Yes.
Sick of the gray in cars, clothing, buildings, etc. etc. etc.
Everyone wants a car that blends in so that they are less of a target for cops.
For most of us, that is not a concern at all.
Everyone is trying so hard to fit in and be cool.
I would argue this is 2010’s and people just can’t afford the new colorful 2020 cars, they all seem bright and colorful.
Every new car I see on any car lot other than a Volkswagen one is just full of white, black, blue and red.
The new microbusses and old beetles (both kinds) are colorful. One lot a few blocks away even has a jetta with that “lego” thing going on where every panel is a different color. I always liked when they did that.
we tried to buy a vw electric microbus last year and they wanted $100,000; most dealers got TWO in 2024 if they got any, and so VW just let them set whatever price they thought they could get. fucking bonkers way to run a car company.
It’s not quite as bad as it looks. The lower image either has had the saturation reduced or was taken with a potato, and the upper image has had the saturation increased. The lower image has a gold car (parked by an asshole) and a a couple red cars, but the image quality makes them hard to notice.
The upper image still has a lot more variety, but it’s a bit misleading.
Ahh missed that being europe. We were not that color diverse in the US in the 80’s. we had a lot more dark browns and a lot less vw’s
And the new ones all seem to be pavement colored, wtf?
All the crazy colors and styles originally happened to sell “self expression” because the culture was becoming more anti consumption. Advertisements for most things used to be more matter-of-fact, then they started focussing on manipulating emotions to sell more shit. I guess now the culture is more pro-consumption and status-obsessed, so conformity is what sells now.
The famously anti-consumption, status-unobsessed, non-conformist 1980s, that’s what they always say.
I read a while ago that people are sharing cars more and more. While someone may love a hot yellow, their partner may not, so they both settle for a grey. The market has gone from “I love it!” to “I don’t hate it…”
You could also get factory colors “custom”. What was available at the dealership was one thing, but they had a host of other color options you could special order. Like upgrading from an AM radio to AM/FM Cassette. You just had to wait for the factory to do a run of that option before your car would get shipped. More options were a la carte and you weren’t forced into trim packages like today that are like cable tv packages - pay for a bunch of shit you don’t want to get the one or two options you do. Want AWD? Sure! But you have to take “premium sound”, floor mats, cargo separator, and exterior trim packages too.
Some still have a bunch of color options. Hell, look at all the colors you can get through BMW Individual for example.
But people are scared about resale values and stuff
For regular makes and models there are far fewer options, like Toyota or Honda. BMWs are perceived as higher tier and have more options. The fact you have to single out a more luxury brand and can‘t just say “Toyota has 20 color options for the Corolla!” proves my point.
Well yes, Toyota and Honda are about cutting costs whereever possible. Having fewer paint options available is cheaper.
I can get a Škoda in orange, blue or red, optionally two-tone with a black roof. That’s also a cheap model of a cost-cutter brand I looked at. Slightly bolder paint options, but also not too many.
There’s no point offering a bunch of different paints if nobody is getting them. Or you can do it like the luxury brands do, and make it possible to get absolutely anything, but it’s a high-cost extra. If you sell it as prestige, some people will pay for it because why not. Plus it’s not like anyone cares about the residual on a BMW, they’ll just lease the next one in 5 years and don’t care if they gotta pay 50 euros more per month due to a lower residual, or maybe the bank eats the cost (residuals are usually set lower than the expected actual value at the end of a lease anyway). But for cheap cars, where people are already cost-conscious, a lot of people just skip out on the cool colors because “oh it’ll depreciate so much worse” and that’s why they no longer offer them. So many car makers now offer one or two bright, showy colors per model and the rest are boring, generic, dependable.
If Toyota could make more money selling you a yellow Corolla than by not selling you a yellow Corolla, they would do it. But apparently not enough people want it for it to be an option, and not enough people want to shell out obscene amounts of cash for completely custom paints on a Toyota, for that to be an option. I wish people bought more brightly colored cars, but I don’t think it’s the manufacturers stopping everyone, it’s the lack of demand.
Kind of true also for housing.
Drive the West Davis highway in Utah, north of Salt Lake City, and most of what you’ll see is cookie-cutter McMansions in the same color schemes.
I saw one larger house that looked like an unpaid intern copied and pasted the same set of rooms multiple times onto the standard front entry.
Cheaply built, soulless architecture, tiny lots, on ground that was lake bed less than a hundred years ago.
In my town there are two bright pink houses. I love 'em.
That’s cool. I don’t think I’ve seen one ever.
I hadn’t, either, before I started visiting this town.
Reminds me of one of the funniest articles I’ve read: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-44/the-intellectual-situation/why-is-everything-so-ugly/
That was a fun read. I bookmarked it.
that has always been the american way, upton sinclair was writing about this shit over close to a century ago now
Well, gray and depressing does fit the times.
