Designing cars before the age of the computer

Bill Mitchell is a genius:

Yep - I always think about the cars designed first on a drafting board and they just looked fast.  

For anyone serious about this subject, check out THE best car design history site, bar none. My old buddy from GM Design Staff days, Gary, has assembled an amazing resource on this subject. The information is almost endless.

http://www.deansgarage.com/

Take a minute and imagine carving this freehand, just using your imagination:

I'm sure today they use computers first and fine-tune with clay (maybe even carve the shape from a computer file) but back in the day people just willed these shapes into being with their hands. Amazing.

They used slide rules. It has yet to be equaled. 

In reply to olpro :

That's really cool, thanks for sharing.

It's good to see clay models are still in use today, albeit with some help from a robotic clay carver.

I used an Amiga 3000 to design a replacement for the Fiero back in 89 in college. Made a clay model of it too. No longer have the model but have prints of the design around here somewhere.

Probably showing (off?) my age again but back when I was a lad I was gifted a model kit that was a primer on how the Clay's for auto styling were done.

Of course it had a drawing and templates to build the show car on the box lid.
But once that had been done you would know how to create anything that struck your fancy.
The clay could be reused.

CAD rendering today may present a more visually appealing finished image but you cannot hold it in your hand, or put wheels on it and roll it around the table.

I still use some of the techniques from that old kit in my fiberglass work.

Sir William Lyons used to have a steel  preliminary model brought by his house so he could study the shadow lines in the setting sun. They called it Fag packet engineering.  Fag is  British slang for cigarettes.  Basically it was sketches turned into metal and then modified according to Sir Lyons eye.   
No clay involved. 

For a sporty car, putting a computer model in fluid dynamic simulation is cheaper than renting a wind tunnel.

I read an article about TVR still sculpting models by hand in the 2000s. They used foam and full size drawings. The modelers would shape half a car then cut cardboard templates to shape the other side.  Much later after putting the Tuscan in production they put it in a wind tunnel and found it had a crazy amount of lift.

RichardSIA said:

CAD rendering today may present a more visually appealing finished image but you cannot hold it in your hand, or put wheels on it and roll it around the table.

???

Appleseed said:

They used slide rules. It has yet to be equaled. 

Back when I was in school, went to a presentation by one of the guys involved in the design. 
He said they used Friden mechanical calculators as well. 

j_tso said:

For a sporty car, putting a computer model in fluid dynamic simulation is cheaper than renting a wind tunnel.

I read an article about TVR still sculpting models by hand in the 2000s. They used foam and full size drawings. The modelers would shape half a car then cut cardboard templates to shape the other side.  Much later after putting the Tuscan in production they put it in a wind tunnel and found it had a crazy amount of lift.

That's not quite true. I spend a pretty serious amount of time in wind tunnels on actual race cars. The production usage of the tunnels is still pretty strong too. There is always signs of clay work on the floor. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) can get you pretty far, but the tunnel results can be generated in minutes and give a complete car measure of the performance versus hours to days for CFD. However CFD is used to get directions. Tunnel results can/are used to provide the drag numbers that help drive the CAFE numbers...

Interesting how the greatest designs were done without computers. And once computers got involved everything looked stupid or lifeless. 
 

hit the power button designers. Lock yourself in a secluded room, where you are only allowed to watch pre 1970's tv and commercials. Listen only to pre 1970 music, and watch the creativity stArt flowing. Then have them pen a vehicle. 

LeftLaneLoser said:

Interesting how the greatest designs were done without computers. And once computers got involved everything looked stupid or lifeless. 
 

hit the power button designers. Lock yourself in a secluded room, where you are only allowed to watch pre 1970's tv and commercials. Listen only to pre 1970 music, and watch the creativity stArt flowing. Then have them pen a vehicle. 

The advent of computers has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of talent among the general public in the last 30+ years - it's only a symptom of a greater cause.  The fault lies with the school system which has held that education must be pumped in and painted on.  It worked OK for teaching little girls, but boys were being "diagnosed" with the made-up disease/disorder of ADHD as if something was wrong with them for not being able to sit still for the 6hrs of useless, boring indoctrination.  The only true "success stories" were the conformists or autistic ones (mechanical men).  The conformists appeared as normal but their natural born-in intuition was being weakened systematically and their obsequious conformity was being rewarded daily.  They were being pedestalized for memorizing rote facts and having no original thoughts of their own.  This earned them A+ grades and perfect GPAs.

Meanwhile in the Art World, we were all being taught that dog vomit was a form of artistic genius.  Abstract was highly prized and praised.  So what happened to all those creative kids?  They ran from here to there until they either killed themselves or were psychologically conditioned into some form of conformity or rebellion.  The message was clear, "intuitive people need not apply."  Generations of conformists in charge have safeguarded all of the ranks below them and paneled them with conformists and brown-nosers.

As computers were blindly accepted as the way of the future in one profession after another, the auto styling world was still going strong with their hand-made clay models and mechanical survey machines.  The practice of generating and using templates intuitively trains your senses to understand the pleasing simplicity of combining these shapes and transitioning from one into the next.  Changing the design and refining it by hand only takes a few hours.  But the newer generations just didn't have the intuition necessary to develop these kinds of skills - it was systematically removed from them.  They grew up playing with Star Wars dolls and video games.  When someone bought them a model car kit, they had to throw it in the trash when mother deemed the glue as unsafe for baby or it "didn't have good enough instructions" for dad to build for junior.  The old guard stayed in their design jobs as long as they cared to stay but it must've made them sick to see what was replacing them.

Oh, and that SR-71 that Kelly Johnson designed was 100% intuitively formed.  He simply KNEW (without knowing how he knew) how to shape and design that aircraft to incomparable PERFECTION.  He even intuitively designed the ramjet engines and the system of ducts that bypassed and fed the core turbojet engines.  If he were educated in today's school system, he would have been medicated by age 5 and a high school dropout by age 16.  He was educated in a one-room schoolhouse.

