My understanding is that this test is a new one. Typically they only did it on the drivers side of the car and not the passenger side. Its quite normal for US manufactorers to only implement safety equipment to pass the tests. So the next generation of US cars will likely pass this test, since they have already implemented these safety measures on the drivers side of the car. It's just a case of copy pasting it to the passenger side of the car. I imagine the main reason for this is that US car brands rarely export to RHD markets. While most Japanese and European brands sell their cars in both LHD and RHD configurations. Therefore they need to pass these tests on both sides of the car while typically US brands would not. They probably still cost optimise per market, but the chassis will be inherently stronger on the passenger side because of this, even if they do leave off a few components. Chrysler had this issue when they brought the grand voyager to the UK, they didn't update the chassis designs and as such it received very low safety ratings because of how weak the drivers side of the car was in a frontal impact. Ford also decided not to fit safety systems to the European Mustang because they didn't think Euro Ncap would bother to test it. So they didn't fit simple things like seat belt pretensioners to the rear seats, whereas the US model had them. European cars (in the US) tend to do well, simply because they tend to be more expensive and premium vehicles. They can justify spending a bit more on this type of stuff, rather than the bare minimum to be able to advertise to consumers that their car passes the tests (barely). Of course most domestic market EU cars, will be somewhat similar to US ones, since they are made to be cheap, but with the advantage of being made for both LHD and RHD roads.
They aren’t involved at all this time around? Wonder if they got pushed out of the series or if it was a voluntary thing with Forza 7 being so close to the same time.
They barely touched any of them. Playground games and sumo do all the work in earlier titles. Only playground in 3 and 4. T10's involvement is basically tech support on engine only
It worked for 2 days before all of the refrigerant leaked out of the schrader valve in the low side service port. Checked all around for leaks and that was the only one I could find. Gotta replace that valve then recharge it and it'll be all good.
I was just thinking about how cars anymore tend to all look the same and have roughly the same specs too, but really, how could they? In the olden days, designers could run wild building beautiful cars that still capture hearts today, but now you have to have a pug nose for pedestrian safety, and thick pillars for rollover safety, and a high beltline in case it gets T-boned, and it has to have so many airbags, and a mandatory list of driver assists, and get a certain number of miles per gallon, and emit less than a certain number of pollutants, all of which requires it to have the profile of a big Prius, and then lots of ugly, needless swoops and creases to hide the fact that it has the profile of a Prius, and so on and so on. And all these rules sound innocent and even righteous on the face of it - I mean, how could you want cars that break people's legs or emit noxious fumes? - but the problem is, they add up, and I would argue that we're way past the point of diminishing returns. When a car is perfectly structurally sound and can keep the passenger cell intact in almost any impact, but loses points off its safety score because it doesn't brake on its own, things have officially gone too far. But that's the kind of world we're heading towards - safe, comfortable, and boring. You know, I was just thinking about something I'd heard from my mother which is that, basically, metaphors all throughout the Bible indicate that, in life, the right brain (creative) is supposed to lead, and the left brain (technical) is supposed to follow. And when you think about it, you have to admit that a lot of the problems we have in modern life, like a profusion of near-identical boring cars, come from getting that backwards. Instead of having artists in charge, supported by engineers and bean-counters to make sure what they come up with is actually viable, we have engineers and bean-counters running the world while the artists play the supporting role of trying to package their boringness attractively. Just look at the current Chevrolet ads - commercials about focus groups, made to advertise cars so boring they could not be a product of anything except focus groups. That's what happens when the left brain runs the world.
Interesting how the XR-PHEV is supposed to be the design inspiration of the Eclipse Cross, but I see some Outlander inspiration in the front.
Well go on and have fun with your right brain then, why are you always arguing here with your left brain?
