the 60s cars had several striking features (flaring tail lights, angular, window shape) yet none of the modern ones do. The only thing remotely interesting to look at on them is the design of the wheels.

>>17515100
>wtf none of those look the same

Yeah, because you took the time to look at a bunch of old shit that you don't see day-to-day. Every decade of car design is all sameshit bar a few standout sports cars.

>>17515111
We have angry, extremely angular front and rear fascias with gigantic, alloy wheels. I'd call that a striking feature.

Maybe customers want aerodynamic cars?

>>17515119
>angry, extremely angular front and rear fascias
While that's true, these don't affect the silhouette of the car though. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is reflected in the silhouette of the car.

>>17515115
Nah, there's trends, but those don't look like a copy paste with a few mods. Nowadays every car seems to be some weird dodge stratus.

>Car fatalities are second only to heart failure and malignancies
>Why is the government doing all in its power to reduce fatalities?

Really makes the noggin joggin.

>>17515130
I'll give you that silhouettes have become mostly averaged out in minor details.

But I'll bet you that Prius-like, ultra aerodynamic cars in the future will make us wish for silhouettes of sedans and coupes of yore.

>>17515139

Car companies have no moral authority to tell private companies what they can and cannot build

File: Honda_VFR800_Silver_RHR.jpg (99KB, 1024x689px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x689px

>>17513918
Because cars are not optional for much of society and they're trying to protect people from cars/unwittingly buying dangerous cars/getting choked out by car exhaust.

Regulations are weaker for more optional vehicles like bikes. They have the foam roll test, mostly so they don't stab their own riders. That's it. If anything, how little anyone cars about safety regs for bikes has ruined bike design because it's assumed among makers that the owner will chop off the turn signals, mirror, and fender anyways, so they use the skinniest, cheapest possible piece of plastic sticking out of the bike for each of those they can instead of designing the whole bike around regulations (pic related is what it looks like when you do. the only misfit legal dongle is the rear reflector.) which makes it more expensive and hurts bencracer numbers

File: 2008YZF-R6.jpg (75KB, 754x544px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 754x544px

>>17515165
This is what bikes look like when your designers say "shit, who cares, they'll chop this shit off anyways" and preserve the cooler looking design under the legal add-ons

If safety rules were more stringently enforced against motorcycles, people wouldn't buy as many bikes that are ugly without mods and start looking for flush mount/integrated signals and short fenders stock.

If safety rules were not so well enforced for cars, they would be more like bikes.

>removable pedestrian safety module aka bolted on bumper
>officer don't care, speeding tickets pay more

>>17515151
Prius silhouettes are already the main theme of car design.
The Aztec is just a Prius with an extra foot added to the bottom.
The Huracan is just a Prius with the bottom foot cut off..

>waaaaah people don't like the same things I do: the thread

It baffles me that the population of a niche website, filled mostly by not your average person, whine and complain that they aren't the target audience for anything.

>>17515187
Modern safety/MPG regs are pretty much the opposite of what makes a nice looking car, and nice looking cars are way more expensive because of the engineering difficulties of meeting them while not making a slug with a turbo 4 banger.

>>17514982
>hidden headlights versus fixed lights
>size
>boxiness
>half of them don't even have visible B-pillars
>C-pillars are all over the place, if they're present at all

>>17513931
>only variation is the angle of the third window and how angry the headlights are

>>17513931
A lot of these share a platform with other models, it's why they look the same.

File: 324567895674576457.jpg (59KB, 964x625px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 964x625px

>>17513931
That's two of the same image side by side, and I also don't know a damn thing about SUVs but even from these low res profile shots I can identify a decent amount just by brand design language.

>>17515241
the CRV really goes out of its way to copy Volvo doesn't it?

>>17515256
Pretty sure volvos idea was bigger/taller light = bigger safety.
And Honda wanted to cash in on the safety oriented market of 35 year old women with the CRV.
So it makes sense.

>>17515263
>Pretty sure volvos idea was bigger/taller light = bigger safety.
I figured it was just a Volvo thing, given they've had big-ass vertical taillights on every non-sedan since the 850 estate.

>>17515263
it's the shape of the light not just where it is or its size

>>17514982
And all those cars look a he'll of a lot better then the half melted bars of soap we have now. Those cars at least LOOK fun to drive.

>>17515241
The autism is strong with you.

>>17513931
>you must make a car that's really really safe!
>you must make a car that's really really efficient!
>you must make a car that's really really clean!

And you have to make a car that people actually want to buy, but the government for some strange reason never does mandate that.

And it's not completely the fault of gubmint. These huge auto corporations have quite a bit of bureaucratic inertia all on their own and they've gotten quite a bit more risk averse as the real economy has gotten crappier and crappier. Nobody really wants to stick their neck out to try something really out there, because it's more likely to fail than succeed.

It wouldn't surprise me to see cars in 2050 to look substantially the same as they do today. The era of stasis is upon us. The high end will always look interesting though.

File: BobPage.png (296KB, 515x510px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 515x510px

>>17515623
Maybe it's just a conspiracy of an elite banking cabal to drive up manufacturing costs, in turn driving up car costs and the size of loans to buy them

>one specific genre of cars that are easily identifiable around a similar price range
>wow why r they so simlar, gubmint strikes again
>Ignore you can do this for literally any era

>>17515664
It does seem that making a truly affordable car and providing affordable housing do not seem to be terribly high priorities of the system. As to why that's so, I'll leave for others to speculate on.

>>17514982
tell us OP, how does it feel to get so BTFO? Does it hurt? Do you regret making this thread? You should.

File: _1.png (237KB, 588x434px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 588x434px

>>17515664
Do you the government would just do that? Encourage debt slavery to banks?

While we're on the topic I hate that new BMWs are engineered to be shitty disposacars for lawyers to lease for their trophy wives.