It's intuition that's missing.  Think about it!  If ducks had to go to school to learn how to fly and swim, there would be a hell of a lot of failures and medicated ducks.  You have the power inside of you to buck your programming, but if that happened we would barely need government, doctors, bosses, mega-schools, etc.  The parasites love the modern era.

And what about the music industry?  The same 3 men have been writing all of the latest hit songs for over 100 puppet "artists."  Original thought is so outdated.

So indoctrinating someone into the 1970's wouldn't make him any more creative.  Even indoctrinating people to style cars in clay using time-honored traditions wouldn't do it.  It takes an inner spark that a person must find for himself and it takes a culture of "leave him alone to do as he wishes" to keep from blowing out that spark.

Incidentally, does anyone still believe in evolution?  I seem to have inadvertently  detailed a good account to support DEVOLUTION right here for you.

In reply to Appleseed : agreed. Kelly Johnson was a genius

Junkers said:

LeftLaneLoser said:

Interesting how the greatest designs were done without computers. And once computers got involved everything looked stupid or lifeless. 
 

hit the power button designers. Lock yourself in a secluded room, where you are only allowed to watch pre 1970's tv and commercials. Listen only to pre 1970 music, and watch the creativity stArt flowing. Then have them pen a vehicle. 

The advent of computers has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of talent among the general public in the last 30+ years - it's only a symptom of a greater cause.  The fault lies with the school system which has held that education must be pumped in and painted on.  It worked OK for teaching little girls, but boys were being "diagnosed" with the made-up disease/disorder of ADHD as if something was wrong with them for not being able to sit still for the 6hrs of useless, boring indoctrination.  The only true "success stories" were the conformists or autistic ones (mechanical men).  The conformists appeared as normal but their natural born-in intuition was being weakened systematically and their obsequious conformity was being rewarded daily.  They were being pedestalized for memorizing rote facts and having no original thoughts of their own.  This earned them A+ grades and perfect GPAs.

Meanwhile in the Art World, we were all being taught that dog vomit was a form of artistic genius.  Abstract was highly prized and praised.  So what happened to all those creative kids?  They ran from here to there until they either killed themselves or were psychologically conditioned into some form of conformity or rebellion.  The message was clear, "intuitive people need not apply."  Generations of conformists in charge have safeguarded all of the ranks below them and paneled them with conformists and brown-nosers.

As computers were blindly accepted as the way of the future in one profession after another, the auto styling world was still going strong with their hand-made clay models and mechanical survey machines.  The practice of generating and using templates intuitively trains your senses to understand the pleasing simplicity of combining these shapes and transitioning from one into the next.  Changing the design and refining it by hand only takes a few hours.  But the newer generations just didn't have the intuition necessary to develop these kinds of skills - it was systematically removed from them.  They grew up playing with Star Wars dolls and video games.  When someone bought them a model car kit, they had to throw it in the trash when mother deemed the glue as unsafe for baby or it "didn't have good enough instructions" for dad to build for junior.  The old guard stayed in their design jobs as long as they cared to stay but it must've made them sick to see what was replacing them.

Oh, and that SR-71 that Kelly Johnson designed was 100% intuitively formed.  He simply KNEW (without knowing how he knew) how to shape and design that aircraft to incomparable PERFECTION.  He even intuitively designed the ramjet engines and the system of ducts that bypassed and fed the core turbojet engines.  If he were educated in today's school system, he would have been medicated by age 5 and a high school dropout by age 16.  He was educated in a one-room schoolhouse.

It's intuition that's missing.  Think about it!  If ducks had to go to school to learn how to fly and swim, there would be a hell of a lot of failures and medicated ducks.  You have the power inside of you to buck your programming, but if that happened we would barely need government, doctors, bosses, mega-schools, etc.  The parasites love the modern era.

And what about the music industry?  The same 3 men have been writing all of the latest hit songs for over 100 puppet "artists."  Original thought is so outdated.

So indoctrinating someone into the 1970's wouldn't make him any more creative.  Even indoctrinating people to style cars in clay using time-honored traditions wouldn't do it.  It takes an inner spark that a person must find for himself and it takes a culture of "leave him alone to do as he wishes" to keep from blowing out that spark.

Incidentally, does anyone still believe in evolution?  I seem to have inadvertently  detailed a good account to support DEVOLUTION right here for you.

Wow! That's a lot of if ignorance and offensive tripe packed into one diatribe.

Well, this took an odd turn to an echo chamber of wackos.

In reply to ProDarwin :

You can say that again.  

Wow! That's a lot of if ignorance and offensive tripe packed into one diatribe.

Let me guess, you're an intellectual and I've hurt your feelings.  Let me ask you, what stung you the worst?

ProDarwin said:

Well, this took an odd turn to an echo chamber of wackos.

Sometimes uncovering the causes of problems hurts feelings - especially when people believe that their "identity" has been attacked.  That's when the defamation and name-calling starts.

Matt said:

In reply to Appleseed : agreed. Kelly Johnson was a genius

 

You should read his book, it's a quick read and will show you that he is quite a plain, down to Earth man.  Einstein was another man like him.  Einstein was well hated by his teachers and had to drop out of school, but that was Europe and American schools hadn't become infected yet.  Both of these men in today's American school system would have been deemed utter failures and would have been targeted for destruction.

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

I've been an automotive designer for 30+ years.  The idea that the introduction of computers = the fall of design is bulls**t.  At the same time computers became widespread, the industry was addressing the need for greater safety, better aerodynamics and fuel economy, a demand for better quality and with it the rationalization of the manufacturing process, and a tightening of budgets.  All of those impacted the car's aesthetics in significant ways.

There are and always have been many talented designers out there.  The computer is just a tool, and like all tools it can enhance or detract from the creative process depending on the users and those that manage them.  There are a zillion ways that computers enhance design and manufacturing.  I can't imagine any creative designer working now would ever want to go back to using only the old, analog tools.  Nor can I imagine using only those tools making a design better.  