What’s with the melty slate colors lately?
They make me think of colored clay.
You should see how many Tacoma owners are jazzed for various shades of grey.
Desert Sand is lit.
Not just the color. Each make and model used to look distinct and unique. Now they all have the same vague SUV shape. It makes sense aerodynamics and safety standards are a thing but it still feels so corporate and almost dystopian.
The funnier interpretation IMO is that they’re all trying to be either wagons or minivans while maintaining plausible deniability.
No it’s an SUV! Right right…
But SUVs are neither aerodynamic nor safe (for others)…*
*In comparison with normal cars.
There are also things like safety standards and whatnot, there’s more nuance here beyond some shape conspiracy lol
It’s largely roll over protection safety requirements have increased dramatically. So you get massive pillars that have to distribute force into the rest of the body.
Which also has to handle that load, or prevent intrusion laterally from side impacts.
It’s largely driven by safety designs.
They typically look like a mildly used bar of soap on wheels.
It’s carsinisation but for cars. Everything evolves into a type of SUV. It makes sense since physics kind of dictates how aerodynamics works and engineers just have to work around that.
I’m looking forward to the day when we don’t have rear-view mirrors and just use cameras. Kind of surprised we haven’t just gone that direction already. Screens and camera tech has gotten good enough that we can do that pretty efficiently.
The issue I have with some of the more “modern” cars is getting rid of the door handles on the outside. These pop-out things are just a hazard for people in colder climates or places where dust and other ingress can cause problems opening the door. Although, it would be nice to have my kids walk up to the door and not jerk on the handle 2-3 times before I can get the keys out to unlock it.
One of my cars is a Chevy Bolt EUV. The rear view mirror, in place of the classic switch to change between day and night mode, has a switch that alternates the view between reflection and camera.
Mirrors just work. No electricity, no lenses to get covered and blocked.
Cameras are good for the places mirrors can’t see, but otherwise it’s more shoving electronics in places were it’s not needed driving up cost, complexity, and decreasing repairability.
I like function over form for safety items. Simple, reliable, and imo there is beauty in something clearly being designed for a purpose.
Another factor that seems to get ignored with mirrors vs cameras is depth. A mirror is still a 3D reflection and there’s usually enough depth information to judge distances pretty well. You lose all sense of scale and distance with a lens and screen.
objects in mirror are closer than they appear
(i still have zero idea what this means…is the object closer in the mirror or is closer irl?)
That label is used for convex mirrors that show a wider area at the tradeoff of shrinking things. You get some depth perception in a mirror (unlike a camera, as otacon pointed out), but the shrinkage in a convex mirror throws that off. The object itself (not the reflection) is physically closer to you than what your depth perception on the reflection would indicate.
I suppose cameras can give you a better field of view than a mirror can though.
Sure but if they break, it’s a more expensive repair, one that I may be able to do myself whereas replacing a mirror or mirror housing isn’t that hard.
I want less computerization of cars, personally. Or at least a repairable, customizable, and FOSS system, if I have to have computers in my car.
“If they break”, oh yes, let’s fund a strawman.
Go see what a broken mirror costs today.
Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there’s painting to match.
Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.
Try $30 and fuck painting. Old car better.
They do, but know what works better? A single panel in front of you with all the views - you don’t even have to turn your head.
As someone who’s raced, "Wink" mirrors demonstrated this fantastically: multi-panel rear-view mirrors where you could see everything behind and beside you in a single mirror.
I used one in my daily driver when I had a neck injury (whiplash) and could barely turn my head for 2 years. Way easier to see all around you, and better too.
The tech for a camera system has been available and trivial since the 90’s. A single 4" tall wide screen on the dash, or built into the center rear view would work.
Clearly you’ve never driven in rain, snow, fog. Side mirrors are very problematic. Cameras can be better protected, and done right even deal with rain and ajow a lot better.
I know of those mirrors and surprise, I have driven in adverse conditions.
I’m not saying there aren’t better ways. But cameras in their current implementation isn’t the answer.
There becomes a point where there is too much in front of a driver. I also believe the frequent “feedback” from driving assists causes me, at least, to take my eyes off the road to figure out what it’s beeping at me for and it’s usually because the system doesn’t recognize a bend in the road or the car in front of me is turning.
There are far more sedan shapes over SUV ones on the road, but with that said I agree with your reasoning. It’s natural that the most efficient shapes are adopted en masse so everyone can benefit. Same with other things like safety standards/regulations.
I can’t remember which car magazine did it, but about 6-8 years ago, the cover was a profile of every crossover in the US market. I was able to pick out the Honda but couldn’t tell any of the others apart.
Aerodynamics and safety get everyone to a generally uniform shape, but then they focus group it to death.
It’s like we live in a world built out of that gray shit inside that Krabby Patty in the one episode.
Is this what you mean?
Or maybe this?
“It comes in any color you want as long as it’s black.”