>>17515700
Is there any real difference between the banks and the government at this point?

>>17514982
I was going to say the same thing. Certain design trends encompass all cars for a while then they move on.

>>17515111
Just a reminder that pop up lights only existed to meet federal regulations that all lights either be round or square.

File: 1498727736917.jpg (31KB, 359x474px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 359x474px

>>17515714
>the Jewish banking conspiracy is causing cars to be shit and iPhones to be obsolete every half year

File: 2009-Jeep-Liberty_9459.jpg (171KB, 500x270px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 500x270px

I think most of car design is lead by trends, not with what is mandated. This Jeep Liberty was built between 2008-2012, a time when most SUVs/CUVs had round bodies and tapered belt lines.

>>17513918
based audi the cleanest one

>>17515807
I find the Accord more cohesive, imo.

File: moving the goalposts.jpg (431KB, 1600x1064px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1064px

>>17515075

>>17514997

All of those look distinct.

>>17515091
>windowless crossovers

Were already there, kinda.

this thread reeks of nostalgiafags and it's disgusting

>>17514997
What I find most amazing is how school buses haven't changed at all in 60 years.

>>17515321

>hurrr the 2 door coupes look alot more fun then those 4 door sedans

File: 40R7FJA.jpg (66KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x450px

Cars are becoming too fat

>>17515871
I assume Mini made the taillights disproportionally large on the newest model to make the car appear smaller.

File: depressing-memes-sonic.jpg (25KB, 500x627px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x627px

>>17515879
True, I see some modern ''Mini's'' parked at my college everyday and they are fucking huge, bigger and lower than every other damn hatch, and even looks bigger than old 80's and 90's sedans.

File: 1491186037665.jpg (247KB, 640x1920px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 640x1920px

such a good meme

they never did

>>17514997
WTF, why is there some random 1930's sedan in a 1970's photo. Like, what's the story of this photo?

>>17514982
i love that image, 80s aesthetic is best aesthetic

>>17515892
the story is someone drove their 1930s sedan to that car park in the 1970s and then someone took a photograph of it

>>17515892
thats early 60s

that car would be the equivalent to seeing an 80s car in a parking lot now

not so strange now eh

>>17515889
Late 60's cars look more distinct

File: CAFEStandard2.png (24KB, 1800x900px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1800x900px

>>17515791
>>17515700
>>17515693
>>17515664
CAFE standards, which came out of California in the 60's.
https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/californias-quiet-but-crucial-role-in-shaping-fuel-economy-standards/

Ruined all sorts of things. The two main ones that influence us, is gas cans, and motor car design.

There's like 100 more things. I should look up the original bill sponsors in 2007, but I swear to god if they're jews, /pol/ was right again.

>>17515889
the cars still have their own distinct silhouettes with different body lines, fins, light height, chrome trim some don't even have c pillars and some do

Pro tip, if you take cars from any Era and paint them all the same color you're going to have a hard time telling them apart

File: 1964-impala-air-ride-pin-striping-chevy-350-astro-supremes-low-rider-5.jpg (1MB, 1000x3576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x3576px

>>17515889

> Not showing the best part of the classic cars

Same order and same year (BTW that Fury is the wrong year).

>>17515818
Just because you're illiterate doesn't mean you have to publicly show it. OP says car design was killed implying car design is shit, not that every car looks the same and it's a frature exclusive to this era. Listen extra hard in English class after summer, little Johnny.

>>17515287
Honda has been doing tall headlights on the CR-V since 1998.

>>17515164
That's true, but the government has the moral authority to tell private companies what they can and cannot sell.

To literally stop innocent people from being killed in horrible wrecks. Not everybody has a death wish.

>>17514982
But all those cars all look as different as front engine sports coupes possibly can. You couldn't mistake one for the other from any angle.

Thing is that American, European and Japanese (Korean) cars all used to look distinct, now they are all the same blobs.

>>17515641
Absolutely this.

>>17514982
Except it's still easy to tell those cars apart, especially in person where you have a sense of size.

File: 2016-Best-Drivers-Car-Contenders-and-Finalists-front-three-quarters.jpg (438KB, 2040x1360px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 2040x1360px

>>17516835
It's easy to tell modern cars apart too unless you've got vision problems. If anything, design language is more heavy handed.

>>17516785
I had one of those cars and asked my wife to find it in the image. It took her three tries to get it. Same thing for a friend who wasn't interested in cars. You're trained to pick up the differences between those meme cars.

Picture sort of related. Couldn't find a compiled image of the GT86, Miata, Mustang, Genesis, Civic Si, and 370z, but there's no way you wouldn't know what each of those cars was by their silhouette alone.

>>17516923
You're not wrong, but the problem is none of those cars can be afforded by the average person and even if they could they wouldn't. I wasn't alive in the 80s so I really can't say for sure but I'm under he impression that more average people had sports cars with distinctive styling.

File: 40679517-Concept-Sportscar-Vehicle-Silhouette-05-Stock-Vector-car[1].jpg (92KB, 1300x919px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1300x919px

>>17516923

Oh cmon, even modern supercars/hypercars have like only 3, or 4 distinct silhouettes.

>the Porsche
>the sporty Beetle, ie: Veyron, RS8, new NSX, etc
>the Lambo
>Everything else looks like its derived from the Mclaren F1

>>17514982
They all look different?

>Pedestrian safety laws out the ass
>No regulations on truck headlights that are 5 feet off the fucking ground
Now i'm no statist, but even on a motorcycle that shit is at face level.

>>17517491
This, I hate being in front of any truck/suv/cuckover newer than about 2007 at night because the low beams dip right into all of my mirrors and blind me. My car's not exactly low either, a stock height Subaru is a bit high for a normal car.