Ask The Best And Brightest: Whatever Happened To Visibility?

by Edward Niedermeyer

Published: January 17th, 2011

ask the best and brightest whatever happened to visibility

Steve Edgett writes in:

Sajeev raised an excellent point in today’s piece on the 1974 Ford pickup regarding visibility. Like a few of the regular TTAC readers, I was driving when low belt lines and great visibility were considered cool, as well as functional. As much as I love my four year old BMW 3-series, I find the visibility out the rear to be atrocious. And, compared to a mid-80’s 3-series or a 2002, it is downright dangerous. How much of this bloat and reduced glass area is due to ”safety standards” and how much is fashion?

Because TTAC’s readers include both consumers of automobiles and the workers who design and build our four-wheeled friends, this seems like the perfect topic to settle in one of our friendly community discussions. After all, the most interesting questions about modern automobiles tend to come down to the chicken-and-egg relationship between the manufacturer’s ability to cultivate needs and sell the solution to them, and “true” consumer demand (as witnessed by the fact that neither side of this divide sees itself in as being “in the driver’s seat”). Certainly the Camaro pictured above points to the stylistic benefits of a tiny greenhouse: surely a Zeta-platform vehicle doesn’t need to have so little glass to meet crash test standards. At the same time, it’s likely not a coincidence that dramatic improvements in safety have been accompanied by a tightening of greenhouses.

So, to the designers and engineers in the house we ask: how important is reducing the amount of glass in a vehicle improve safety test performance? To what extent does this issue drive design? And to the consumers we ask: are you really asking for ever-tightening greenhouses in the name of fashion? Can you identify a point at which introducing more glass to a design makes a car look dorky but creating a tighter greenhouse hurts usability (and possibly even active safety)?

#AskTheBestAndBrightest #Design #Safety

Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 178 comments

Sharewhut on Sep 12, 2011

Very late to this, came across on a Googlie search as I'm helping MIL find a new car, and she is having issues with rear visibility in newer vehicles. One thing I haven't seen mentioned, (although functioning of side curtains was briefly addressed) is that higher belt lines/smaller side windows can better prevent occupant ejection, especially in a rollover. Even belted, with an open window you can fit out of there's a significant risk of at least partial ejection and getting pinned under part of vehicle.

Like Reply
Pugpal on Nov 24, 2012

Unfettered sight-lines and other ergonomic considerations are two of the critical factors in the decision to continue driving Peugeot 505s exclusively since 1982. Visibility is one of many factors for a suitable replacement vehicle and so far, none of the current crop of new cars has met the test.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

EBFlex Garbage but for less!
FreedMike I actually had a deal in place for a PHEV - a Mazda CX-90 - but it turned out to be too big to fit comfortably in my garage, thus making too difficult to charge, so I passed. But from that, I learned the Truth About PHEVs - they're a VERY niche product, and probably always be, because their use case is rather nebulous. Yes, you can run on EV power for 25-30 miles, plug it in at home on a slow charger, and the next day, you're ready to go again. Great in theory, but in practice, a) you still need a home charger, b) you paid a LOT more for the car than you would have for a standard hybrid, and c) you discover the nasty secret of PHEVs, which is that when they're on battery power, they're absolute pigs to drive. Meanwhile, to maintain its' piglike battery-only performance, it still needs to be charged, so you're running into all the (overstated) challenges that BEV owners have, with none of the performance that BEV owners like. To quote King George in "Hamilton": " Awesome. Wow." In the Mazda's case, the PHEV tech was used as a performance enhancer - which worked VERY nicely - but it's the only performance-oriented PHEV out there that doesn't have a Mercedes-level pricetag. So who's the ideal owner here? Far as I can tell, it's someone who doesn't mind doing his 25 mile daily commute in a car that's slow as f*ck, but also wants to take the car on long road trips that would be inconvenient in a BEV. Meanwhile, the MPG Uber Alles buyers are VERY cost conscious - thus the MPG Uber Alles thing - and won't be enthusiastic about spending thousands more to get similar mileage to a standard hybrid. That's why the Volt failed. The tech is great for a narrow slice of buyers, but I think the real star of the PHEV revival show is the same tax credits that many BEVs get.
RHD The speed limit was raised from 62.1 MPH to 68.3 MPH. It's a slight difference which will, more than anything, lower the fines for the guy caught going 140 KPH.
Msquare The argument for unlimited autobahns has historically been that lane discipline is a life-or-death thing instead of a suggestion. That and marketing cars designed for autobahn speeds gives German automakers an advantage even in places where you can't hope to reach such speeds. Not just because of enforcement, but because of road conditions. An old Honda commercial voiced by Burgess Meredith had an Accord going 110 mph. Burgess said, "At 110 miles per hour, we have found the Accord to be quiet and comfortable. At half that speed, you may find it to be twice as quiet and comfortable." That has sold Mercedes, BMW's and even Volkswagens for decades. The Green Party has been pushing for decades for a 100 km/h blanket limit for environmental reasons, with zero success.
Varezhka The upcoming mild-hybrid version (aka 500 Ibrida) can't come soon enough. Since the new 500e is based on the old Alfa Mito and Opel Adam platform (now renamed STLA City) you'd have thought they've developed the gas version together.