[HN Gopher] Ford 021C Concept Car (1999)
___________________________________________________________________
Ford 021C Concept Car (1999)
Author : spking
Score : 74 points
Date : 2023-09-05 11:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (marc-newson.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (marc-newson.com)
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Reminds me of the Nissan Pivo EV concept from 2005:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Pivo
| heyflyguy wrote:
| I wonder how much this was influenced by Apple and iMacs of the
| age
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder, had Wes Anderson established his aesthetic by 1999?
| Because this would fit right in.
| fidotron wrote:
| There was a short lived 1950s retro revival around 1999 and
| this looks totally in line with that.
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| Well...the designer of it also designed a minor product Apple
| built later on called the 'Apple Watch'.
| carabiner wrote:
| Apple what? Never heard of it.
| EL_Loco wrote:
| First thing I thought when I looked at the pictures: "Looks
| like the first iBook" The "clamshell" iBook was launched in
| 1999, and the orange one looks like if this car was a laptop.
| mk_stjames wrote:
| This image gallery desperately needs a one-line addition of
| something like >
| imageElement.addEventListener('click', stopAutoScroll);
|
| I get autoscrolling a gallery of images, but if I click on one or
| click on some buttons, please stop! I want to look at one
| specific image for longer than 3 seconds! If I go back manually
| to look at one, don't override me and go forward again 3 seconds
| later. I went back for a reason.
|
| I see some irony in a designer who has a webpage that hasn't
| fully thought out the UX. Maybe irony isn't the right word since
| it's pretty par for the course.
| [deleted]
| lacoolj wrote:
| This is what I would expect to find in the dictionary under the
| words "nifty", "spiffy" and "cute".
|
| I would totally buy one (cuz I would also expect it to cost under
| $15k)
| thecosas wrote:
| Orange is a signature color of Ive and Newson.
| shlubbert wrote:
| The car is actually named after the color code for that
| particular shade of orange -- Pantone 021 C!
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I'd roll it.
| Aloha wrote:
| It has real 1960 Falcon feels.
|
| If it looks like a toy car, it is, it'd be virtually impossible
| to fit that body onto a modern engineering package.
| foobarian wrote:
| Wow, look at all those buttons! Yes please :-)
| ireallywantthat wrote:
| So, Futuristic Design of 2023 is actually some old used design
| from the past!
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Car designers for a long time have been reduced to plundering
| their back catalogues for inspiration. What they usually end up
| with is some akward, bloated parody of the original with
| elements that are impractical and come at the cost of common
| sense. Just look at the entire "Mini" lineup.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| > The floor, which remains completely flat due to the front-
| wheel-drive technology, ...
|
| What about the exhaust? I always assumed that's what the bump in
| the back-seat floor of all my FWD cars was for.
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Civic doesn't (didn't?) have a hump.
|
| It's for:
|
| 1. If the car is available in AWD, they don't have to make a
| new floor pan
|
| 2. Structural stiffness
|
| 3. Exhaust/fuel routing
| amacbride wrote:
| The hump is typically housing the drive train in RWD or AWD
| cars; the exhaust is relatively small and can be routed along a
| flat floorpan.
| nowooski wrote:
| I'll take it.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Shut up and take my money!
| xwdv wrote:
| I don't like this car, it's infantilizing. Feels like you're in a
| Pixar movie driving this thing.
| rolivercoffee wrote:
| I remember really wanting this at the time. Amazing how jarring
| the design of the radio is in comparison to the rest of the
| interior. Also, interesting how they didn't think to design their
| own entertainment system because... cars had third party
| entertainment systems that's just the way it was!
| majormajor wrote:
| > Also, interesting how they didn't think to design their own
| entertainment system because... cars had third party
| entertainment systems that's just the way it was!
|
| This was rarely true in 1999, at least in the US.
|
| They often had ones that were standard DIN or double-DIN size,
| but they were usually manufacturer-branded and styled with
| buttons that matched the rest of the car.
