Distinguishing features

[Wisedrum]

I agree with Stichell. It's details, but really ultimately proportion--how all the parts come together and balance one another. Cars also often imply their aerodynamics with their styling--there's a lot of mass there for the air to get around--where generally bikes seem have the luxury of both addressing and ignoring them. As has often been observed on the forum, some bikes now look like plastic insects, and more and more they are hiding their engines under waterjackets and bodywork. And some cars are works of art--like the Mercedes 280 SL, Ferrari GTs from the 60s, or most Austin Healeys. I would put one of each in my dream garage, next to the Vincent Black Lightning and the Ariel Square Four.

Especially in the case of a Prius you're absolutely right.
It's so aerodymacilly built, I own and love one, now the P4, as I love my bikes. Somehow differently but I do.
It even gets better if the car makes a statement, a controversially discussed one, technically and optically and the Prius does. Never drove a better car in many aspects.



Black cars in the dark season of the year fit well...

Wisedrum

[GoldOxide_imp]

Very good gait:

http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....#pid224106

(there is no doubt)

Gait I would not even consider:

http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread....#pid224138

... however, it appears better than the later models (e.g. 2017). This has nothing to do with it being a Prius because you can't "see" under the skirt, unlike most motorcycles.

[Stichill_imp]

Car styling involves a lot more dynamic interactions and dependencies than motorcycle styling. Much about car styling is driven by size and proportion.

I see these major influences:
[ul] [li]Ground clearance[/li] [li]Location of beltline and height of the doors[/li] [li]Ratio of height to length and width[/li] [li]Size and shape of greenhouse[/li] [li]Length of hood and trunk[/li] [li]Size of wheel openings[/li] [li]Size of wheels[/li] [li]Location of wheels with respect to front, center, and rear of the car[/li] [li]Paint color[/li] [li]Wheel styling
[/li][/ul]

Sorry - disagree Stichill. A car is just a cage. That is it. A cage on wheels. A car will mean nothing in a few decades or less. A bike on the other hand will likely mean even more.

Sorry - disagree Stichill. A car is just a cage. That is it. A cage on wheels. A car will mean nothing in a few decades or less. A bike on the other hand will likely mean even more.
[url=https://www.amazon.com/How-Full-Your-Bucket-Rath/dp/1595620036]How Full is Your Bucket?

[GoldOxide_imp]

Car styling involves a lot more dynamic interactions and dependencies than motorcycle styling. Much about car styling is driven by size and proportion.

I see these major influences:
[ul] [li]Ground clearance[/li] [li]Location of beltline and height of the doors[/li] [li]Ratio of height to length and width[/li] [li]Size and shape of greenhouse[/li] [li]Length of hood and trunk[/li] [li]Size of wheel openings[/li] [li]Size of wheels[/li] [li]Location of wheels with respect to front, center, and rear of the car[/li] [li]Paint color[/li] [li]Wheel styling
[/li][/ul]

Sorry - disagree Stichill. A car is just a cage. That is it. A cage on wheels. A car will mean nothing in a few decades or less. A bike on the other hand will likely mean even more.

Sorry - disagree Stichill. A car is just a cage. That is it. A cage on wheels. A car will mean nothing in a few decades or less. A bike on the other hand will likely mean even more.
[url=https://www.amazon.com/How-Full-Your-Bucket-Rath/dp/1595620036]How Full is Your Bucket?

Fortunately, leaky enough to allow pedantic suggestions to sieve through.

[peterbaron]

AMEN on cars, start motorcycling, as this is the forum function

[GoldOxide_imp]

AMEN on cars, start motorcycling, as this is the forum function

As you said, "so be it". May us all ride until we cannot.

