EV styling/design, aero vs. weird-mobile

[Dutchie]

I assumed Dutchie meant the overall rim/tire diameter. I agree the wheel wells themselves look small in proportion to the body.

Keep the same sidewall profile, just make the whole affair an inch or two larger in diameter.

Yes, that is what I meant..

 

[Bangor Bob]

Very true. This is why we won't get a compelling EV from traditional car companies. They may want to have something to sell to those who are looking specifically to buy an EV, but not something so good that will attract sales away from their ICE lines. They have too much invested in that legacy technology to risk cannibalizing those sales.

Will they really ALL be Kodaks? None of them will be Canon or Nikon?

EV's will likely offer superior price and performance across all market segments in the next decade, but until full autonomous driving gets rolling, we're still going to be demanding ~100 million new passenger & light-duty vehicles a year. Given how capex-intensive the business is, new players aren't going to be able to ramp to meet that demand anytime soon.

The bigger disruption will be EV+complete autonomy. Once we have a decent fleet of those, number of vehicles demanded/year will crash hard.

 

[wdolson]

Will they really ALL be Kodaks? None of them will be Canon or Nikon?

EV's will likely offer superior price and performance across all market segments in the next decade, but until full autonomous driving gets rolling, we're still going to be demanding ~100 million new passenger & light-duty vehicles a year. Given how capex-intensive the business is, new players aren't going to be able to ramp to meet that demand anytime soon.

The bigger disruption will be EV+complete autonomy. Once we have a decent fleet of those, number of vehicles demanded/year will crash hard.

Tesla and other pure EV makers won't be able to keep up with demand once the public flips and wants BEVs. The traditional car makers will get sales as the second choice for people who can't wait. The survivors will likely be the mainstream car companies with the strongest fanboy following, those with the best reputations for making quality cars, those which change the fastest, and the largest.

 

[gene]

Since this thread started on the Bolt thread. I just want to mention that since the Bolt is said to be based on the Sonic. I think it will look ok, not great, but pretty decent. The more I look at Sonics, the more they grow on me. Of great importance to me is crash tests. Having had a death in the family recently, I am all about keeping my new family drivers safe.

 

[scaesare]

...since the Bolt is said to be based on the Sonic. I think it will look ok...

Others in the thread have already weighed in and determined it is ugly.

You aren't allowed to have that opinion.

Sorry.

 

[JRP3]

Others in the thread have already weighed in and determined it is ugly.

You aren't allowed to have that opinion.

Sorry.

Were you on the Bolt design team or something? Because you seem overly sensitive to the opinions of others on this topic. My opinion is it's just another "meh" design, though better than the LEAF.

 

[gene]

Others in the thread have already weighed in and determined it is ugly.

You aren't allowed to have that opinion.

Sorry.

I assume this is friendly sarcasm,

 

[scaesare]

Were you on the Bolt design team or something? Because you seem overly sensitive to the opinions of others on this topic. My opinion is it's just another "meh" design, though better than the LEAF.

Nope. Don't really care for the design either.... I'd say it borders on weird/ugly. What I acknowledge, however, is that there's an entire segment of the population (I'm gonna guess roughly college-ish-to-late-20's age demographic) that have a taste in car styles very different than mine.

My point is that the underlying platform cost/range is unlike anything we would have been likely to see out of the Big 3 domestic automakers, which is a great development yet people seem to downplay that in comparison to the styling, which is on par with the Fit/Versa/Leaf/Juke/Qube, all of which sell just fine.

Subsequently people dictate that it's objectively (not subjectively, mind you) ugly and therefore proclaim GM must not be serious about wanting the car to succeed. I guess all those other manufacturers don't want their cars to sell either.

I honestly have been somewhat flummoxed by the focus on so much OTHER than the EV capability.

 

[JRP3]

Looks matter, and one of the long standing criticisms of EV's is they have been seen as odd looking punishment boxes. People don't buy the Fit/Versa/Leaf/Juke/Qube because they are great looking or aspirational, (though of that lineup I do kind of like the Juke the most, and the Qube the least.) There is a reason you don't see higher end cars looking anything like those vehicles.