Also, I'm sorry your brain stopped processing information after 1970.

In reply to pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) :

It's no different now, other than the tools.  Every car design starts inside the designers mind.  Whether it's first sketched on a napkin (Still happens) on vellum with ballpoint (My favorite for early exploration) or on a computer using a digital drawing tablet, the ideas are the product of some creative individual's mind and hands.  Scale models are created after drawings are made over packaging drawings to make sure the people and components fit. (More or less, at this early stage.) Eventually a design or two is chosen to be rendered in full size clay.  In modern days, CAD is created of the design and then machines mill it into the clay.  Further refinements take place by hand and then the results are scanned and the CAD model updated.  

In reply to Appleseed :

Slide rules are an engineering tool, not a creative design tool.  

msterbeau said:

In reply to pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) :

It's no different now, other than the tools.  Every car design starts inside the designers mind.  Whether it's first sketched on a napkin (Still happens) on vellum with ballpoint (My favorite for early exploration) or on a computer using a digital drawing tablet, the ideas are the product of some creative individual's mind and hands.

My favorite example of that is my first internship while I was in school.  In the late 90s the owner/lead engineer of the company had an idea and built it with Lego.  Fast forward and now the company has 100-150 employees and brings in over $25 million a year.  That Lego design is still on his desk

What matters is that you get it out of your brain and into the real, not how you get it out of your brain.

msterbeau said:

In reply to Appleseed :

Slide rules are an engineering tool, not a creative design tool.  

You've never seen a Toyota from the 80's, have you? 

In reply to ShawnG :

Does driving one for a few years count?  :-)

In reply to Mr_Asa :

Yup.  Crayons, clay, pencils, plaster, markers, iPad, whatever.  

Appleseed said:

They used slide rules. It has yet to be equaled. 

You honestly think the gooberment doesn't have a faster and more capable aircraft that's not publicly visible? Really? 

accordionfolder said:

Appleseed said:

They used slide rules. It has yet to be equaled. 

You honestly think the gooberment doesn't have a faster and more capable aircraft that's not publicly visible? Really? 

They don't need to.

Because, you know, space...

In reply to ShawnG :

they are all around here, tons of 80s  Toyota and other import mini trucks in daily use

In reply to ShawnG :

Not true, the time and positioning of satellites is a lot less flexible. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Successor

In reply to Junkers :

Ohhhh....  this thread is starting to deliver!

In reply to accordionfolder :

The source that states that is from 94'. Even if it was current, 24 hours is a while but it's not prohibitive to reconnaissance. Once you get more satellites in orbit, that time goes down. To say nothing of deploying drones and the potential for hypersonic UAVs. 

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

It's amazing to me how many people claim to be "offended" by my post!  It's sort of like the kind of "offended" a criminal gets when he's being watched.  Face it, I struck a nerve inside of you too and it shook the core of your empty wasted being.  You'd think a person would be grateful to see what was wrong with him and how his handlers raised him, but no he actually DEFENDS his abusers.

Let me reiterate and prove my point.  The modern school system is nothing more than an indoctrination factory that strips bright children of their natural intuition & talents.  Nearly ALL children are extremely bright in one way or another.

To prove my point, I want any doubters to spend a day observing a few public school classrooms.  Talk to kindergarteners, 2nd graders, 5th graders, high-schoolers.  You will be amazed by what the kindergardeners can tell you, and left scratching your head on how moronically damaged the H.S. seniors are.  In fact, college is only one large pre-school where everybody gets sexually molested.

And then you put these animals in charge of business and country and see what happens.

I invite anyone to have an honest discussion with me here about these things instead of all of your typical defamation, degradation and mocking.

msterbeau said:

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

I've been an automotive designer for 30+ years.  The idea that the introduction of computers = the fall of design is bulls**t.  At the same time computers became widespread, the industry was addressing the need for greater safety, better aerodynamics and fuel economy, a demand for better quality and with it the rationalization of the manufacturing process, and a tightening of budgets.  All of those impacted the car's aesthetics in significant ways.

There are and always have been many talented designers out there.  The computer is just a tool, and like all tools it can enhance or detract from the creative process depending on the users and those that manage them.  There are a zillion ways that computers enhance design and manufacturing.  I can't imagine any creative designer working now would ever want to go back to using only the old, analog tools.  Nor can I imagine using only those tools making a design better.  

Also, I'm sorry your brain stopped processing information after 1970.

Oh dude. You're gonna feel real dumb here. So, the "computers" comment I made was in reference to how computer aided design tells the creator "sorry, that's not aerodynamic enough". And, the icing on the cake here? I wasn't born until 1985. This wasn't an attack on the designers of our time. It's an attack on the lack of warmth and feeling a computer makes for the design. Computers are cold and calculated. Humans are not. 

In reply to Junkers :

ProDarwin said:

Thanks for finding this gif for me. 

LeftLaneLoser said:

msterbeau said:

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

I've been an automotive designer for 30+ years.  The idea that the introduction of computers = the fall of design is bulls**t.  At the same time computers became widespread, the industry was addressing the need for greater safety, better aerodynamics and fuel economy, a demand for better quality and with it the rationalization of the manufacturing process, and a tightening of budgets.  All of those impacted the car's aesthetics in significant ways.

There are and always have been many talented designers out there.  The computer is just a tool, and like all tools it can enhance or detract from the creative process depending on the users and those that manage them.  There are a zillion ways that computers enhance design and manufacturing.  I can't imagine any creative designer working now would ever want to go back to using only the old, analog tools.  Nor can I imagine using only those tools making a design better.  

Also, I'm sorry your brain stopped processing information after 1970.

Oh dude. You're gonna feel real dumb here. So, the "computers" comment I made was in reference to how computer aided design tells the creator "sorry, that's not aerodynamic enough". And, the icing on the cake here? I wasn't born until 1985. This wasn't an attack on the designers of our time. It's an attack on the lack of warmth and feeling a computer makes for the design. Computers are cold and calculated. Humans are not. 

