Yes.
Sick of the gray in cars, clothing, buildings, etc. etc. etc.
The cars in the second picture are more colorful and interesting than what we have now
yeah, the golden light does a lot of the beauty there
Everyone wants a car that blends in so that they are less of a target for cops.
Oh, that’d be an interesting study I’d read about! Any sociology majors out there who need a thesis? lol
That’s apparently apocryphal. The rate of pullover tracks with the most common car color (currently white). Driver behavior (speeding, illegal turning, etc) and other outstanding features (lapsed registration, broken tail light) are the most common proximate causes for a pull over.
Race red mustang gt. I’ll take the heat off y’all.
Not me! I’ll take a flashy sports car over a boring beige box any day of the week.
Look at Mr. money bags over here.
Had a red “sporty” (used very loosely) coupe - was pulled over 9 times in 3 years.
Got a black much more sporty coupe - was pulled over 4 times in 4 years.
Got a white rav4. Drive it like it’s stolen. Never been pulled over even when I’ve had broken taillights or burnt headlight.
“Mr. Moneybags”? LMAO I can easily name 5 excellent, reliable sports cars you can use as a daily driver for under $10K:
- Nissan 350Z/Infiniti G35
- Mazda Miata
- Genesis Coupe
- Civic Si
- VW GTI
My GTI was good at hiding from cops until I got my exhaust.
Worth it.
Everyone wants a car that blends in so that they are less of a target for
copspredators.Part of why I drive a Volvo.
If you see a Volvo speeding you think “Gee, that doctor must be in a big hurry”
For most of us, that is not a concern at all.
It should be a concern for literally anyone in America right now. Unless you’re white and actively licking boots, you’re a target.
Sounds about white.
I’m white and OP has hella privilege if they’ve never been concerned about cops targeting them. They were all over my ass in the 90s for having long hair and driving beaters. They’d lock on and follow until they had an excuse.
What you miss is the oversaturated color in earlier photography.
i think that’s why i liked anime so much as a kid. lots of oversaturated colors there.
And the desaturated second picture. I’m not saying the point isn’t valid, but it’s certainly been artificially made here.
Ok, I’ll say it. Dogs see blues and yellows, not grayscale. Colorblind is kind of a bad label, as it seems people assume it means all colors instead of blind to a few colors. Humans could be considered UV or infrared colorblind, but we’re never described that way.
Many people here say that people don’t want to be targeted by cops but I don’t feel like cops target colored cars specifically. At least where I live I feel like they target stereotypical vehicles, which would mean a combination of brand and model, color, tinted windows, any visible modding etc., and also the body style of the car. For example a gray roadster will have a higher chance to be targeted by the police than a yellow minivan. A modded car will always be stopped more than average.
So the way to not get targeted is to get a car that screams “mother/father of two in an unhappy marriage”. Or go to the other extream and get whatever the mafia drives if you have the money. I have never seen a G-class Mercedes stopped by the police.
The target here is vans, black BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and then the grey of the same 3 brands, it became an absolute stereotype
I’d think that image was from early 2000s. Lately they came out with Lego colors for cars including an almost impossible blue.
Toyota for example come out with one special color a year. All the other colors are boring shit.
There’s a bunch of non metallic colours that make cars look like toys right now and it’s not limited to one brand. It is absolutely a trend right now. I suggest you lot need to stop living under rocks. Sure the rent is cheaper but hey, some shit is going on out here. Just sayin.
My current car is bright red. I bought it used without consideration to the color. That’s been the case for every car I’ve owned. I’ve had orange, metallic beige (I think Honda called it “Champagne”) three times, forest green twice, silver, and burgundy. I’ve never had blue, black, gray, or white.
If I got to pick, I think I’d choose candy apple red, burgundy metallic, or a deep cobalt blue metallic. I liked the green one okay, but I’m not a big fan of green.
I’ve never wanted to buy one of the cars it is on but as a colour, I really like Mazda’s “Soul Red Crystal Metallic”
Not sure if it is still the case, but back in '96 when I learned to drive, I was told that insurance companies charge more for red and black cars, because they get pulled over more frequently than other colors.
I’ve heard of that for “arrest-me red,” but for black too?
“It comes in any color you want as long as it’s black.”
Blame this on the car insurance companies. They claim that certain car colors are less likely to be in a wreck.
Also blame car manufacturers. Some colors cost more than others. Check the sticker price next time you’re in the market.
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.
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…”
deleted by creator
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.
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.
safety standards are bs, tho. they still say more blinding headlights are safer than less blinding.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It ain’t the glass that costs. It’s the sleek custom designed shape of the housing that costs all that money. Not the mirror.
A plain round simple mirror that is externally mounted is cheap and easy to replace. But it won’t make your car look as fast or as cool.
Try $30 and fuck painting. Old car better.
“If they break”, oh yes, let’s fund a strawman.
…you don’t think car parts break? Or are you the type to just get a new one every few years so you’ve never experienced it?
Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there’s painting to match.
Who exactly is the one building a strawman, here? 🤔 sources, please
Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.
Fair, debatable, and fair. Definitely not cheaper than a mirror, though. Maybe on a luxury car, absolutely not on anything more common.
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.
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.
They typically look like a mildly used bar of soap on wheels.
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.
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…
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?
Paging through the 80s and 90s car colour options for somewhat mainstream cars like bmw is crazy in comparison to today. Sure they were the expensive paint option but there were hundreds.
There’s some awful colours today (eg you can get 3 shades of grey, red, or the precise shade of yellowish green that a newborn infant leaves in their diaper for a Prius). I say - at least it’s a colour.
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.
nope. I don’t care for your personality in the road. I don’t miss it at all. I will buy black until I die
