when did car design go to shit?

early 00s when they pulled up the beltline for safety reasons.
all other parts followed and a lot changed.

File: GLE.jpg (222KB, 1280x768px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1280x768px

>when did car design go to shit?

File: 1497904602001.jpg (89KB, 940x528px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 940x528px

>>17538484

File: JC fact.jpg (17KB, 207x253px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 207x253px

>>17538499
>for safety reasons

>>17538514
Mr. Furfag actually goes into it a bit in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw-3zLZheII

FF to around the 2:50 mark, or just watch the whole video.

>>17538503
More of a shitting dog than the crossfire teebeehaich

Every car after the E30

>>17538514
smaller windows = more stronk

>>17538749
Is that the advantage the Camaro has over the Mustang? i never knew.

File: 17_CaraBuono_0040.jpg (144KB, 670x893px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 670x893px

>EURO STYLING
>EURO STYLING
>EURO STYLING
>EURO STYLING

what did they mean by this?

File: 1495315124536.png (402KB, 929x739px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 929x739px

>>17538484

File: 1418928373746.jpg (72KB, 677x595px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 677x595px

>>17538514
Just how fucking new can one be

>>17538484
Pedestrian safety regs demands sloping hoods and rounded edges. Fuel economy regs demand wind tunnel testing and there's only so many ways to design a streamlined body. Those are the two big ones.

File: Screenshot-2016-03-12-13.28.17.png (2MB, 1740x924px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1740x924px

>>17538484
More stringent safety standards were put in place in the late 90s and 2000s.

One of the biggest changes this had was the requirement that cars must be able to support their own weight on the roof. This meant that A and C pillars were enlarged, and the frame had to reinforced around these areas. In addition, more crash safety meant thicker sidewalls and more weight on the sides of the car.

What this lead to are thicker, blockier and heavier cars with worse visibility. SUVs were particularly successful, as a strong frame and heavy build were already design factors. Car makers are still trying to find ways around the new shape requirements, which is why cars have so many sharp angles while remaining in the same set of proportions to set them apart.

Pic unrelated

>>17538864

When will Trump get rid of these regulations and make car design great again?

File: 1495832938563.jpg (77KB, 667x659px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 667x659px

What really saddens me is that with e-motors (meaning no hard elements under the front hood that could harm the poor texting pedestrians)and graphene as material (ultra strong while weighting next to nothing and thin as FUCK) we could have cars in the future that go back to fucking greenhouse window heaven all around while being safe as no car was before BUT by then the camera and display faggotry will have replaced all windows.

>>17538484
wtf I love toyota now

>>17538902
He probably won't. Consumers appreciate higher fuel economy regardless of the price of gas (obviously in times of higher prices it's more appreciated) and it's suicide to argue for less pedestrian impact safety in favor of looking cooler. Enthusiasts don't really have enough market power to influence designers especially with cars like in OP.