Generally I've found that when someone tells someone else "you're gonna feel real dumb here" its the person saying that that ends up looking dumb.

CAD puts out what the designer puts in.  Garbage in, garbage out.
CAD has nothing to do with whether or not a vehicle is aerodynamic enough or not.  As has been stated multiple times in multiple places, that is based on EPA standards and other such outside factors.  

Computers are a tool.  No more, no less.  Any lack of warmth or feeling in a design is up to the designer and the beancounters that ratberkeley the design afterwards.

In reply to Junkers :

I am not offended it. Your post are just so ignorant and clueless I am laughing my head off at you.

LeftLaneLoser said:

msterbeau said:

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

I've been an automotive designer for 30+ years.  The idea that the introduction of computers = the fall of design is bulls**t.  At the same time computers became widespread, the industry was addressing the need for greater safety, better aerodynamics and fuel economy, a demand for better quality and with it the rationalization of the manufacturing process, and a tightening of budgets.  All of those impacted the car's aesthetics in significant ways.

There are and always have been many talented designers out there.  The computer is just a tool, and like all tools it can enhance or detract from the creative process depending on the users and those that manage them.  There are a zillion ways that computers enhance design and manufacturing.  I can't imagine any creative designer working now would ever want to go back to using only the old, analog tools.  Nor can I imagine using only those tools making a design better.  

Also, I'm sorry your brain stopped processing information after 1970.

Oh dude. You're gonna feel real dumb here. So, the "computers" comment I made was in reference to how computer aided design tells the creator "sorry, that's not aerodynamic enough". And, the icing on the cake here? I wasn't born until 1985. This wasn't an attack on the designers of our time. It's an attack on the lack of warmth and feeling a computer makes for the design. Computers are cold and calculated. Humans are not. 

How to say I have never used CAD without saying I have never used CAD.

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

I am not offended it. Your post are just so ignorant and clueless I am laughing my head off at you.

And look at that, it's the tactic of projection displayed in its perfect form.  You seem quite upset.

You all are proving my point to a perfect "T."  You can't debate me at all so you resort to mockery.  My words hurt you, so you feel you have to hurt me.  It's so funny to me too.  I said nothing personal to anyone, but because I criticized something that a few empty people have made into their identity I get a whole load of foolishness.

What was it that hurt you?  Do you play with Star Wars dolls or something?  Do you worship your teachers?  Does moronic music command your attention or trigger fantasies of godhood inside of you?  Who is your authority?  I'd like to know.

Junkers said:

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

I am not offended it. Your post are just so ignorant and clueless I am laughing my head off at you.

And look at that, it's the tactic of projection displayed in its perfect form.  You seem quite upset.

You all are proving my point to a perfect "T."  You can't debate me at all so you resort to mockery.  My words hurt you, so you feel you have to hurt me.  It's so funny to me too.  I said nothing personal to anyone, but because I criticized something that a few empty people have made into their identity I get a whole load of foolishness.

What was it that hurt you?  Do you play with Star Wars dolls or something?  Do you worship your teachers?  Does moronic music command your attention or trigger fantasies of godhood inside of you?  Who is your authority?  I'd like to know.

I am enjoying this.

In reply to Junkers :

berkeley man.  That's some good E36 M3 you must be smoking.

In reply to Junkers :

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Junkers said:

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

I am not offended it. Your post are just so ignorant and clueless I am laughing my head off at you.

And look at that, it's the tactic of projection displayed in its perfect form.  You seem quite upset.

You all are proving my point to a perfect "T."  You can't debate me at all so you resort to mockery.  My words hurt you, so you feel you have to hurt me.  It's so funny to me too.  I said nothing personal to anyone, but because I criticized something that a few empty people have made into their identity I get a whole load of foolishness.

What was it that hurt you?  Do you play with Star Wars dolls or something?  Do you worship your teachers?  Does moronic music command your attention or trigger fantasies of godhood inside of you?  Who is your authority?  I'd like to know.

Show me where the Star Wars doll touched you.

wvumtnbkr said:

Junkers said:

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

I am not offended it. Your post are just so ignorant and clueless I am laughing my head off at you.

And look at that, it's the tactic of projection displayed in its perfect form.  You seem quite upset.

You all are proving my point to a perfect "T."  You can't debate me at all so you resort to mockery.  My words hurt you, so you feel you have to hurt me.  It's so funny to me too.  I said nothing personal to anyone, but because I criticized something that a few empty people have made into their identity I get a whole load of foolishness.

What was it that hurt you?  Do you play with Star Wars dolls or something?  Do you worship your teachers?  Does moronic music command your attention or trigger fantasies of godhood inside of you?  Who is your authority?  I'd like to know.

I am enjoying this.

Me too, haha.

93EXCivic said:

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Yet again and you can only reply with mockery.  You just keep proving my point.  Thank you!

One good tip to those enjoying this show:  If you can draw an emotion out of people, you can make them do anything you say - and there's nothing they can do about it.  Some people will have trouble sleeping tonight because of what I did to them.  And I did it all with a few words that reminded them of their traumatic past.  They'll close their eyes to drop off into sleep and BOOM!  They'll shout a clever reply to me.  But who are they talking to?  Themselves?  You can't talk to your self.  And it won't be to me.  I'll be fast asleep resting well.

I'm still waiting for someone to show up to debate me.   Please send me your best intellectual.

Junkers said:

93EXCivic said:

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Yet again and you can only reply with mockery.  You just keep proving my point.  Thank you!

One good tip to those enjoying this show:  If you can draw an emotion out of people, you can make them do anything you say - and there's nothing they can do about it.  Some people will have trouble sleeping tonight because of what I did to them.  And I did it all with a few words that reminded them of their traumatic past.  They'll close their eyes to drop off into sleep and BOOM!  They'll shout a clever reply to me.  But who are they talking to?  Themselves?  You can't talk to your self.  And it won't be to me.  I'll be fast asleep resting well.

