Auto show impressions

[Sport-Tech]

To riff on Seinfeld, "What is it with cars these days?". A visit to the Toronto show yesterday was a definite cold shower regarding the current state of car design, at least from a functional perspective. It's true that autos are generally looking more "sleek" (to use an old-fashioned term) than they have for years. But the very design elements that generate that sleekness work to reduce these cars' livability. It seems designers are winning the internal battles with the ergonomics and UX specialists at the car companies, resulting in a plethora of vehicles that increasingly incorporate design elements that never used to get past the clay model or concept-car stage--chief among them, squashed-down greenhouses in conjunction with ridiculously high beltlines, rear decks, and hoodlines. Of course some of these "features" are a result of tightened safety regulations but the consequent greatly restricted outward visibility imposes its own safety issues that seem to get ignored by the regulatory agencies.

Some of the cars I sat in struck me as close to dangerous to drive in busy metropolitan traffic: you can't see anything of the car forward of the windshield, due largely to the fact that you are sitting in a bathtub with no downward view through said windshield; massive, highly sloped a pillars restrict the view to left and right; and the view out the back, in addition to being severely curtailed by fat b and c pillars, is hampered by high, short back windows that have you peering at the sky through the rear view mirror (and totally unable to see where your trunk ends). In some of these cars you would probably barely see the top of a BRZ if it was right behind your back bumper. I wonder if one of the primary reasons for the current popularity of CUVs is that they suffer far less from these limitations than sedans and coupes.

Even smaller cars suffer one or more of these design flaws: the Fiesta ST, the Audi A3, etc. After sitting in a few models at the show, a quick glance at a car was usually enough to tell me if it would be a visibility nightmare. No wonder cars need all these electronic assists from backup cameras to lane-change and blind-spot warnings - drivers can't see half of what they should be able to any more.

Bright spots for me were: the twins for forward visibility (and the rear is not so bad because the hidden trunk is so short, but the rear quarter panels are problematic); the Golf, with its big greenhouse and no trunk hiding from view; and the M235i, which manages to be a visual knockout while maintaining good all-round visibility (you can actually see the edge of the lip spoiler when backing up).

Final note: sitting in the C7 was a real shocker. I knew the view out back would be a joke (although it's not as bad as a 370z) but wasn't prepared for the front end - it stretches to China. It would be a hair-raising challenge to drive this Klingon battle cruiser in city traffic every day.

/rant

[DarkSunrise]

Yeah good visibility and sightlines are critical for me too. One of the reasons I love the NSX is the great visibility provided by the low hood (no engine up front) and low beltline. I hate when you sit in a car and get that feeling like you're sitting in a bunker looking out through window slits.

I also agree that tidy dimensions are important too, but at least with the C7 Corvette, that long hood serves a purpose. It's necessary to mount the V8 engine as far back as possible to hit its 49/51 weight distribution, which naturally pushes the driver's seat back as well.

You can see that much of the engine is clearly behind the front axle in this picture, and how far back the driver's seat has to be to accommodate it. This is a 2015 Z06, but you get the idea.

[Burrcold]

I thought the S3 looked phenomenal in that blue!

[Kiske]

I understand the thick pillars (more to do with safety and fitting side-curtain airbags.)
I sort of think the current disporportion of modern cars like the camaro and challenger is due to most Americans/population being larger. They want the most lower cockpit space without disruption the height of the vehicle so they put a cheese slice for the window. After all they won't sell if they can't fit in them. lol

But, IMO hoods on modern cars are short. Parents have a C7 Z51 and it didn't stick out as poor to me in visibility or length. If you've driven any older american cars then anything should seem short. The titanics of the 60's-70's are really fun. IMO no where near as challenging as a super wide, flare-side, duelly truck with trailer in tow.

I have more of a challenge with cars like the f-bodies where the hood drops off out of visibility making it hard to guage distance.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Burrcold

I thought the S3 looked phenomenal in that blue!

Burrcold - FYI that photo apparently did not fully upload, I am only seeing the top half (I tried reloading the page).

I liked the look of that S3 as well, that paint sure wakes you up! But sitting in the A3 I found the forward visibility not as good as in the M235i. That (plus the 4 doors) would take it off my list. For about the same price you are down about 50 hp and torques on the 235. If I decide I want the S3's drivetrain/AWD chassis combo I'd go for the Golf R, much easier to see out of and $5k cheaper.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Yeah good visibility and sightlines are critical for me too. One of the reasons I love the NSX is the great visibility provided by the low hood (no engine up front) and low beltline. I hate when you sit in a car and get that feeling like you're sitting in a bunker looking out through window slits.

Absolutely. Any car that has bunker-slit windows is immediately out of consideration, it would not matter to me if a car was ideal in every other respect and a bargain to boot. The range of forward view the twins have is about as low as I am comfortable with - which eliminates a lot of the current crop of cars out there right now.

Interesting about the Vette. To me that is a big weakness in most FR high-performance car design; getting that good weight distribution needed for excellent handling gives you long hoods. They look great but IMO are a PITA to drive in traffic-dense cities.

BMW and others are turning to more compact turboed engines for hi-po output, which somewhat ameliorates the problem. The hood on the 330 hp 235i is very reasonable in length, and the car is still able to maintain a 50/50 weight distribution.

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by Kiske

IMO hoods on modern cars are short. Parents have a C7 Z51 and it didn't stick out as poor to me in visibility or length. If you've driven any older american cars then anything should seem short. The titanics of the 60's-70's are really fun. IMO no where near as challenging as a super wide, flare-side, duelly truck with trailer in tow.

Yeah, I drove a 70's Olds 98 once - fun experience but what a nightmare to maneuver.

I might be able to get used to a C7, but it would take a lot of adjustment in my driving and it would I suspect be a long time before I'd be comfortable piloting it in heavy city traffic. By the standards of the compact coupe I drive that Vette hood seems the length of a boccie court.

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

Burrcold - FYI that photo apparently did not fully upload, I am only seeing the top half (I tried reloading the page).

It's just my signature. What's strange is that it's cutoff and really long when I look at it on my iPhone, but on my laptop it loads fine.


How does everyone else see it?

[utekineir]

I love the c7.

But i'm about 6'3" and long in torso, sitting in one made it clear the structure at the rear of the ceiling would pretty much kill me in any sort of accident, let alone panic stop.

[FiRStsc10n]

How is the ergonomics & user-interface bad in vehicles today compared to 5-10 years ago?