Others in the thread have already weighed in and determined it is ugly.

Don't really care for the design either.... I'd say it borders on weird/ugly.

So you're one of us :wink:

 

[scaesare]

So you're one of us :wink:

I am!

Well except for the part you forgot to quote: "What I acknowledge, however, is that there's an entire segment of the population...that have a taste in car styles very different than mine." :tongue:

 

[stopcrazypp]

I am!

Well except for the part you forgot to quote: "What I acknowledge, however, is that there's an entire segment of the population...that have a taste in car styles very different than mine." :tongue:

While that is true, there is a spectrum. There are cars that almost universally people find looks good, but there are always exceptions. However, there is a bell curve and this car falls in the ugly side.

 

[woof]

Will they really ALL be Kodaks? None of them will be Canon or Nikon?

Canon and Nikon make lenses and cameras, not film, adding a digital option was relatively easy, the lens and body part stayed the same. Kodak makes film, and some cameras to sell more film. Switching to digital for Kodak (even though they were pioneers in digital, and made a digital camera for Apple back in the day) was a much bigger deal.

If the conventional wisdom that the Auto makers outsource most everything but the ICE engine is correct, then they are indeed more like Kodak than Nikon.

 

[ebwb]

I think there's some miscommunication here. Obviously there are several elements to design. A minivan is not going to look as good as a sports car no matter how hard you try. I agree that some of the basic shape of a car is dictated by its utility/footprint ratio.

However, for any general type/size of car, there is a LOT you can do. Some cars look better than others even if they are the same general size. For example, pretty much any Lexus looks better than the Toyota it is based off of. It would actually cost them less to make the cars all look like the Lexus; the reason the Toyotas are less attractive is that they are "versioning"; trying to pull in the "practical" mass-market Toyota buyers for volume while also capturing the Lexus buyers that are willing to pay more for appearances (along with other things).

This isn't auto-specific; it happens in many industries.

Admittedly we've only seen the concept, but in that case, the Bolt seems to do quite well in terms of style and design for its particular vehicle type (i.e., tall hatchback). Its wheels are pushed to the edges of the car, and its "face" incorporates an interesting graphic. It even incorporates quasi-crossover details that are all the rage these days.

Here are some of the current B- and C-segment leaders. I'd say the Bolt isn't any more of a weirdmobile than any of these ICE cars, which sell well across the globe.

 

[TexasEV]

Canon and Nikon make lenses and cameras, not film, adding a digital option was relatively easy, the lens and body part stayed the same. Kodak makes film, and some cameras to sell more film. Switching to digital for Kodak (even though they were pioneers in digital, and made a digital camera for Apple back in the day) was a much bigger deal.

If the conventional wisdom that the Auto makers outsource most everything but the ICE engine is correct, then they are indeed more like Kodak than Nikon.

The camera makers also didn't have multi billion dollar investments in technologies that would become obsolete with digital, as ICE manufacturers do if EVs become predominant. Or a dealer network that cared which technology they sold, unlike cars where dealers wouldn't exist in their current form selling EVs.

 

[ChadS]

Here are some of the current B- and C-segment leaders. I'd say the Bolt isn't any more of a weirdmobile than any of these ICE cars, which sell well across the globe.

I agree with that - my point is apparently still not getting across. I'm not claiming you can't sell an ugly car. I didn't claim the Bolt is ugly either - it's not great and I'm sure GM could do better, but as it is I'd be happy to own one, and may even trade my Roadster in on one. (I'm one of the buyers that care more about practicality, and am looking for a small, low-priced 150+ mile EV regardless of appearance). And as stopcrazypp noted, there are a range of opinions on attractiveness; it is true that for any "ugly" car there are some people that like it, but to save time I'm talking about the center of the bell curve on car appearance.

My main point is that given any basic shape of car, automakers can and do adjust its attractiveness for a number of reasons - usually it is to direct as many customers as possible to higher-profit vehicles. The Toyota/Lexus example I gave is one - it's not that they don't want to sell the Camry; they do, and it sells in great numbers because a lot of buyers care more about price than appearance. It would sell in even greater numbers if it looked like the Lexus that is based off it. But instead Toyota spent extra money to create two versions of the same platform, one less attractive than the other (other changes are bundled in too, like soundproofing and equipment levels - for the same reasons, though unlike appearance those often add cost), so they could sell one at a higher profit level than the other.

