Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lil bastard
Well, you may be correct from a purely design standpoint.
Then again, we're no longer in an age where form is separated from function. Form must now intergrate into function. This is most often governed by the laws of Fluid and Aero dynamics. Gone are the days of exposed wipers, quarter windows, fins, square side mirrors, recessed lamps, etc. All these things were tremendous drag items on a car and greatly decreased Range (MPG).
This is what I meant when I said:" the 'computer' guides the designer's hand these days much more than any muse. ". In other words, cars MUST look the way they now do and this tremendously narrows any latitude the designer has to inject truly unique styling elements.
To use the arguement of Geo vs Porsche, no they're not the same design. But, they have been able to distinguish themselves through a series of compromises that eventually gets them both to the same relative point. The shape of the GEO may not be as aerodynamic as the Porsche's, but the trade off, at least in this case, has been weight. The Geo is much lighter than the Porsche allowing it's design to be slightly less aerodynamic, but through weight savings, reach or exceed the function (Range) requirements.
But, also be aware that while many cars now have similarities in such things as rounded fronts, shortened rears with little overhang, aerodynamic mirrors, etc. subtle differences do exist. The fact that the casual observer isn't always able to distinguish them doesn't mean it's not an original work.
|
Thanks for the knowledgeable explanation. Very clear and well-thought without the need of any sarcasm in context.
"because of aerodynamic law and computer assisted design, cars that look the same to casual observer does not mean it is not original work".
Can I say that, if these Japanese car manufacturers produce a Porsche-looking sports cars with subtle difference and probably named the model "ORIGIN", it is perfectly acceptable to all of us? If yes, then I have nothing else to say.