Either one works out to companies being run by people who don't really care about cars and/or just see the company as a giant ATM machine, so whatever. Replace "cars" in the previous sentence with any product you can think of, because it's happening pretty much everywhere. If the people running Carl's Jr. really cared about the art of the burger, for example, they probably wouldn't run their employees ragged or use disgusting rubbery burger patties. Or here's another one - Value Village. They push their employees like you wouldn't believe and don't seem to realize that upselling at the register is an amazingly dumb idea in a thrift store. They push a charitable, environmentally-friendly image and take donations like a charity, but if anyone at the corporate level ever really cared about helping the less-fortunate get good-quality stuff at low prices, they got replaced by greedmongers a long time ago. I just use cars as an example because it's a subject I'm interested in, and the contrast from then to now is vivid. We didn't just evolve, all on our own, from big nasty V8s and RWD to eco-turbo lozenge cars and crossovers. That change was actively promoted, and at this point any contribution the fuel crises made to it is a drop in the bucket compared to what's happened since. A perfect example would be that new M-B I6 with twin turbos and electric assist. I'm sure it's a technical masterpiece, and a museum somewhere should probably have one disassembled and put under glass so people can marvel at all its intricacies, but I can't shake the feeling that if I were to drive one, it would most likely leave me feeling cold. Then I think of my old V6 Sunbird (Cavalier) and I wish like heck that I hadn't destroyed the rings, because that car was fun and had character aplenty despite being one of the least sophisticated FWD compacts ever built. Is it a direct comparison to the M-B? Of course not. Was it fast? Not really. Did it feel fast? Definitely. The way that derpy old boat-anchor engine lurched forward and roared when you stomped on the gas really made it feel like more than the sum of its parts. I just can't imagine these new efficiency-optimized engines (especially with throttle-by-wire), or even worse, electric motors, having the same visceral appeal, but "visceral appeal" has no meaning to bean-counters, or to regulators whose idea of fun is making sure no one is allowed to have any, which is exactly what I'm getting at here.
Thick pillars aren't required for roll over safety, neither is a high belt line needed for side impact protection (within reason ofc). Those are often done to make consumers feel more safe in a particular vehicle. If you think about it in terms of how thick a roll cage is, pillars could be made much thinner. Thick pillars are also cheaper to produce, since with more metal you can use a cheaper grade of metal and less fancy construction. Caterham, Morgan, Lotus... They all make some fairly unique looking cars, all of which are road legal. But those are not cars people buy, because they would rather buy a cheap SUV than something unique. Car manufacturers need to sell cars in order to exist, so following the latest car design trends is 100% the right thing for them to do. However I would argue that cars right now, are actually not much less diverse than in the past. In the 1950's most cars looked the same, same for the 1960's etc etc. Each era has its own specific style of vehicle based upon what the design zeitgeist was at any particular time. For example, this huge verity of choice of hatchbacks in the 90's... In fairness, Fiat was willing to do something a little different. There is some variation in there, but I wouldn't say there is any more than there is today. Today's versions of the same (or equiv.) models
I prefer thinner pillars for that reason. There is a thing called "designing for emotion" (feel free to look it up, its an actual academic topic with literature), it is how most consumer products are designed today. Its much more powerful at selling things to consumers than designing for practicality. Chunky pillars tends to make people feel the emotion of safety, therefore they tend to be included on many car designs. Because it doesn't matter what an item actually does, it is about how it makes the consumer feel. Its an art and design topic predominantly, and it is what designers are paid to do. EDIT: Here is a short video from a design course: This is the sort of thing that designers are taught about, because it is what industry desires from designers, because it leads to increased profit.
Because cars are supposed to be practical, economical, suited towards the consumer. and economical. Crossovers are popular because they have more cargo space and are easier to get into. Priuses are popular because they are efficient and get you from point a to point b. Masturbating towards the glory days of automobiles doesn't help or change anything, and only tends to make you more narrow minded. This thing happens all the time. Stop purposefully blinding yourself from change, or the reasons why they are changing. In short, cars are suited toward the average person who wants to get to work/carry the kids while being fairly comfortable, and not people who spend their time bitching on car forums.
Crossovers are easier to get into, but they actually tend to have far less cargo space than a normal car. Referring back to my above comment, they look big, therefore make consumer feel emotion of safety. They look vaguely off-road like, therefore give the emotion of strength and dependability. They place the driver higher up, giving a more commanding view of the road. But I do agree with what you are saying. Cars are designed for average people, therefore they are designed to fulfil the emotional desires of those people while also being rather practical. It would be suicidal for a large manufacturer to not cater towards what the majority of consumers want.
