Function over form

[Harumph]

Toyota is announcing a Land Cruiser for the U.S. market which will have retro FJ styling.

This is good news for competition, but reminds me of the "make it look off-roady" trends some auto designers follow by placing form over function. I think Toyota is as bad (or good) at doing this as any automaker.
Example, non-functional hood scoops, faux vents, fender flares which do not protect the body from debris kicked-up by tires, etc..

While designs can be made to look more substantial by adding a bump here or a scoop there, the designs having truly functional features are a step above the others.
This is just my opinion.


This is a stock photo provided with the Autoblog article. It probably has nothing much to do with the "retro FJ styling" direction announced in the article.
Just consider this eye candy

 

[lefty]

Completely hear you with respect to a lot of the non-functional items such as dummy vents, etc. It's a shame car companies do that but then again consumers are used to that "look". I put myself in that category and really don't like the large, blank pieces of plastic or those huge lights that span the entire width of the hood or trunk that EVs tend to use. It's just a style I need to get used to as the ICE, which required those vents, scoops, etc., goes away.
With that being said, and I fully realize the items in the photo above would be non-functional, Toyota nailed the retro look, assuming that's what the truck is going to look like.

 

[Chaparral]

While designs can be made to look more substantial by adding a bump here or a scoop there, the designs having truly functional features are a step above the others.
This is just my opinion.

I can’t agree more. Fake air intakes provoke a very negative reaction in me. Another example of this kind of thing is what appears to be tread plates on the Defender. It kind of looks like you can stand on them but you can’t because they are not designed to take a person’s weight. This is the worse kind of design because the form suggests function that does not exist and someone might reasonably want to stand on there to get easy access to the roof rack. There is nothing at all appealing to me about this fake ruggedness.



Design should usually solve for function, maintenance and manufacturability before it should decide on form. The form should mostly just be the incidental consequence of solving the various functional problems. The form should be honest, never pretending to be something it is not, like tread plates where you can’t actually tread. When form springs from function it is reassuring, instilling confidence that the product works and provides helpful visual cues as to how to use something. Anyone that starts a design by thinking about how they want the product to look is in my opinion working backwards. The questions should be: how does is work? how will it be made? How will it be maintained? Only after you largely solve the pragmatic problems do you have a primitive form with clearly defined boundaries within which you can adjust the way the product will look. The form should never betray the function only compliment it. Dressing up a product with pretentious styling is in my opinion the worse kind of design.

I’m hoping Scout deliver real ruggedness not pretend, just-for-looks ruggedness.

 

[J Alynn]

I can’t agree more. Fake air intakes provoke a very negative reaction in me. Another example of this kind of thing is what appears to be tread plates on the Defender. It kind of looks like you can stand on them but you can’t because they are not designed to take a person’s weight. This is the worse kind of design because the form suggests function that does not exist and someone might reasonably want to stand on there to get easy access to the roof rack. There is nothing at all appealing to me about this fake ruggedness.

View attachment 1499

Design should usually solve for function, maintenance and manufacturability before it should decide on form. The form should mostly just be the incidental consequence of solving the various functional problems. The form should be honest, never pretending to be something it is not, like tread plates where you can’t actually tread. When form springs from function it is reassuring, instilling confidence that the product works and provides helpful visual cues as to how to use something. Anyone that starts a design by thinking about how they want the product to look is in my opinion working backwards. The questions should be: how does is work? how will it be made? How will it be maintained? Only after you largely solve the pragmatic problems do you have a primitive form with clearly defined boundaries within which you can adjust the way the product will look. The form should never betray the function only compliment it. Dressing up a product with pretentious styling is in my opinion the worse kind of design.

I’m hoping Scout deliver real ruggedness not pretend, just-for-looks ruggedness.

Agree with you but with that statement should an EV Suv have a boxy design with an upright windshield? Just noting it-I don’t want the Scout looking like a mustang Mach-e mind you but the premise of a heritage inspired look that is a bit more boxy by design goes against form following function. Let’s hope there is still give and take but agree all the superfluous elements can remain in the parts bins

 

[TaconicBear]

Toyota is announcing a Land Cruiser for the U.S. market which will have retro FJ styling.

This is good news for competition, but reminds me of the "make it look off-roady" trends some auto designers follow by placing form over function. I think Toyota is as bad (or good) at doing this as any automaker.
Example, non-functional hood scoops, faux vents, fender flares which do not protect the body from debris kicked-up by tires, etc..

While designs can be made to look more substantial by adding a bump here or a scoop there, the designs having truly functional features are a step above the others.
This is just my opinion.


This is a stock photo provided with the Autoblog article. It probably has nothing much to do with the "retro FJ styling" direction announced in the article.
Just consider this eye candy

View attachment 1476

Well here is a picture of the new 2024 Land Cruiser. The page with this picture is titled "Simplicity Comes Standard". It's not far from what I imagine the new Scouts will look like. Here's the text from that page: «Whether you’re an off-road purist or simply seeking an uncomplicated ride, Land Cruiser 1958 strikes a perfect balance between functionality and classic style. It brings on the charm with retro circle headlights and a heritage front grille, while a strong silhouette and low beltline prioritize safety and stability. Let’s go back to basics in the best way possible, so you have exactly what you need for the adventure ahead.» Website: https://www.toyota.com/upcoming-vehicles/landcruiser/ Enticing promo video.

 

[lefty]

While I cannot stand how Toyotas drive, and would never buy one, I do think they did a terrific job with the styling of this truck. They nailed the retro look.

 

[TaconicBear]

While I cannot stand how Toyotas drive, and would never buy one, I do think they did a terrific job with the styling of this truck. They nailed the retro look.

We will have to agree the everyone is different. We have two, a 2017 RAV4 and 2023 Tundra. And just sold a solid 2013 Tundra. Many happy miles on them.