Are looks important ?

Yep Function Form is always there. Our job as car builders is to make it look good and work right.
"Artistic Expression" meets "Function Form"

 

Sorry to awaken this thread with (possibly) renewed vigour, but I recently had a conversation on another forum that was headed very much toward the idea that "form follows function" implies an analysis of function more than anything else. As follows:

Function can describe pretty much anything that a thing does, intentional or otherwise. But when people insist that "form follows function" they are referring to some functions only, i.e. those functions considered valid and worthy of following. The statement therefore implies a tacit value-judgement which distinguishes between "valid" functions and "invalid" functions.

As long as there is unconscious consensus we might remain blissfully unaware of the existence of this value-judgement. The problem arises when there is disagreement about what does and what does not constitute a valid function.

When the Modernists said that ornament was a sin on the grounds that is was non-functional, what they were saying was that the function fulfilled by ornament was not a valid function. That ornament might fulfil a function should be plainly obvious: in pre-Modernist architecture ornament served the highly complex purpose of explaining to observers what the building was about in terms of the owner's social role, background, aspirations, intentions, etc., for instance.

More simply, a front door had the important function of presenting a face (welcoming or otherwise) to the visitor. To the Modernist this was not a valid function (though it is undeniably a function): to them front doors ought to be about physical access only.

In the case of the Modernists the value-judgements around function were of an ethical/ideological rather than technical/practical nature. It was all about a rejection of "bourgeois values" and had a nasty authoritarian undertone.

So, the question is no longer, "is it functional?" but becomes, "why do you choose to serve these functions but not those?" It's a different sort of question. It's much more complicated and it's personal.

 

Style is a secondary function of every part.

Bob

 

To the eye of the owner.

 

I don't agree ...A part such as a piece of chrome trim or a hood ornament can be used to change style or appearance with that alone being it's sole purpose. That would be it's primary and only function

 

Five pages and no one mentioned the number one overriding factor of almost any commercial engineering exercise intended for mass production.

That is cost.

Function is considered before form. To see this applied, almost all prototypes are aesthetically crude when compared with the final product.

Form is driven more by marketing than engineering principles.

Function trumps form. Cost trumps them both.

Of course this all goes out the window when you’re talking about one off custom stuff where you know going in that whoever is footing the bill will never recover the cost of design and production.

 

Sadly the NASA site has been down for a few days.

 

Precisely my point above. Being profitable is a function. Sometimes even screwing the buyer over is a function. Hence the question, on what basis do we distinguish between valid and invalid functions? It's something we'd want to do.

 

Dan I like this! Sounds like the way to pick women LOL. Strong, healthy, hard worker, only a small moustache and can win our fights for us.

 

"If you wanna be Happy for the rest of your life..."
Thanks too for Ned and Moon's words.
Moon, I will hold you accountable for the "classic style" of writing re:
Cost as final arbiter. It is one, an, it is not The arbiter. Else you live where beauty is lost.
If cost trumps function...you get Yugos.
Meanwhile back at Ngo's Factory No. 5...

 

I guess that explains why there are so many starving artist, and Hot Rod builders!

 

Profit trumps cost.

In other words, yes, the purpose of the chrome quail on your hood may be to look good ... but that's not its only purpose. Its purpose is to convince the buyer that the Model A Ford is a superior automobile and a thing of beauty, well worth its cost.

In other words, while it may be cheaper to build an ugly thing, it's not more profitable, because people will not buy it. This is because it does not fulfill their craving for beauty.

Now, if you have a captive market that is prohibited from buying what they want, then they will do the best they can within the freedom you allow them. That is why you have Yugos and Trabants, etc. Which then were later customized as much as possible within the limited means of a poor and oppressed people, to satisfy that craving for beauty and distinction.

 

LOL Try to convince the folks still building and selling wood and spring mouse traps.

 

Ha! Ok, those are not the most aesthetically pleasing items. But you don't leave the mousetrap sitting in your driveway, though. Right?