They would love to go farther and make their low-profit cars TRULY hideous, and if any carmaker had a monopoly they would - but they are limited by how the competition designs their cars. (This is less limiting in the case where there is no direct competition - like the Mirai, and we've all seen how that looks. That will be a no-profit car, so Toyota only wants to sell enough to get the ZEV credits they need; in fact they are up-front that it will be very limited production. They want most of their customers to keep buying their other cars. It's ugly on purpose).

 

[scaesare]

Quite frankly my goal was never to discuss or defend the styling of the car. That was simply one of the several things that people seemed to be emphasizing as a significant negative... DCFC capability and the reputation of GM and their dealerships being others.[1]


This thread then got carved off of the "Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)" thread, and the context got narrowed here.


Thus while there's claims such as:

... There are cars that almost universally people find looks good, but there are always exceptions. However, there is a bell curve and this car falls in the ugly side.

I don't see sort of statistical data to back that up, and thus it remains an opinion[2]. Other folks have expressed opinions just as valid, such as:

...the Bolt is said to be based on the Sonic. I think it will look ok, not great, but pretty decent.

...the Bolt seems to do quite well in terms of style and design for its particular vehicle type...I'd say the Bolt isn't any more of a weirdmobile than any of these ICE cars...

Nissan has sold over 200k Leaf's worldwide... when you see real owner reviews - the vast majority are very happy with their car.

It's looking pretty good

finally, it's acknowledged for many, function trumps form:

That just means that, (some), people will put up with weird looks if they serve a purpose and provide a benefit.

Because practicality. It's the same reason why Model X is so "ugly" -- if by ugly you mean unconventional. ... it's a good compromise between utility and aerodynamics. I just don't buy the argument that manufacturers intentionally make their cars ugly so as not to cannibalize their ICE cars.

That GM Bolt EV prototype running around in those photos seems like a modern practical run-around that also happens to be fully electric and looks like every other similar vehicle on the road. That's a mass market winner in my books.

all of which go to counter the idead that I was speaking to before we ended up in a styling-specific thread:

Any "weirdmobile-ness" would be a deliberate decision on GM's part to subdue demand.

Of course they're not serious. They're not going to make anything so good and in such volume that it might jeopardize their ICE sales

[1] Statements that GM would ever build it was another, but that magically evaporated...
[2] One that I happen to share

 

[ChadS]

Any car's attractiveness is partly subjective, and I too am not here to defend or attack any car's styling. Buy what you like.

Purposefully hampering a product (by looks, utility, pricing, whatever) seems counterintuitive. However, the automakers do have good reasons (i.e. versioning, avoiding margin cannibalization) to hobble cars - which can include "adjusting" attractiveness. I started another thread HERE that has an overly-long explanation of the market the automakers are in and what strategies make sense for profit maximization; so while wider in scope it includes this issue for those that are interested.

 

[renim]

(mod note: split from the Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive) thread)

Ah, I think we are missing something here.
...

Therefore, if you look at the competitors to the Prius, you will see that many did their market research and decided that they had to ship wierdmobiles. So we end up with the Nissan Leaf, the BMW i3, and so forth. Note that BMW has a separate i-series branding for their eco-cars. Note that Nissan has not pushed an Infiniti BEV.

As for the Bolt, it's, at least now it doesn't have to suffer under the illusion that the willing buyers would insist on a wierdmobile.

Weirdmobile, compared to most similarly sized Japanese Nissan compact cars, the LEAF is the normal looking vehicle.

NISSAN:English TOP PAGE

 

[renim]

Nissan Juke

Nissan Note/Versa

Nissan March

Nissan Cube



compared to most of these petrol powered Nissan's the Nissan LEAF is not the weird mobile, but is more normal looking than most of these (Juke, March & Cube)

 

[ggr]

Nissan Juke

That's a joke, son, a joke, get it? (Foghorn Leghorn.)