|
| But if you google image search a 1999 Ford Taurus interior
| you'll see that not everyone was even then still sticking to
| the easily-swappable standard. Compare to 1999 Camry, which had
| standard size but came out of the factory with a Toyota-skinned
| radio of one sort or another depending on options.
| nobleach wrote:
| In 1999 we still hadn't realized the wonder of reading mp3/wma
| files burned onto a CD. Aiwa was the first brand I remember
| opening that up. USB slots were next.
| BucketsMcG wrote:
| Actually at the time Ford's in-car entertainment was more
| integrated than most. Unlike others, they fitted own-brand
| audio systems which were either non-standard shapes and hard to
| replace, or they were built in entirely. I think what we see
| here's just an afterthought that got added late in the design
| process.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Cars _should_ have third-party entertainment systems.
| Everything about 'infotainment' systems is a terrible idea,
| because integrating something that changes three to five times
| in the life of the vehicle is stupid.
|
| Put a nicely anchored 1/4-20 UNC mount in two or three
| locations, put a USB port that speaks the standard audio
| protocol next to each one, and connect those to an integrated
| DSP/amplifier suitable for the car's speakers and microphones.
| It will be good for three times the life of the car, and make
| everyone's lives easier.
| coldpie wrote:
| Just use a 3.5mm jack. We solved this decades ago.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Not quite, that doesn't allow integration with steering
| wheel controls.
| rdlw wrote:
| Sure it does. Even headphones have controls built in to
| the cable.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| That is not standardised across different headphone
| manufacturers and often doesn't work. It doesn't work at
| all on cars.
|
| Analog protocols are not a good idea for this. Digital
| with a decent protocol is much more reliable, whether
| wired or not. In practice, the best option is either
| wired CarPlay/Auto or bluetooth.
| gregmac wrote:
| > Cars should have third-party entertainment systems.
| Everything about 'infotainment' systems is a terrible idea,
| because integrating something that changes three to five
| times in the life of the vehicle is stupid.
|
| In my mind this has been largely solved for the past few
| years with Android Auto / Carplay. It would be nice if there
| was a true standard, but at the same time, there's only two
| phone operating systems so it works.
|
| If you're not familiar with it, there are some huge benefits
| of the way it works:
|
| * The system updates with your phone, not your car. Applies
| to both hardware and software.
|
| * Data plans are also tied to your phone, which you
| presumably have anyway.
|
| * Preferences are personal; my partner and I each get our own
| music, podcasts, and suggested destinations.
|
| * Personally I love that my music/podcasts follow me around.
| I can browse and start listening to something in the car,
| then hours later throw in my wireless ear buds and continue
| from where I was while I mow the lawn.
|
| There is also some level of upgradability from the car side,
| too: I recently added a wireless android auto adapter to my
| 2016 car. It was under $100, plugs into USB, and once I got
| it paired to my phone, I basically get in and start the car
| and in a few seconds the UI is there.
|
| What I am skeptical about is that this will continue to be
| solved for the next few years: there's always that chance
| that Google will outright kill it, or Apple/Samsung/whoever
| will become exclusive to a single car manufacturer, or the
| manufacturers will somehow bungle this up with a subscription
| model of some sort.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| In my mind this has been largely solved for the
| past few years with Android Auto / Carplay.
|
| I mean, yeah -- absolutely. For all the reasons you say.
|
| But auto companies like Tesla and GM are now working hard
| to _unsolve it_ because there 's no profit in it for them.
| They want to control the experience and extract sweet,
| sweet subscription revenue. So, I'm not sure how "solved"
| it is.
| amethyst wrote:
| > What I am skeptical about is that this will continue to
| be solved for the next few years: there's always that
| chance that Google will outright kill it, or
| Apple/Samsung/whoever will become exclusive to a single car
| manufacturer, or the manufacturers will somehow bungle this
| up with a subscription model of some sort.
|
| Or the manufacturers decide they don't like users bypassing
| their revenue models:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/03/gm-confirms-its-
| droppin...
