what is "good design"?

[LaughingIndian]

My take is that good design is the Balance of the design principles i.e. proportion, scale, tone, color, etc. although these principles do have subjectivity to them in definition and priority. So Harry's correct: to each his own.

However, Selling a design to any market requires not only creating a unique style making that particular widget seem "special" and worthy of the price, but also, constantly changing styles creates a market to replace the widget we already have.

If Kia built affordable 250 GTOs there'd still be a market for Azteks ... whether us consumers desired that or not.

Anyway, I like the wheel-first design ...

[Ace-Garageguy]

All that cheesy black "cladding" that Pontiac was so gung-ho on (not only on Aztecs, but Bonnevilles, etc,.) was one of the worst moves they ever made.

Somebody at GM liked it. I thought this was awful the first time I saw it too. I looks like a dress-up costume supposed to be a future pickup for a low-budget sci-fi flick.

But I thought it worked on the Honda Element, implying cheap and easily replaced body panels in the locations they are most easily damaged...

Same reason I think the black bits work on the Toyota FJ

Edited March 27, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[southpier]

if all the 'black bits' were painted the body color, would the design be acceptable?

my vote (from above) would be: yuk, okay, okay.

but i think the butterscotch FJ looks too goofy (color - not style)

[chunkypeanutbutter]

Looks fine to me.

[johnbuzzed]

There is no way to quantify "good design." One man's masterpiece is another man's disaster. I'm sure there are some people at Pontiac who thought the Aztec ws a good design... otherwise how could it have gotten the green light?

This is simply one of those unanswerable questions. No answers, only opinions.

I agree with Harry. Just by looking at what I see in person, on-line, in magazines, etc, shows that "good design", for esthetic purposes, is a matter of personal opinion. Some people like '55 Chevys, some like '56 Chevys.

[Harry P.]

Looks fine to me.

Time to see your optometrist..

[oldnslow]

It probably fits the term functional, for what it is, same as most of the other off beat designs. The Avalanche comes to mind, yuck, couldn't make up it's mind what it wanted to be.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

What's really ugly about the Aztek? I can't see anything wrong with it, because I like it.

[Greg Myers]

Edited March 27, 2015 by Greg Myers

[Greg Myers]

Back on track ? Some work, some don't.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Greg Myers

[Harry P.]

What's really ugly about the Aztek? I can't see anything wrong with it, because I like it.

Which proves my point... "good design" is subjective. You like the Aztek, I think it's a design disaster... one of the ugliest cars ever made, IMO.

[Greg Myers]

Several Icons to consider.

[cobraman]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder........................ ugly goes to the bone !

[Matt Bacon]

Whatever those "icons to consider" are, they aren't "design"...

Art, maybe... sculpture, possibly, but design, no. They're all about throwing together a bunch of car parts for visual effect, with little or no thought to function, efficiency, elegance or purpose. You may like how they look, others may not. Art is all about the effect the work has on the viewer; design is about doing a job well, and beautifully.

If you want to have a discussion about whether the radiator on a hot rod looks better tilted forward or backwards, then fine. It's completely subjective, and everyone's opinion is a valid one. That's why it's art. If you want to argue about whether one is better designed than the others, then you have to first see how well it does the job of being a car. If it's just something that gets parked in a field or a hangar for lots of people to look at and have opinions about how cool or not it looks, then it's sculpture.

And I know I'm in the minority here, but as art, for me, aesthetically, they're all equally disastrous...

;-P

bestest,

M.

[Lucas van H]

Which proves my point... "good design" is subjective. You like the Aztek, I think it's a design disaster... one of the ugliest cars ever made, IMO.

Can't beat the Fiat Multipla ?

[1930fordpickup]

Which proves my point... "good design" is subjective. You like the Aztek, I think it's a design disaster... one of the ugliest cars ever made, IMO.

I agree with the look of the Aztek Harry , makes me wince with a good look. LOL

I have talked to many people who drive these and I ask about the look of it . My favorite answer was you can not see the ugly behind the wheel. They also say they are great cars to drive and very useful , I still can not get over the look myself.

[Greg Myers]

[Ace-Garageguy]

Truly great picture, Greg.

[Roadrunner]

Not knowing the particular design criteria for what any one car are, it's difficult for me to say if the design is solid or not. As to aesthetic appearance, that is of course purely personal.

If you think car designs can be poor looking, take a look at the world of architecture, now there's an area of some oftentimes bizarre (from my personal perspective) visual styles.

