There is certainly much truth in what might be considered a cynical (or at least pragmatic) interpretation of design goals from a marketing perspective.
But I think you’re just playing with me here. As you acknowledge, the true meaning of “form follows function” is as an expression of an aesthetic ideal where every aspect of design exists in the service of a specific function and not merely as decoration. American cars of the 50s (and early 60s) were indeed designed the way they were – in opposition to this important principle – because that was what the market wanted. But that deflects from the real point, which is that the American automotive market at the time was apparently comprised of aesthetically illiterate philistines with a preference for grotesquely gaudy, purposeless ornamentation. As a bonus, most of those cars were large, heavy, unsafe, unreliable, handled poorly, had appalling gas mileage, and spewed lead into the air and the rest of the environment.
I suspect a lot of it had to do with a decade of soaring economy and dramatic growth in personal wealth, and an interest in moving past the dull, unchanging designs of the wartime and immediate postwar era. People wanted cars that were large, powerful, flashy, and looked like their concept of “modern”, even if most of that looks laughable today.
But the “form follows function” principle is timeless. Modern carmakers hew much more closely to that today, even Tesla, with some notable exceptions, like the regrettable Cybertruck, and a long list of relatively minor design decisions that were all driven by Elmo’s misguided preferences. Like (IMHO) the poor instrumentation layout on the Model 3, or door handles that look cool but won’t open in cold icy weather, or the general lack of physical controls. Or those stupid gullwing doors on the SUV.
In this compendium of Elmo’s malign and uninformed influence on Tesla design, the Cybertruck stands on its own as a special case. The former is symptomatic of Elmo’s quirkiness, stubbornness, and lack of informed decision-making. The Cybertruck seems more symptomatic of Elmo completely losing his mind.
Agree w your whole post, but most especially your conclusion. Spot on IMO.
“Form follows function” as a design goal was itself an early 20th century reaction to the rather baroque designs of many 1880s-1900s machines. e.g. Sewing machines with cast iron bodies that had bulbous cherubs sticking out that were part of the casting. They were supposed to “help” the user sew. Instead they were obstacles that caught on thread and cloth. Lest anyone think I’m kidding: cherub sewing machine - Google Image Search
I personally favor functional things over purely decorative things. But fashions certainly change. Cars are a major example of status symbols, and IMO status symbols are particularly prone to the vicissitudes of fashion. Sometimes clean and tailored is “in” and sometimes gaudy and excessive is “in”. Even on mainstream middle-class sedans.
I’m not a fan of that styling for exactly that reason. It’s about comfy suburbanites projecting a faux aggressive, nay ruthless, image. Poseurs the lot.
Okay, I know I’m an outlier, but as a child of the 80s, there is a certain charm to the Cybertruck in my eyes. Admittedly, it is part of the sharp sides, high-tech, super Angulllllaaaaaar build that was briefly popular, along with the whole cyber part of the cyberpunk thing that Musk is trying to evoke.
I mean, I look at it and the 12-14 year old part of my mind that never left the 80s thinks “It’s cool.” The rest of me, that gets form v function, practicalities, and the like, go “not in a million years if it was my money” but it still feels like a vehicle designed to appeal to geeky white males of a certain age.
The long and short of the video is: Musk is an untalented, thin-skinned, troll that tricked himself into buying Twitter. He has no idea what to do with it. Musk is so insecure that he will pander to whoever will suck up to him. Since it is largely the right doing that, Musk has shifted allegiances to the right.
I cannot recommend his videos enough though. He’s forking hilarious.
I have no problem with this old car, and actually think it looks pretty good. But I also think the Cybertruck looks bad. It looks nothing like this–it just looks like a low poly model for a car.
I might be persuaded to acknowledge that this part might be true, provided that “males of a certain age” is defined as “12 years old or less”. Which, coincidentally, may be Elmo’s mental age, at least from a maturity and aesthetics-appreciation perspective.
The Cybertruck is so grotesquely ugly that I’m certain that its ugliness could be objectively assessed several different ways. I’m sure that someone with formal training in industrial design, or automotive design, and/or aesthetic principles in general, could write a decent paper on why this thing is so grotesquely hideous. Another way would be to poll either the general population or potential truck buyers to see what they think. I’m pretty confident in what the results would be.