|
| FWIW, I absolutely love Carplay and paid extra to have
| compatible head units installed in any of my previous cars
| that didn't have built in support. It's been fantastic, but
| I don't trust manufacturers to do what's in my own best
| interest.
|
| See also the recent Mozilla privacy findings for cars.
| monknomo wrote:
| Carplay &co are good right now, but as someone that hangs
| on to cars for a long time, the trouble is that phones have
| a much faster lifecycle than a car, and are pretty unlikely
| to continue to work as smoothly as they do 20 years down
| the line.
|
| For example, I just junked a radio with a 30 pin ipod
| connector. It was great and smooth in its day, but now, not
| so much.
|
| Could be we'll get lucky and the phones of 2043 will work
| with the cars of 2023, but I think it's more likely that
| the car will work and the infotainment stack will be a
| half-functional ghost mall of tech in the middle of the car
| gregmac wrote:
| > and are pretty unlikely to continue to work as smoothly
| as they do 20 years down the line.
|
| This is a fair point... but also just what happens with
| technology and time.
|
| I assume you junked the radio not because it was broken
| (that can happen to any gear) but because the 30-pin
| interface itself is no longer desired -- it's no longer
| the best way to get the content you want (ie: from your
| phone).
|
| This isn't really a different situation from a 20-year-
| old car (CD player), 35-year-old car (cassette deck) or
| 50-year-old car (8-track).
|
| 20 years from now, if there's a market for it and it's
| technically possible, someone will make adapters to get
| AA/Carplay units to be compatible with whatever the
| current technology is -- basically the 2043 equivalent of
| a cassette adapter.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| CarPlay and Android Auto is just an interface that allows
| the phone the use the screen.
|
| As long as Apple/Google maintain the ability to use the
| interface in iOS and Android, it will continue to work.
|
| Also, that would be a reason for cars to come with
| replaceable head units.
| mcculley wrote:
| You need more than "the standard audio protocol". The
| infotainment system should know a lot about the car's state
| (e.g., RPM, turn signal activated/deactivated).
| dsr_ wrote:
| No, it shouldn't.
|
| The car can feed media and mixing controls to the
| amplifier; there's no need to send that elsewhere. Strict
| separation of concerns. You want to play a "door is a jar"
| announcement? Tell the amplifier to reduce all the other
| channels to one-third their current volume and raise the
| announcement channel, then undo that. No need to involve
| the phone or tablet or mini-PC or MP3 player or subether
| radio.
| mcculley wrote:
| How would the navigation app on CarPlay know whether or
| not you have turned on your turn signal ahead of a turn?
| Or know to pause navigation because the car is no longer
| in gear?
| Max-q wrote:
| I used to think this. But the quality and integration of the
| infotainment in new cars, for example Tesla, is so much
| better than any extern unit I have tested, that now I really
| appreciate the systems coming with the car.
|
| I used to change the unit, amp and all speakers. Now my new
| car is just working nicely unmodified.
| gpderetta wrote:
| Keyword being _new_. What happens in 3 years? 5? 10? Will
| the manufacturer keep it up to date?
| numpad0 wrote:
| 1st-gen Tesla are now 11 years old(first production is
| 2012). We already have answers and direction of motion;
| they won't bother engineering replacement screens for
| decade old cars, and they happily assist you with buying
| more cars when you think your gigacast has a hairline.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Every cars produced from 1970s until yesterday afternoon have
| one of that kind of standard mounting, colloquially called
| 1DIN and 2DIN form factors. It's the shape of old car radios
| and cassette player front panels. If you've ever wondered if
| it's actually removable or it's just such an extremely
| uniform and coincidental choice of aesthetics, it's actually
| a standard slot. And there are endless aftermarket options.
| Very few cars lacked support for it, but it's since been de
| facto deprecated and being replaced by Android Auto and Apple
| CarPlay.
|
| > 1/4-20 UNC
|
| ISO M8.
| mc32 wrote:
| Even today this could work as a 'citi' e-car with limited range.
| The trunk or boot mechanism is garbage though. No need to mess
| with that.