I'm still waiting for someone to show up to debate me.   Please send me your best intellectual.

I love when trolls outright admit to being trolls.  Makes it so much easier for The Powers That Be to remove them if they want.  Otherwise they have to go through all sorts of searching of posts and all sorts of other E36 M3.

No one is going to debate you, not because they are emotionally triggered, but because you're being a berkeleying shiny happy person and have already proven that you don't debate in good faith.

I can all but guarantee that no one here is going to lose sleep over you, sir. I think you might be assuming you have a greater effect on the people here than you actually do. Your grandstanding is verbose and incendiary, but not insightful or earth shattering.

I talk to myself all the time. What do you mean you can't?

Requirements change, so do shapes.  Just how stuff progresses. 
 

btw, I've met a lot of college students over the past decade, and expect to far into the future. The future is quite bright. 

In reply to Junkers :

I am just over here listening to moronic music and dreaming of godhood while worshipping my teachers and playing with star wars dolls. 

I was a pro/am videographer in the years that the industry turned digital. Good analog editors were a wonder to behold. I remember a guy who would edit rock concerts practically in real time. His sense of timing rivaled the musicians.  At the edit facility that I used, digitards were routinely mocked, then as editing suites became affordable and common on PCs we lamented the end of artistry. Now any punk could make edit lists, add effects and create jumbled crap.

But that's not how it turned out.  Sure, the abundance of editing programs and cameras allowed endless terrabytes of garbage to be created, but there's also a lot of videomakers who would not previously have been able to crack the industry who are making very good stuff -  often in poor overseas locales. 

Car design is no different. Look at all the prototypes and startups who are out there either making cars or creating good concepts because of the advantages granted them by CAD/CAM. Aesthetics are subjective, but IMO it's an exciting time. If you don't like what's being made now, it's probably because you prefer what came out in your teens and twenties. That's a basic human trait. That's when we are most excited by life and recording our most vivid memories.

Mr_Asa said:

LeftLaneLoser said:

msterbeau said:

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

I've been an automotive designer for 30+ years.  The idea that the introduction of computers = the fall of design is bulls**t.  At the same time computers became widespread, the industry was addressing the need for greater safety, better aerodynamics and fuel economy, a demand for better quality and with it the rationalization of the manufacturing process, and a tightening of budgets.  All of those impacted the car's aesthetics in significant ways.

There are and always have been many talented designers out there.  The computer is just a tool, and like all tools it can enhance or detract from the creative process depending on the users and those that manage them.  There are a zillion ways that computers enhance design and manufacturing.  I can't imagine any creative designer working now would ever want to go back to using only the old, analog tools.  Nor can I imagine using only those tools making a design better.  

Also, I'm sorry your brain stopped processing information after 1970.

Oh dude. You're gonna feel real dumb here. So, the "computers" comment I made was in reference to how computer aided design tells the creator "sorry, that's not aerodynamic enough". And, the icing on the cake here? I wasn't born until 1985. This wasn't an attack on the designers of our time. It's an attack on the lack of warmth and feeling a computer makes for the design. Computers are cold and calculated. Humans are not. 

Generally I've found that when someone tells someone else "you're gonna feel real dumb here" its the person saying that that ends up looking dumb.

CAD puts out what the designer puts in.  Garbage in, garbage out.
CAD has nothing to do with whether or not a vehicle is aerodynamic enough or not.  As has been stated multiple times in multiple places, that is based on EPA standards and other such outside factors.  

Computers are a tool.  No more, no less.  Any lack of warmth or feeling in a design is up to the designer and the beancounters that ratberkeley the design afterwards.

Nooooooooo. Wrong. Bean counters yes, but wind tunnel simulation is what the designers are hampered by. They might want to recreate a caddy tail fin, but that computer aided wind tunnel sim says you can't, and it's too expensive. This forum has gone to hell. 

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

The federal government says you can't because MPG. 

LeftLaneLoser said:

Nooooooooo. Wrong. Bean counters yes, but wind tunnel simulation is what the designers are hampered by. They might want to recreate a caddy tail fin, but that computer aided wind tunnel sim says you can't, and it's too expensive. 

This is a design requirement.  A non-computer-aided wind tunnel would say the same thing.  It has nothing to do with the computer.

Turbo_Rev said:

In reply to LeftLaneLoser :

The federal government says you can't because MPG. 

I don't think tail fins have any impact on fuel economy.  Lots of cost and complexity, but little drag.

But if all you want is to easily blame someone that has no real input, well...

LeftLaneLoser said:

Nooooooooo. Wrong. Bean counters yes, but wind tunnel simulation is what the designers are hampered by. They might want to recreate a caddy tail fin, but that computer aided wind tunnel sim says you can't, and it's too expensive. This forum has gone to hell. 

Dude, you're being dumb, or purposefully missing the point of what everyone else is telling you; I'm not sure which.

ProDarwin said:

LeftLaneLoser said:

Nooooooooo. Wrong. Bean counters yes, but wind tunnel simulation is what the designers are hampered by. They might want to recreate a caddy tail fin, but that computer aided wind tunnel sim says you can't, and it's too expensive. 

This is a design requirement.  A non-computer-aided wind tunnel would say the same thing.  It has nothing to do with the computer.

Wait when you designing something your computer doesn't say "I can't allow that Dave."? 

Junkers said:

 

Oh, and that SR-71 that Kelly Johnson designed was 100% intuitively formed.  He simply KNEW (without knowing how he knew) how to shape and design that aircraft to incomparable PERFECTION.  He even intuitively designed the ramjet engines and the system of ducts that bypassed and fed the core turbojet engines.  If he were educated in today's school system, he would have been medicated by age 5 and a high school dropout by age 16.  He was educated in a one-room schoolhouse.

