All car news

Off to PAMPLONA in SPAIN, not to run with the bulls, but to drive the new cat: the excellent Jaguar F-type. There were only two disappointments. The first was the weight. That gorgeously crafted and engineered aluminium monocoque body, bonded and riveted like an aircraft fuselage, is way lighter than same-size spot-welded steel bodies. It takes less energy to make too (that welding consumes a lot of power). The body is lighter, for instance, than a Golf’s. So why is the kerb weight of the V6S (the choice model) 300 kg more than a Boxster S’ or 250 kg more than a 911’s? This is like Bradley Wiggins training hard to shed a few kilos and then carrying a bag of sand up Mont Ventoux.

The only other disappointment was the news, over dinner, that tough upcoming US roll-over legislation will likely kill new pillarless hardtop coupés. Chunky B-posts, it seems, will now forcibly scar their elegantly glazed flanks. This depressing information came from Ian Callum, the man responsible for the rakish lines of the F-type and the elegantly pillared XK coupé.

Callum’s beef was that such legislation might ruin the felicitous lines of his cars and other coupés. I suppose it’s a bit like Tom Ford being told all little back dresses must, in future, include girdles. The more serious side to all these safety strictures is that, in their do-good intentions, legislators will actually make cars less safe. It’s already happening. The need to pass ever-tougher crash tests is the prime reason for the bulky pillars and peep-hole vision of most new cars. Forward and over-the-shoulder visibility are frequently appalling, to the detriment of safe driving.

A few years ago I drove a 1970s BMW CSL. What impressed me most – and there was much to admire – was the wonderful panoramic view offered by those delicate pillars. Stepping out of a modern car into that BMW was like moving from a bunker into a bowl. Forget about the modern vogue of panoramic roofs (what’s the use of looking at the sky?). Give me a panoramic view of the road any day. (Of course, panoramic roofs are mostly popular to compensate for the lack of light caused by shallow side glazing.) When legislators make their road safety laws, why do they mostly prioritise passive safety (cushioning you from the crash) rather than active safety (helping you avoid the crash)? Modern cars are too often built for crash-worthiness, not road-worthiness. The bigger and heavier a car, so the greater its reputation for surviving a crash; equally, so the greater the probability it will crash.

There are technical solutions to avoid thickset pillars. Modern carbon-fibre and the finer grades of steel improve strength, allowing for thinner structures, affording better visibility. BMW’s ingenious i3 concept has minimalist carbon composite pillars, promising excellent urban vision. Volvo once showed a clever concept, the SCC (Safety Concept Car), which had see-through front posts, made from a strong mix of Plexiglass and a steel box construction. Its tapered and glassy flanks (and tail) also ensured good rear visibility, duly carried over to the underrated C30.

I was grumbling about all this when I had lunch recently with Richard Parry-Jones, ex-Ford technical supremo (who sensibly turned up at the restaurant on his folding Brompton bike, ‘the only way to get around London’). He nodded encouragingly, but told me not just to blame the legislators. Car designers also bear some responsibility, he added.Car designers nowadays are mostly stylists, not designers. They prioritise pretty over practical, sizzle over steak. The modern trend – illogical, like most fashions – is to reduce the depth of a new car’s greenhouse, as flanks get meatier and higher and roofs lower. Like sheep, they mostly all follow.

Great car designers like Alec Issigonis and Spen King ensured their cars looked appealing and also offered functional and pratical benefits (King prioritised visibility, hence the first Range Rover had big windows and dainty pillars).

If a new car design is less practical or functional than its predecessor – and plenty of modern cars are – then it is an inferior design, no matter how comely its style; for style is easily the most trivial aspect of good design.

Poor fundamental design means more fancy technology must be invented to compensate. Can there be anything more frivolous than the trend to rear-view cameras? You may not be able to see what’s around you, but at least you can watch it on television. That somehow seems a fitting epitaph to intelligent car design.