Why is it that concepts cars looked so desirable, yet never were made into production cars? Instead most cars are rather bland when compared to the concepts of the time. Is it because the concept can't be easily manufactured the way it is designed? Or are they really impractical cars in practice?
The only "far-out" examples that I can think of that went from concept to production are ones like the Dodge Viper, and the PT Cruiser. Of course, I probably just answered my own question -- the Viper was really expensive, and the PT Cruiser was cheap so it became common enough that it turned into a somewhat bland less desirable car.
Expense is a part of it, but sadly not the biggest piece.
The average person just don't want that kind of design innovation and likes things to stay as similar as possible.
When Hybrid cars starting coming out in the early 2000's, Honda Civic Hybrids was able to get a lot of traction just by making their hybrid car EXACTLY the same visually as a normal Civic. Toyota Prius went with a fresher design, and ultimately was accepted but had to fight a serious stigma against the look for 1/2 a decade.
Pretty much this; often the concept is a design exercise for the stylists to show what styling elements they have in mind for future production...put in place on a vehicle that doesn't need to meet the needs of real customers, so as to gauge interest. Those elements get watered down once someone starts asking about how they would translate into a real car, sold for real money, built with real existing components in a real factory.
Certain cars (Vipers & Prowlers, specifically) were low-volume enough such that the concept could be productized; often at a loss, so as to serve as marketing for the rest of the brand's vehicles. In the case of the Viper, the goal was also to see if AMC-style small integrated engineering and manufacturing teams could be used at Chrysler. The car was a nice side effect, almost. The Prowler was a similar project, not only for the stylists but also as a way of experimenting with new aluminum components on a limited-run vehicle.
Some makes are more adventurous than others. GM often produces gorgeous concepts...that will never even get close to production in any form. Mazda and Volvo often drop significant hints about the styling for near-future models in their concept cars.
Citroen and Renault (in the 80s-90s) seemed to very willing to try and productize these concepts:
I think a lot of it has to do with crash safety regulations. Several of the concept cars in the article have very low hoods and huge glass windows. Low hoods violate pedestrian safety regulations, and all that glass makes it very difficult to have the car strong enough to survive a crash. Also half of them have no mirrors.
I can't figure out that Athon steering wheel at all! I know it's just a cleverly-shot photo but it looks like it's floating there, connected to nothing. (The rest of the car is painful to look at though; to my eyes the ugliest on that page.)
I think it's a little weird how the gallery of concept cars gives way to production vehicles at the end. Who in 2018 needed to be reminded what a DeLorean looks like (much less a Camaro)?
Sadly not included in the list (probably because it was 1991) was the Audi Avus [1] whose construction and J Mays design language can still be found in Audi production cars. The quattro Spider Concept would have felt at home on that list as well.
Why is it that concepts cars looked so desirable, yet never were made into production cars? Instead most cars are rather bland when compared to the concepts of the time. Is it because the concept can't be easily manufactured the way it is designed? Or are they really impractical cars in practice?
The only "far-out" examples that I can think of that went from concept to production are ones like the Dodge Viper, and the PT Cruiser. Of course, I probably just answered my own question -- the Viper was really expensive, and the PT Cruiser was cheap so it became common enough that it turned into a somewhat bland less desirable car.
Expense is a part of it, but sadly not the biggest piece.
The average person just don't want that kind of design innovation and likes things to stay as similar as possible.
When Hybrid cars starting coming out in the early 2000's, Honda Civic Hybrids was able to get a lot of traction just by making their hybrid car EXACTLY the same visually as a normal Civic. Toyota Prius went with a fresher design, and ultimately was accepted but had to fight a serious stigma against the look for 1/2 a decade.
"Bland" is just catering to the mainstream audience. There's a reason McDonald's has owned the food world for 50 years selling the same hamburger.
Pretty much this; often the concept is a design exercise for the stylists to show what styling elements they have in mind for future production...put in place on a vehicle that doesn't need to meet the needs of real customers, so as to gauge interest. Those elements get watered down once someone starts asking about how they would translate into a real car, sold for real money, built with real existing components in a real factory.
Certain cars (Vipers & Prowlers, specifically) were low-volume enough such that the concept could be productized; often at a loss, so as to serve as marketing for the rest of the brand's vehicles. In the case of the Viper, the goal was also to see if AMC-style small integrated engineering and manufacturing teams could be used at Chrysler. The car was a nice side effect, almost. The Prowler was a similar project, not only for the stylists but also as a way of experimenting with new aluminum components on a limited-run vehicle.
Some makes are more adventurous than others. GM often produces gorgeous concepts...that will never even get close to production in any form. Mazda and Volvo often drop significant hints about the styling for near-future models in their concept cars.
Citroen and Renault (in the 80s-90s) seemed to very willing to try and productize these concepts:
Renault Avantime https://goo.gl/images/o5YW7G
Citroen XM https://goo.gl/images/pvn7Gh
Citroen CX interior https://goo.gl/images/xLdVw9
I think a lot of it has to do with crash safety regulations. Several of the concept cars in the article have very low hoods and huge glass windows. Low hoods violate pedestrian safety regulations, and all that glass makes it very difficult to have the car strong enough to survive a crash. Also half of them have no mirrors.
I can't figure out that Athon steering wheel at all! I know it's just a cleverly-shot photo but it looks like it's floating there, connected to nothing. (The rest of the car is painful to look at though; to my eyes the ugliest on that page.)
http://i.imgur.com/0UpM41M.png
D'oh. Got it. Thanks!
I think it's a little weird how the gallery of concept cars gives way to production vehicles at the end. Who in 2018 needed to be reminded what a DeLorean looks like (much less a Camaro)?
To me, it is a bit weird nowadays to start with the most interesting item on a list.
I was hoping to be blown away by #7, but it wasn't the case. /s
Sadly not included in the list (probably because it was 1991) was the Audi Avus [1] whose construction and J Mays design language can still be found in Audi production cars. The quattro Spider Concept would have felt at home on that list as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Avus_quattro
The Ferrari Testarossa has aged really well, and still looks gorgeous.
That site gives me this modal pop-up:
Yeah, no thanks.It's a fake popup. Clicking deny brings up another page with "congratulations you have won" stuff.
It ain't even the browser's. Sketchy as hell.