 

This is 100% BS.  The SR71 was tons of engineering and science that designed and built it.  And Kelly Johnson did not design the engines.  BTW, the fact that the air in the engines needed to be sub-sonic was known by then, and how to do it was known as well.  So that adjustable nozzle design was just more extreme due to the speed, not because one person thought of something magical.

Also, given the state of the art of computers, I'd be pretty darned confident that computers were used in the design of the SR71, just because the math was so time consuming.  Pretty much every equation that goes into any design was well known by the time the SR71 was done- it was just a matter of how to apply them.  The longer the math took, the simpler the design would have to be.

I know auto OEM's were using computers to help the design process.

As for intuition, I do agree that it's incredibly important.  But in my experience as an engineer, it's still very much part of new engineers coming out of school.  If your hires don't have that, well, look someplace else.  In addition to that, though, new engineers have no problem diving into using computers for new things- in ways I'm just not going to invest learning how to do.  

Hell, computers were used to determine the suspension geometry of the GT40.

stafford1500 said:

That's not quite true. I spend a pretty serious amount of time in wind tunnels on actual race cars. The production usage of the tunnels is still pretty strong too. There is always signs of clay work on the floor. CFD (computational fluid dynamics) can get you pretty far, but the tunnel results can be generated in minutes and give a complete car measure of the performance versus hours to days for CFD. However CFD is used to get directions. Tunnel results can/are used to provide the drag numbers that help drive the CAFE numbers...

I didn't mean to imply CFD has replaced wind tunnels, just that it's cheaper, especially for people that have to rent them and there are multiple configurations to test.

For production cars tunnels are also used to analyze wind noise. That's getting to be important with silent running electric cars.

One of my favorite design stories is all about a beer can.

Frank Stephenson explains what a can of Budweiser and the new MINI have in common:

“We worked a number of 24-hour days trying to get the full-sized clay model completed for presentation to the board of directors,” says Stephenson. “So when we finished the job with just hours to spare, I thought it appropriate that the team have a beer or two to celebrate. That's when I spotted the problem.”

That problem was the complete absence of an exhaust tip on the otherwise complete clay. Thinking quickly, Stephenson stripped the paint from his beer can, punched a hole in the bottom, and fixed it in place on the model.

It wasn't long before he was called on the carpet by his boss at BMW. “It wasn't the shape (of the tip),” he says, “everybody liked it because it was unique yet oddly familiar. He was concerned that I had wasted a modeler's time milling the piece when his time could be better spent elsewhere. That was when I felt the need to confess.”

93EXCivic said:

In reply to Junkers :

I am just over here listening to moronic music and dreaming of godhood while worshipping my teachers and playing with star wars dolls. 

I got two Chewbaccas.  You got a Luke you wanna trade?

In reply to alfadriver :

Yeah, man, that's like my favorite thing to do. 

Shoot. It looks like Left Lane Loser's gone away. I wanted to try this on him: 

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

90% of everything is, indeed, crap.

I wonder if boring automotive design is partially due to modern manufacturing strategy.  The Big 3 took wild risks with automotive styling in the 50s and 60s because they would restyle the cars every model year.  You could easily tell the difference between a '63 and a '64 and a '65.  So there was less of a cost to the risk, because if it flopped, it was just for the one year.  If it was wildly successful, they had a new direction to move in.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Well, one can counter argue that because they were doing year over year changes, they had to be radical to make people want a new car when they didn't need one.  Sort of like how some do electronics these days.  Now, because models need to last quite few model years, you can't be polarizing on the design.

And I would also point out that most cars way back then were not great looking cars.  Only the classics that we remember.  The rest have just drifted into nothing.

Exner era Chryslers should be wiped from history. uGh...

alfadriver said:

And I would also point out that most cars way back then were not great looking cars.  Only the classics that we remember.  The rest have just drifted into nothing.

90% of everything is crap. 

I would stand by my assessment that the primary factor governing automotive styling is MPG targets. After that, crash test ratings. There's only so many shapes that give you enough aerodynamic efficiency to get the MPG people want.

Then there the shift to people looking at cars as appliances and nothing else. 

So when it comes to CAD, FEA and computers in general it's garbage in = garbage out as already mentioned. It's not hard to force a simulation to give the desired output and the smart guys in the room will immediately know if you're bullE36 M3ting them. Making good assumptions and setting proper boundary conditions is where education, experience and intuition comes in. Computers are just a tool. There's also "analysis paralysis" and knowing when to take a step away from the computer and sit down with pencil and paper.

As for car design I would say government regulations for things like passenger and pedestrian safety are by far the largest drivers of our current lack of design diversity. Fuel economy is still primarily dictated by the engine design otherwise everything would look like a Prius. Public opinion is also a major factor and like fashion certain elements go in and out of style. This isn't new. Look at a Conquest, 944 and RX7 from the late 80s. Yeah, we can all identify them but to the average person (e.g. my wife) they're all the same.

ProDarwin said:

LeftLaneLoser said:

Nooooooooo. Wrong. Bean counters yes, but wind tunnel simulation is what the designers are hampered by. They might want to recreate a caddy tail fin, but that computer aided wind tunnel sim says you can't, and it's too expensive. 

This is a design requirement.  A non-computer-aided wind tunnel would say the same thing.  It has nothing to do with the computer.

I like how you can't debate me but you turn and attack this guy instead to make yourself feel better.  I mean, what kind of pseudo intellectual authority are you appealing to with your response of "This is a design requirement."  ?

You remind me of a story of a man who stood at a gate watching 2 Dobermans barking at him angrily.  The man just stood there watching until the 2 dogs had nothing to attack but each other.  And then a miracle happened.  The 2 dogs turned and attacked each other.

Mr_Asa said:

Junkers said:

93EXCivic said:

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Yet again and you can only reply with mockery.  You just keep proving my point.  Thank you!