| nlunbeck wrote:
| Yeah I was trying to figure out what that was all about. It
| seems it's like a desk drawer? I can only assume it's to
| preserve the silhouette when the trunk is opened, can't think
| of any practical advantages
| sahaskatta wrote:
| Looks like Honda actually built something that looks somewhat
| similar. It's real and available for sale:
| https://www.honda.co.uk/cars/new/honda-e/overview.html
| yaomtc wrote:
| for sale in Europe and Japan.
| adolph wrote:
| The seat hinges remind me of those early Microsoft Surface
| multilink hinges, although on second look are clearly different.
|
| The drawer trunk might be an improved solution to the trunk
| challenge of the Kammback form [1], which often becomes a
| hatchback but sometimes results in a smallish trunk hatch like
| the Audi A7. It probably is not as crashworthy insofar as
| packaging squish-space though.
|
| A big miss is the steering wheel. Reaching through the wheel to
| the horn seems difficult. It's also been done before on various
| Citroens. I would have liked to see something more interesting
| using a mechanism like a Sbarro centerless wheel. [2, 3]
|
| _Enter the hinge. Or, as Microsoft dubbed it, the dynamic
| fulcrum hinge. The connective tissue between the Surface Book's
| base and display is an isopod-like piece of aluminum that flexes
| back and forth thanks to four rotational points. It's "almost
| like a carpet that rolls out," Groene says._ [0]
|
| 0. https://www.wired.com/2015/10/story-behind-surface-books-
| cra...
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Kammback
|
| 2.
| http://sbarro.phcalvet.fr/technique/roue_orbitale/roue_orbit...,
| https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Centreless_wheel
|
| 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbarro_(automobile)
| agloe_dreams wrote:
| As someone who sold their Surface Book Recently...Microsoft
| said a whole lot of words to make a truly awful hinge with a
| very compromised design while this makes complete sense here.
|
| The outcome of the hinge int he SB was that the product
| couldn't fold flat. Part of the reason for the hinge was that
| allowed less wobble due to their heavy 'clipboard' tablet half,
| which was caused by a want to have a detached mode. The cost of
| detaching was massive to the whole product, not only was the
| hinge bulky and heavy, it also meant the system had to manage
| multiple batteries and force the CPU to throttle aggressively
| due to a lack of cooling in the thin frame. Power would need to
| flow between halves but ultimately the top half needed to
| charge more often than the bottom as the bottom half could not
| directly power the CPU, this meant being on power still
| discharged the battery. Simply put, the choice ruined the
| product unless you had that specific need; especially when
| those batteries started to wear. Did I mention that the
| clipboard had less than 2 hours of battery life? It's no Galaxy
| Chromebook, but it was a sadly compromised design. I sincerely
| hope they rethink the surface laptop studio as well. What they
| really need is to just make a thick Surface Pro that can just
| do it all.
| dusted wrote:
| Interesting! They had the foresight to understand that cars would
| become uglier, but even they couldn't imagine the idiocy which is
| non-standard-formfactor entertainment systems.
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Interesting! They had the foresight to understand that cars
| would become uglier,
|
| Hah!
|
| TBH, I actually like the outer design of this car (https://uplo
| ad.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Ford_021... )
|
| very retro take on the iconic Cortina Mk2 (https://upload.wikim
| edia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/1967_For...).
|
| Better than looking like a blob of unconstrained jelly, like
| all modern cars.
| selykg wrote:
| I think it looks rad. I'd honestly consider buying one if it
| were electric. Though, I'd probably go with a different color
| combo. I love the simple interior. The only thing I really
| dislike about it is the steering wheel. It's giving me the same
| "stupid as hell" vibes as the new Tesla steering wheels.
| TotempaaltJ wrote:
| I also love the look of this car. I think the closest thing
| that's actually on the market might be the Honda e[0], but
| the price isn't worth it for the limited range imo.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_e
| psd1 wrote:
| Yes please to swiveling seats. For when one person puts up the
| tent while the others shout encouragement.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-06 20:01 UTC)