New Mazda Deep Orange 3 showcar concept = wow!!!!

JoeyM wrote:

irish44j wrote: This "let's see how small we can get all the windows" on so many new cars is annoying as hell.

safety standards = high belt lines = small windows

I drive a current-generation WRX. It has a high-ish beltline, but it doesn't have tiny windows and it has good visibility in all directions. I'd love to see exactly what this safety standard is. A BRZ has a lower beltline than an e30....

Using safety standards as an excuse is a red herring for the fact that car designers are more concerned with how people outside see the car than with how people in the car see people outside. You want safety? Allow me to see motherberkeleyers sitting in my otherwise-massive blind spot. Allow me to see the car behind me when I'm parallel parking. And allow me to put my motherberkeleying arm on the windowsill on a nice day, dammit!

Theory: I almost kind of wonder if the "bad visibility windows" are really just a way for them to load up the car with expensive things like rearview cameras, park-assist, blind-spot warnings, lane-change sensors, and stuff like that. Stuff people in normal cars don't need, but are starting to need due to car design.

With rear view cameras standard and that radar beepy back up thing (actual technical name) and big color screens where the speedo and tach normally are, is a rear window even necessary? I would have never thought that I wouldn't use my rear view mirror when backing up, but that is the case with our Acadia. It may feel strange at first, but if they put a always on camera on the screen for back and both side views blind spots it may be as safe as actually looking through glass.

irish44j wrote: I'd love to see exactly what this safety standard is. Using safety standards as an excuse is a red herring for the fact that car designers are more concerned with how people outside see the car than with how people in the car see people outside. You want safety? Allow me to see motherberkeleyers sitting in my otherwise-massive blind spot. Allow me to see the car behind me when I'm parallel parking. And allow me to put my motherberkeleying arm on the windowsill on a nice day, dammit! Theory: I almost kind of wonder if the "bad visibility windows" are really just a way for them to load up the car with expensive things like rearview cameras, park-assist, blind-spot warnings, lane-change sensors, and stuff like that. Stuff people in normal cars don't need, but are starting to need due to car design.

It's not a red herring, safety standard examples below:

2009 NHSTA increase from 1.5 to 2.5 times vehicle weight roof crush standard: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/roofcrushnotice/216nprm-to-fr.html

~2009-2010 IIHS increase the standard to 4 times vehicle weight crush standard: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/04/nhtsa-declines-to-revisit-roof-crush-standard/index.htm

2013 Unbelted passenger ejection rule: http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/NHTSA-01-11

All to protect people who refuse to buckle up. Your tax dollars at work.

no thanks

also, Secretary Ray LaHood is/was an idiot!

also pt2, the back end looks like an alfa!

Flynlow wrote:

irish44j wrote: I'd love to see exactly what this safety standard is. Using safety standards as an excuse is a red herring for the fact that car designers are more concerned with how people outside see the car than with how people in the car see people outside. You want safety? Allow me to see motherberkeleyers sitting in my otherwise-massive blind spot. Allow me to see the car behind me when I'm parallel parking. And allow me to put my motherberkeleying arm on the windowsill on a nice day, dammit! Theory: I almost kind of wonder if the "bad visibility windows" are really just a way for them to load up the car with expensive things like rearview cameras, park-assist, blind-spot warnings, lane-change sensors, and stuff like that. Stuff people in normal cars don't need, but are starting to need due to car design.

It's not a red herring, safety standard examples below: 2009 NHSTA increase from 1.5 to 2.5 times vehicle weight roof crush standard: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/roofcrushnotice/216nprm-to-fr.html ~2009-2010 IIHS increase the standard to 4 times vehicle weight crush standard: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/04/nhtsa-declines-to-revisit-roof-crush-standard/index.htm 2013 Unbelted passenger ejection rule: http://www.nhtsa.gov/PR/NHTSA-01-11 All to protect people who refuse to buckle up. Your tax dollars at work.

I don't see how any of those directly cars having little slits as their windows (especially rear windows). Again, there are cars out there that have larger greenhouses (I mention again the current WRX), yet are well-known to have extremely strong crush resistance.

I know the regulations have an effect on things (just like euro cars getting uglier due to pedestrian collision front end heights), but I think some companies use that as an excuse to design things that look really cool at the car show, but may not be the most brilliant (or safest) design for someone driving the car.

I'm pretty sure, for instance, that the current Camaro or Challenger could have more visibility built in, but instead they want the "hot rod" look to the car with giant haunches and a smushed roofline. This isn't because of safety, it's because of aesthetics.

Nonexistent rear visibility notwithstanding, I think it's hot as hell. A somewhat realistic shape that has really nice proportions. Granted, it would never make production at that sexy ride height--that thing is slammed.

Arguing about the styling/functionality of a concept car is ludicrous.

Appleseed wrote: Arguing about the styling/functionality of a concept car is ludicrous.

yes, nothing like this car will be sold i agree

Appleseed wrote: Arguing about the styling/functionality of a concept car is ludicrous.

IDK, talking about (or discussing, arguing, hating, loving etc) concept cars seems to be the main reason that concept cars are made. With modern design and engineering modeling programs, manufacturers don't actually need to make a physical concept/prototype/technology demonstrator car any more, really. Concept cars are just to pique the public's interest in upcoming models and get the public excited about them at car shows in in Jalopnik and whatnot.

alex wrote: As a design exercise, it's certainly intriguing. The rear 3/4 where the belt line meets the tail lights reminds me of a semi-modern Alfa that I can't put my finger on.

Brera?

The wheels will make it to a production car but not much else.

In reply to irish44j:

I agree. I was just pointing out how some details get changed to suit the real world.