One good tip to those enjoying this show:  If you can draw an emotion out of people, you can make them do anything you say - and there's nothing they can do about it.  Some people will have trouble sleeping tonight because of what I did to them.  And I did it all with a few words that reminded them of their traumatic past.  They'll close their eyes to drop off into sleep and BOOM!  They'll shout a clever reply to me.  But who are they talking to?  Themselves?  You can't talk to your self.  And it won't be to me.  I'll be fast asleep resting well.

I'm still waiting for someone to show up to debate me.   Please send me your best intellectual.

I love when trolls outright admit to being trolls.  Makes it so much easier for The Powers That Be to remove them if they want.  Otherwise they have to go through all sorts of searching of posts and all sorts of other E36 M3.

No one is going to debate you, not because they are emotionally triggered, but because you're being a berkeleying shiny happy person and have already proven that you don't debate in good faith.

 

I think your synapses are crossing and I've short circuited your mind.  What is "berkeleying shiny happy person?"  What is "E36 M3?"  I didn't mean to affect you so.

Can you please give me an example of how I am not debating in good faith if I have not debated anyone as yet?  Actually, everyone here that snaps back at me I've quite handily dismissed as being blatant mockers.  Not one debate yet has begun aside from the debate I am now beginning with you, friend.

As to trolling, that's your problem.  How can I be trolling if I myself just showed you how to read comments and debate without being emotional?  I JUST SHOWED YOU HOW YOUR EMOTIONS blind the facts that hurt your feelings.  Take care of your emotions and you won't get your buttons pushed.  Easy as pie.  Anyone can do it.

In reply to infernosg :

All fair points. I would say the last one is basically the same as cars becoming appliances. Also, the "all cars look like Prius" sounds a lot like "all cars look the same now", which I hear every day. 

Turbo_Rev said:

In reply to infernosg :

All fair points. I would say the last one is basically the same as cars becoming appliances. Also, the "all cars look like Prius" sounds a lot like "all cars look the same now", which I hear every day. 

"All Cars Look the Same" is another way of suggesting that the design constraints generally will result in a handful of shapes that work.  Very much sucks when you want some style on the outside.  So you see differences in the front and interior.   

Must have been aerodynamic requirements why all the cars from the 1930s looked the same, too 

Does anyone else think LeftLaneLoser and Junkers are the same person?

In reply to Junkers :

You literally said how you're not "debating" in good faith, you goober.  You repeatedly claimed to have triggered people and gotten under their skin, and then you claim that if you get an emotional response you've "won," whatever the berkeley that means.  No one here is debating.  No one here is winning any discussions. Some people are losing them, but I don't need to tell you that.

As for the word filters, maybe you should spend more time lurking and paying attention.  Engage your brain and ask where all the cuss words are, you knob.

Don't feed the trolls. 

In reply to Oldboy Speedwell :

Found objects are more influential in the design world than you could possibly believe. :-)

In reply to 93EXCivic :

More like - How to say I have never, ever been involved in any aspect of the auto industry but I like to pretend I'm an expert at all of it...  

Mr_Asa said:

In reply to Junkers :

You literally said how you're not "debating" in good faith, you goober.  You repeatedly claimed to have triggered people and gotten under their skin, and then you claim that if you get an emotional response you've "won," whatever the berkeley that means.  No one here is debating.  No one here is winning any discussions. Some people are losing them, but I don't need to tell you that.

As for the word filters, maybe you should spend more time lurking and paying attention.  Engage your brain and ask where all the cuss words are, you knob.

My dear Asa,

You're intentionally trying to confuse the issue so no one can follow.  Nobody is debating me at all unless you count degradation and mockery as debate.  I have not participated in a debate because I have zero opposition to my ideas - only mockery at me for somehow hurting ppl's feelings in some way.  So there you go - the debate has not started yet, but the mud slinging goes on and on and on.  How do you count your rude name-calling?  Good faith?  You're trying to get me to be emotional by making it personal, but it's only you who is emotional so far.

So because I point out that I caused YOU to react to ME in an illogical and emotional manner, it makes me a bad person to you.  You are literally saying to me, "you're bad because you make me FEEL bad by pointing out my flaws and identifying the people who damaged me."

Reminder:  My OP that hurt your feelings was about a CAUSE of the problem of why we can't see talent in auto design anymore.  I said it was in how we were all educated and how that lead to the SYMPTOM we see as a lack of talent. 

I don't even know what I said that hurt you complaining trolls.  You won't tell me, because it hurts you too much to say so.  You'd have to deal with the very words that cause you the pain of seeing your own CONSCIENCE.  And that is unconscionable. 

And since you don't get what I said about emotions, let me ask you:  Are you strengthened by your emotions?  Does getting angry somehow win the battle?  How does it do that?  I can teach you so much if you'd only ask me the right questions and properly engage with me in a civil debate.

Ohhh....  this is still happening! 

Lolz.

Saw my name.

Didn't read.

Mr_Asa said:

Saw my name.

Didn't read.

Asa,

Lying still is a last defense.  I didn't mean to hurt you, so take it well and you'll grow from it.  Resenting me or secretly judging me in quietness isn't a defense either, it just implants the thorn deeper until it infects you worse.

For everyone else curiously enjoying this battle of wills:

Sinners sympathize with one another in their common weakness and wickedness.  Prideful egos are afraid of a better world (or better children to takeover the world) because good conditions do not excuse or sustain their own "beautiful" wickedness.  Force an ego to face itself and, God how it hurts so bad!  And marvel at how you get blamed and hated for inflicting what feels like harm to them.  Be careful that you don't hate them back!

The theme to all this noise is that you have to suffer and endure the pain of seeing your own ugliness and how you're "doing as you have been done."  Then, find the way to overcoming it once and for all.  Until that time you will hate, kill, ignore, or flee from anyone who shows it to you.

For all my haters:

Hey, let's be friends! Get me out of your head now and go in peace. Have a good week.  Be careful how you spread evil by getting even or striking those who stand to correct you.  In the dog-eat-dog world, there's always a stronger dog.  Opt out of it.