It’s also worth noting that when car companies contemplate novel design elements, they often introduce those elements to the public in the form of a “concept car” – one that is not meant for production, but to gauge public reaction. Usually concept cars are a bit too unconventional for production, but they’re nevertheless generally quite attractive.
So what does Elmo do? He designs a monumentally ugly piece of crap that looks like an unskilled metalworker hammered it together in his garage without any real plan or even any real thought, and then Elmo announces that said monumentally ugly piece of crap represents the final design intended for production, and commands all his sycophants and fanbois to admire it. I don’t claim to know anything much about the car business, but this is just nuts from any rational standpoint.
I’m basically younger than Musk by 2 years. I find that if I had abandoned growing up mentally and socially at the age above (when I was 12, Musk would have been 14 - see, not a randomly chosen age range above) then lots of the stuff Musk thinks/does makes sense.
High tech boondoggles that sound good but ignore the practicalities? Check!
Super angular brushed metal vehicle that looks tough (for Mad Maxing) regardless of efficacy? Check!
Rockets and space travel? Triple check!
Making everyone listen to what I have to say, FINALLY? Oh, yeah, major check!
Flamethrowers! Yes, more flamethrowers! Check.
And on and on and on.
Proving if you have enough money and no one to gainsay you, that you never have to grow up.
This is how James Watson got into so much trouble. It’s not exactly not growing up, I think it’s just lack of normal feedback. Watson published the DNA structure at age 25, and got the Nobel Prize at 34. It was clear that for his entire life after that everybody had just let him talk for as long as he wanted about whatever he wanted without interrupting and without giving him any of the normal social and intellectual feedback that helps you calibrate.
While I generally don’t think much of the Cybertruck’s shape, I certain see exactly what @ParallelLines is saying about The Rule of Cool as applied to 12yo boys. I’m a decade+ older, so my inner 12yo wants something else. But given the resources I’d certainly be tempted to build something that screams 1970!!11!!!1!!!1.
Folks with formal training in automotive design also created the Aztec and the Juke. Horrors both by popular agreement.
IMO Cybertruck is essentially “El Camino goes to Spaaaaacccce!” Done right, in a slightly tweaked v2, it could catch the imagination of a newly emerging zeitgeist. Or fall as flat as the Aztec did.
If they had any cool at all the car would be a tetrahedron. It don’t get no simpler than that, at least not in our 3D world.
Wait wait, I suddenly understand! My god, why didn’t we think of it before? We’ve been fools, nothing but fools!!
Musk specializes in 10D (or even more-D) chess. The Cybertruck shape is just the 3D projection of his 10+D Master Plan to Rule the World. He’s daring us to figure out the whole shape from this clue. He’s like the Riddler, only smarter & more devious.
Quick, activate the DoperSignal! (like the Bat Signal, but wayay cooler). With our collective wisdom and mad higher math skillz we can discover his entire plan then foil it!
Good point. You can also add the Nissan Cube to that list. None of those cars are made any more, though technically the Nissan Juke has been replaced by the Kicks, which is a fair improvement.
One possibly theory for how these cars made it into production might be Elmo-like “guidance” from management, involving a choice of following the guidance or looking for new employment. Another might be to invoke the old adage used for doctors and lawyers: in every automotive design class, one student had to be last!
Clearly what I must have meant was that one would seek a consensus opinion on the Cybertruck from a group of qualified industrial and automotive designers. They couldn’t ALL have been last in their class!
Hmmmmmmm… The Cybertruck might be a reasonable shape for the northern tier states out in the boonies, given the angled design. Hit a moose and that sucker should roll right up that ramp, slide down off the rear ramp, rather than crashing through the windshield.
As you acknowledge, the true meaning of “form follows function” is as an expression of an aesthetic ideal where every aspect of design exists in the service of a specific function and not merely as decoration. American cars of the 50s (and early 60s) were indeed designed the way they were – in opposition to this important principle – because that was what the market wanted. But that deflects from the real point, which is that the American automotive market at the time was apparently comprised of aesthetically illiterate philistines with a preference for grotesquely gaudy, purposeless ornamentation. As a bonus, most of those cars were large, heavy, unsafe, unreliable, handled poorly, had appalling gas mileage, and spewed lead into the air and the rest of the environment.
Og dammit… it’s a DeLorean???