Vellum Venom Vignette: Protect Me From What I Want

Lowell writes:

Sajeev,

I thought you might know: What’s up with so many recent cars incorporating an oversized, black plastic, gaping maw in place of what’s been normal-sized grilles on cars? Lexus comes to mind first, with a visage that any Predator could love. But also, Hyundai Veloster, the revamped Yaris, various Audis, and so forth.

Is this related to some Euro pedestrian law, compliance with which mandates some high percentage of very breakable plastic up front? Darned hard to explain otherwise. At least for me. So I thought I’d ask.

Sajeev answers:

This question torments my inner car designer with every stroll down a dealer’s lot. Row upon row of gaping-maw-mobiles with frontal area worthy of a barn door. And because of Lexus, Audi, the Hyundai Veloster, etc. you mentioned working hard to bring macho excitement to so much undesirable real estate, trucks grow even larger to compensate.

Because frontal area (also known as reference area) is a critical variable in calculating aerodynamics, the gaping-maw-tobile kills efficiency in a place where maximization was commonplace through the use of bullet-shaped noses. How much fuel is wasted with cars possessing the fuel saving, grille shuttering, “aero tech” ( pun intended) while lacking the sleek, small noses from the 1980s (below) and especially the 1990s (first photo)?

We could combine what we have now with our previous schnozes…but fuel is so cheap right now nobody cares anyway.

But I’m torn, because it’s a tragic, unintended consequence of Europe’s wholly-valid Pedestrian Safety legislation. Pedestrian lives matter to everyone and The Laws of Physics are absolute: I witnessed a kid in highschool crossing the street (without looking) and went over the painfully pointed face of a Chevy Beretta. This is actually a rare occurrence in my town, considering Houston’s sidewalk-averse urban sprawl.

Look, I grew up with the American aerodynamic renaissance of the mid-80s to mid-90s. I am still looking for the perfect Mercury Sable to complement TTAC’s Ford Sierra project car. But I understand why we, a global community of motorists, need boxy front fascias.

Even if they are a mixed bag o’ benefits. Style and fuel economy penalty aside, our own article by Mr. Schwoerer said it best:

I attended the CTI Car Training Institute’s 2007 Pedestrian Protection Forum at Sindelfingen. It was quite touching to see nerdy auto engineers stand up and say things like “we have the technology, so let’s get up off our backsides and do what we can to stop this killing of people.” U.S. officials were noticeably less keen.

In a phone interview, a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) spokesman told me that America’s vehicle mix — more trucks and SUVs — isn’t as conducive to pedestrian-friendly technology as cars in the Eurozone. NHTSA research suggests that there are unexplored trade-offs involved. “You can make a car front better for children, but then it may get worse for adults.” Why not publish pedestrian-safety ratings and let the consumer decide? “Again, we don’t think you can find a one-size-fits-all solution”.

America can do more — but would Americans pay for the technology available on some Volvos and make it a federal mandate? And would Americans repair the tech if, heaven forbid, it threw a body computer warning code at the bottom of the vehicle’s depreciation curve?

I doubt we have such regard for pedestrians, at least when real money comes into play. Americans can’t even give a shit about the people that make our dirt-cheap clothes, we still — after decades of awareness — allow this to happen.

Welcome to the complex world of auto design: designers must protect the consumer from what they want.

Thank you for reading, I hope you have a lovely week.

[Image: Lexus]