[southpier]

but it does emphasize the point.

is interpretation of design really style, or function?

certainly should be a harmonic blend - ebony & ivory - and all that goes with it.

i think the whole "rat rod" movement brought about some quite interesting uses of non standard mechanical assemblies, but the function was missing.

design needs to have visual & functional components to be successful.

would it be safe to conclude most factory modified vehicles were not done so by trained professionals? even the cute little engine that could, couldn't. no connecting rods on the drivers, bumper set behind the main frame, no front facing cab windows so the engineer could see the track ahead ....

so how did Norm, Tommy, and all the rest figure out a way to do it and make 'em look good in the process?

[Roadrunner]

Design considerations may have several goals, but aesthetic consideration does not necessarily need to be one of them. A good design should first and foremost, be functional, as per whatever the stated functionality criteria are; if it happens to look good, that's just a bonus, unless visual appeal was a stated criteria.

I'm speaking here of course in terms applicable to corporate design endeavors, not the individual car builder.

[Ace-Garageguy]

but it does emphasize the point.

is interpretation of design really style, or function?

certainly should be a harmonic blend - ebony & ivory - and all that goes with it.

i think the whole "rat rod" movement brought about some quite interesting uses of non standard mechanical assemblies, but the function was missing.

design needs to have visual & functional components to be successful.

would it be safe to conclude most factory modified vehicles were not done so by trained professionals? even the cute little engine that could, couldn't. no connecting rods on the drivers, bumper set behind the main frame, no front facing cab windows so the engineer could see the track ahead ....

so how did Norm, Tommy, and all the rest figure out a way to do it and make 'em look good in the process?

Language and word usage change over time. When I was a lad, in this country "car design" pretty much referred to the aesthetic specifics. Function of US cars was often very much secondary to aesthetic appeal, and getting all the greasy bits and passengers to fit under the skin was sometimes more afterthought than not. These were the days when critics of American cars made comments about "tortured sheetmetal", "chrome laden barges", etc.

"Vehicle design" has come to include functionality and fitness for a certain task or market segment, but it's obvious from looking at cars like the Juke and Aztek that form doesn't always follow function when the marketeers get their fingers in the pie. I'm sure they're both reasonably competent "transportation appliances", but I always wonder how many clowns are going to get out whenever I see someone parking one.

The best designs combine exceptional functionality with visual appeal. A Ford GT-40 is stunningly beautiful as kinetic sculpture, but fares rather poorly as daily transportation. Does that make it a poor design? No, not if you have part of the '50s mindset that "design" refers primarily to appearance.

The best of the hot-rod designs are fast, handle well, and look good doing it.

You ask "so how did Norm, Tommy, and all the rest figure out a way to do it and make 'em look good in the process? " Talent and years of experience, plus a willingness to experiment and change things that don't look "right".

Edited March 27, 2015 by Ace-Garageguy

[gtx6970]

Several Icons to consider.

Or not. .

Me personally I think they're all butt ugly .

[Matt Bacon]

"Vehicle design" has come to include functionality and fitness for a certain task or market segment, but it's obvious from looking at cars like the Juke and Aztek that form doesn't always follow function when the marketeers get their fingers in the pie.

The best designs combine exceptional functionality with visual appeal. A Ford GT-40 is stunningly beautiful as kinetic sculpture, but fares rather poorly as daily transportation.

Completely agree. The first point is what I was trying to say in the comparison between chair designers and car designers. Car designers have the _option_ of deciding that form doesn't follow function; chair designers don't.

Exceptional functionality combined with visual appeal? Check. The GT-40 was never intended as daily transportation. What's great about it is that it combines kinetic sculpture with outstanding performance in its chosen niche. Ditto the 250 GTO. What's great about the 2005 Ford GT is that it (almost) pulls off a triple: aesthetically top-notch, class-equalling (if not beating) supercar, AND more or less usable as a daily driver. Now that's GREAT design: do the jobs you have to do, look beautiful, and do something else brilliantly as well... It's the "Jodie Kidd" factor: supermodel, girl next door TV presenter... and top class historic racing driver while she's at it.

bestest,

M.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Matt Bacon

[Harry P.]

The best designs combine exceptional functionality with visual appeal.

The way i see it, "design" refers to the visual aspect of a product. "Engineering" covers the functionality.

You can have a product that has a spectacular design but lousy functionality (like a slick sports car that most average-sized people can't comfortably fit into, for example)... and you can have a product that's not particularly visually appealing but quite functional (like a Pontiac Aztec).

Design and Engineering are two separate things... they can work together, they can work independent of each other.