Meth is a hell of a drug.

as an FYI, thanks to those that made a report in the Canoes thread.  Margie/Mods have decided to send Junkers a 'First Strike' letter, and ask them to take two weeks off from the board.

If the discussion on this can get back 'to the topic', fine.  otherwise, I'm happy to lock this thread down.

consider this your "yellow flag" post

Back on topic:

I'm often amazed at what was involved in design work before the age of computers.  I'm a mechanical engineer and a huge fan of 3D model based design.  I"m  old enough to have designed a bunch of stuff on a drawing board with pencil and paper but CAD and 3D modeling became a thing before I had to design any really complex assemblies.  Modern tools, properly used, make designing complex parts and assemblies so much faster.  It's also easier to identify assembly issues before you start making expensive parts.

I will say (trying here) that I personally really like the illustrations they used to do for cars.  Pictures are fine (many are highly processed), but the illustrations in many cases rose to the level of art:

APEowner said:

Back on topic:

I'm often amazed at what was involved in design work before the age of computers.  I'm a mechanical engineer and a huge fan of 3D model based design.  I"m  old enough to have designed a bunch of stuff on a drawing board with pencil and paper but CAD and 3D modeling became a thing before I had to design any really complex assemblies.  Modern tools, properly used, make designing complex parts and assemblies so much faster.  It's also easier to identify assembly issues before you start making expensive parts.

There's absolutely no way I'd ever have made it in the field if we weren't using CAD.  Handwriting and general drawing skills are absolutely horrible.

Mr_Asa said:

APEowner said:

Back on topic:

I'm often amazed at what was involved in design work before the age of computers.  I'm a mechanical engineer and a huge fan of 3D model based design.  I"m  old enough to have designed a bunch of stuff on a drawing board with pencil and paper but CAD and 3D modeling became a thing before I had to design any really complex assemblies.  Modern tools, properly used, make designing complex parts and assemblies so much faster.  It's also easier to identify assembly issues before you start making expensive parts.

There's absolutely no way I'd ever have made it in the field if we weren't using CAD.  Handwriting and general drawing skills are absolutely horrible.

I can draw well enough to free hand a workable concept sketch and using drafting tools I can (or at least could) create good manufacturing prints but my hand writing is abysmal and hand lettering drawings used to take me forever.

Snapshot from the Mazda 100th Anniversary book of a blueprint for the Cosmo Sport:

The title block shows it was a half scale drawing, so that was a big sheet of paper.

Mr_Asa said:

APEowner said:

Back on topic:

I'm often amazed at what was involved in design work before the age of computers.  I'm a mechanical engineer and a huge fan of 3D model based design.  I"m  old enough to have designed a bunch of stuff on a drawing board with pencil and paper but CAD and 3D modeling became a thing before I had to design any really complex assemblies.  Modern tools, properly used, make designing complex parts and assemblies so much faster.  It's also easier to identify assembly issues before you start making expensive parts.

There's absolutely no way I'd ever have made it in the field if we weren't using CAD.  Handwriting and general drawing skills are absolutely horrible.

IIRC, many engineers had draftsmen that they would work with- so as long as your communications skills were good, you would be ok.

For me, and what I do- it's hard to imagine the huge number of strip chart recorders that were constantly used.  There were literal rooms of them used for big projects, like space work.  And given how they worked, you had to look at every single one of them all by themselves.

And it would still be generally limited to a hundred or so items you were tracking.  

Now I take thousands of things with a computer, can plot the important ones quickly, and use the rest if I need to.  And when I'm done, instead of hundreds of rolls of paper to deal with, it's just disk space.

Same goes for test outputs- instead of reams of green line computer paper with the data, I can get a digital copy, and put that into a spreadsheet (or database) of the results- making it a lot easier to see trends.

But the old data acqusition worked, and progress was made....

The designs for Auburn, Cord and Duesenberg by Alexis de Sakhnoffsky are wonderful.

In reply to stafford1500 :

Available Compute resources are doubling in capacity and halving in price on a less than yearly cadence.
Moore's Law has shrunk to a pinpoint in the rear view mirror.

Gigabytes and Terabytes have given way to Zetabytes and Yotabytes, and the pace is accelerating.

I work now migrating systems that 'used to be' Big Data, Hadoop, to 'the Cloud'.
Meanwhile, the K&E log log decitrig slide rule I learned on waits patiently for my return, needing no batteries or cords, only skilled hands.

clshore said:

Gigabytes and Terabytes have given way to Zetabytes and Yotabytes, and the pace is accelerating.

Whenever I hear stuff like that I remember way back in the day a video editor telling me that he had 60 Gigs of memory to do his editing with. I was completely blown away by the sheer volume, and also that he paid around $1k/gig for it.

In reply to alfadriver :

Somewhere in one of my old books they showed a huge bank of instrumentation with a high speed camera filming it.  Not as quick to scan through as stripcharts but certainly a lot easier to correlate data, I'd think.

Makes me feel like I am in easy mode looking at scatter plots and histograms.  Those used to take a lot of manual calculation, now you just choose which data to use and what math to apply to them and you get a result faster than it took you to think of what you need to know.

About 10 years ago, I was an engineer at an aerospace company that was stuck with one foot in the past.  They had a paper copy of every released drawing on file.  The digitial versions had to be printed, signed, then scanned back in as .tif files.  Reviews all had to be done on paper drawings.  We're talking anywhere from single page B size to ~10 page D size drawings.  We generally avoided any larger except for wiring diagrams.

I fought so hard against all that.  Computers were already strongly embraced for 10+ years there.  All of the literal paperwork was absolutely insane.  But alas, many people in management were extremely change resistant.  A lof of them made the mistake of making perfection the enemy of progress.  I had a few minor wins on that front but was losing the war pretty hard when I finally landed a job elsewhere and basically haven't touched a paper drawing since :)

That (sub) company was shuttered during the pandemic.