I know I just see this a lot with older generations and it's really annoying. :"Cell phones are taking over the world!" "Video games are making people violent!" While previous generations were like: "QR codes are the antichrist" "Television is rotting our brains!" And even further: "All these damn kids never going outside and reading these novels" "Teenagers need to stop playing chess and get a job!" It's the same rounds of Juvenoia over and over again, but instead of generations, its car years. I think we need to stop looking at our feelings, and focus on the positive. Hydrogen cars are very efficient and incredible eco friendly, and does not pollute the atmosphere. Hydrogen is easily sourced and in incredible abundance. (considering it makes up, along with helium, 75 percent of the matter in our universe) Self driving cars almost eliminate traffic, can increase productivity, and our a lot safer. (of course, self driving car networks can be hacked, but so can every car nowday) With increased security, these threats can be eliminated. You might point at problems with these new technology, but think of it like the story of Icarus. I choose not to think of it as a story of the limitations of humans, I saw it as the limitations of technology at the time. (Wax not being a suitable adhesive) With enough effort, we can overcome most, if not every problem with self driving and hydrogen cars at this point in time. Anyway, sorry for my extremely long tangent.
Weren't they right? Look around when in a busy area. You'll notice people walking around like zombies, with their phones being the only thing they're looking at and thinking about, completely oblivious to the fact that their life might soon end under a truck or inside a manhole. Visit a school during a break, and you'll see students all busy with their phones, staring at the little screens while chatting with their imaginary friends (who are sometimes adult pedos, but that's another story). Using your phone during lessons is prohibited, so students put them on their desks - just to know that their favorite object is close. Video games are another hot topic. Of course, the majority of people who play violent games never kill anyone. But actual crimes influenced by games do happen sometimes. They are mostly commited by underage persons, so preventing children from playing them would solve the issue. Television is rotting our brains? We managed to raise a generation of people who never question information as long as it suits their viewpoint, blindly listen to their favorite political leaders, believing everything they say, all while being sure they are independently minded and free-thinking. Just like it says in the book: "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength". It is naive to think that TV didn't play a part in that. Children nowadays don't spend so much time outside (though not because of novels anymore) - and it does cause certain health problems. Reading might be good for children, but it depends on what they read- average modern novel is far from that.
Honestly, this is just more of what I was saying above. Pure art has been subverted by a cold, calculating attempt to trick consumers into thinking a car is more than it really is - as opposed to the older models, which really were more than they looked like, at least in the hands of a talented mechanic and driver. Since you posted that comparison of 1990s compact hatchbacks with their modern equivalents, I have to say I would, in every case except maybe the Golf, take the 1990s model over its current equivalent due to being better-looking and probably a lot more fun to drive - lighter, less insulated, more analog, easier to tune, the works. I know the Golf V and up are said to be excellent all-around cars and very fun to drive, but they're still corrupted by throttle-by-wire and probably excessive weight as well (the Golf IV is my favorite). Well, with the possible exception of the Citroens. The new one is ugly and probably gadget-contaminated, but the old one is flatly hideous in ways I don't quite understand. Probably the combination of (no) length and its roofline; it looks normally proportioned until the trailing edge of the doors, stunted and chopped-off after that.
Is it really a cold, calculated trick? It's what consumers are purchasing, and they are not unhappy with said purchases, because those cars are doing exactly what they bought to do. And designing for emotion is mostly a formalisation of what art designers have always been doing. Obviously, vote with your wallet and all. But even 90's cars were designed to invoke certain emotions at that period in time, even if academia hadn't "created a common language" to describe in what ways. Hell, even in the 50's cars were designed this way, they were designed to have "sex appeal" so to speak. Every decade has its own "style". It's basically just fashion (or architecture, or any product market really). Through which there are some objects from certain styles that become timeless: Then there are others, that maybe missed the mark (although these are actually timeless in their own right IMO, the cars that truly deserve to be here are the ones I have long forgotten about): Problem being that most cars from any era are too boring to be remembered, this will be true for today's cars as well.
Consumers aren't always happy with their purchases. They just put up with them because they had no choice, with all competition offering the same. Their purchase most likely doesn't even suit their needs - but the other ones suited them even less. And I'm not talking about design.