[peterbaron]

so be it...over 100 y old

[baxtercat_imp]

I think LongRanger's topic--as I understand it--is a good one. He's asking about how design (esthetics) and function differ with cars and motorcycles. This is a relevant question for a motorcycle forum. Motorcycles began as bicycles with engines attached; automobiles began as horse-drawn carriages with engines attached. Each then evolved according to their respective (and sometimes shared) technologies and functions, from which their design sprang. But then that functional design allowed new esthetic possibilities. For instance, traditional tungsten-filiment light bulb were relatively weak in light output, so on bikes and cars, they were placed in large circular reflectors to focus their beams and make them more efficient. Circular reflectors work best for the purpose. Both cars and motorcycles of the 60s feature round headlights, and then often other features, like round mirrors, that coordinated with them esthetically--though a round mirror may not always be the most functional. (LED lights don't need to be round, so now we have other shapes; when they are round, it is for stylistic reasons, not functional ones.) In the era of air cooled mc engines, the engine worked best hanging out in the air, and its functional features (like cooling fins), materials, and cylinder configuration became design elements--some of its esthetic derives from reminding us of its function. The fuel tank had to be of certain size to provide range, but that relative size then made it the largest and most conspicuous part of the bike that was also finished and ornamented, and so became a key element of a bike's looks. For those of us who like gawk at our CBs and also ride them--who debate the esthetics of the '17 fuel tank or its round headlamp--the relationship of function and design in other roadgoing vehicles is relevant, as is considering what new technologies (like electric motors) will mean for new combinations of esthetics and function. You don't have to love or hate cars to see that.

[LongRanger_imp]

Baxtercat has it right. That's my thesis.

Different components represent different focal points on motorcycles and cars, and thus play a different priority and importance to the vehicle's aesthetics. A car guy who's proud of the custom rims on his Corvette could probably care less whether motorcycles looks best with black or silver wheels. The motorcycle guy who's obsessed with the engine on his bevel-drive Ducati 900SS is probably inconvenienced when he has to take his Mustang to Jiffy Lube for oil changes. The Harley dude who runs chrome straight pipes on his Hog probably hasn't disturbed the factory mufflers on his Chevy Malibu. The guy who paid big bucks to extend the swingarm on his Huyabusa probably hasn't bothered to raise the suspension on his Toyota truck.

From a design and styling perspective, I just find it interesting that we prioritize car and bike components differently.

[Stichill_imp]

I think LongRanger's topic--as I understand it--is a good one. He's asking about how design (esthetics) and function differ with cars and motorcycles. This is a relevant question for a motorcycle forum. Motorcycles began as bicycles with engines attached; automobiles began as horse-drawn carriages with engines attached. Each then evolved according to their respective (and sometimes shared) technologies and functions, from which their design sprang. But then that functional design allowed new esthetic possibilities. For instance, traditional tungsten-filiment light bulb were relatively weak in light output, so on bikes and cars, they were placed in large circular reflectors to focus their beams and make them more efficient. Circular reflectors work best for the purpose. Both cars and motorcycles of the 60s feature round headlights, and then often other features, like round mirrors, that coordinated with them esthetically--though a round mirror may not always be the most functional. (LED lights don't need to be round, so now we have other shapes; when they are round, it is for stylistic reasons, not functional ones.) In the era of air cooled mc engines, the engine worked best hanging out in the air, and its functional features (like cooling fins), materials, and cylinder configuration became design elements--some of its esthetic derives from reminding us of its function. The fuel tank had to be of certain size to provide range, but that relative size then made it the largest and most conspicuous part of the bike that was also finished and ornamented, and so became a key element of a bike's looks. For those of us who like gawk at our CBs and also ride them--who debate the esthetics of the '17 fuel tank or its round headlamp--the relationship of function and design in other roadgoing vehicles is relevant, as is considering what new technologies (like electric motors) will mean for new combinations of esthetics and function. You don't have to love or hate cars to see that.

Thanks for re-focusing the topic and well stated. I was wondering why some here were responding to LR's straightforward question "What are the key design elements on a car?" by declaring disinterest in, revulsion of, or hostility toward cars or anyone discussing the design aspects of cars in response to the OP's topic.
Here's a vehicle that skillfully blends proper proportions with functional design elements to produce a unique and aesthetically arresting machine.