

Sign up to receive the weekly newsletter featuring the very latest from Petrolicious. Don’t be left out—join the ranks of those who Drive Tastefully.
Already a member? Log in
We're glad you're back.
Not a member yet? Sign up
We'll get you back on track.
Photography by Rémi Dargegen
I’d argue that some cars are more about form than they are about function, sacrificing the latter in honor of the former. After all if you’re aiming for a striking form concerns such as legroom, headroom, and whether or not occupants have torsos have to be disregarded to get that roofline a few millimeters lower. Many of the mid-seventies ‘wedge’ cars suffer from related issues that makes driving them a handful. The Lamborghini Countach below is such a car, just ask James Chen who is familiar with an era when outrageous was possible.
Then there cars that sit on the other side of the line such as the BMW pictured above, which is obviously a bit more restrained and infinitely more parctical. It’s almost as though the designers and engineers wanted occupants to be comfortable, mein Gott! And clearly cars such as the Porsche 911 also allow form to follow function (I’d argue to a detrimental effect in terms of styling) but driving a 911 is far more confidence-inspiring than driving a Ferrari 308, for instance.
So what matters more to you, form or function? Do some companies or nationalities do one better than the other? And can you point to a car that epitomizes your inclination?
Form over function is fine if the function is adequate. Ferrari until the 2000’s.
Function that improves function and form will likely succeed. Lancia Delta Integrale
Function that only improves function will not save form. Any BL car
Poor function and form will fail. Pinto
Poor form and good function will likely fail. Subaru XT, Fiat Multipla.
Good form and poor function can succeed. People are not logical. Ant Lambo before the Diablo
!
You can’t put them away from each other. But in last case, I would say form. Or better yet, desirability.
You don’t desire a car just for it’s performance, it has to be desirable to you, and in last case, that’s what speaks louder most of the time. It might not work very well, but you can excuse that for it’s beauty. Jaguar was a brand that lived that kind of approach. Beauty was the business card. The E-Type is the Anthem of Beauty.
The Citroën C-Cactus is the last “form follows function” example the I’ve seen in the market. A cheap car, with it’s own interest and presence. It’s a challenge for your sight and brings out the aesthetics of a practical car, keeping it different. In the end, it’s desirability once again.
But in theory form and function should control each other. The original VW Beatle is probably one of the best examples. And still catches out hearts in sight. My uncle had one in the 90’s. Anther great example for “Form Follows Function” is the Yeh Wall Table from Kenyon Yeh for Menu. That’s the most recent best example I’ve ever seen.
The perfect car, with german function and ergonomics, and exquisite italian form and design, does not exist. I enjoy ’58 Alfa Giulietta Spider, designed by Battista “Pinin” Farina, as well as ’62 Mercedes W111 220b fintail sedan, and dream of Ferrari 365 GTB/4 “Daytona,” BMW M1, McLaren F1. Also, 997 911 GT2, great drive, and Scuderia 16M: delicious Ferrari-flavored drive. Petrolicious = exquisite. Keep driving tastefully! Bests. E
To me, it’s ‘form’. Charter, style, and handling specifically. My daily driver is an ’89 Toyota MR2, which seems pretty impractical, but it fits everything I need (a folding display table behind the passenger seat, a curbside drum kit, a tent, air mattress, small cooler…). It gets good gas mileage as well. But it is tricky to work on, and at 250k miles, it needs a bit more attention than a typical Toyota.
Alfa Romeo 4C, TVR Sagaris = Perfect form and function?
I am surprised the BMW M1 was not mentioned.
Lancia Stratos was perfect function for what they were going for, and it was AMAZING form to be sure!
I have always preferred the ‘adolescent’ cars myself. I have a Ford Focus ST. It is a great compromise, with adolescent spirit, and in my price range..
Although the person who came up with the idea of building my beloved Beetle is one rather not to mention, the designer Ferdinand Porsche is! The instructions were clear: the car should be able to drive a 100km/ph, carry 4 people plus bagage, and drive across the high peaks of the Alps.
Form follow function. But Italian-car enthusiasts like my dad could disagree with me.
It’s a really interesting question, and the one that’s been around since an automobile as we know it was invented. First and foremost, one has to define (the relationship between) the form and the function. And also the notion has to suit the purpose of the object in question. You see, when talking about form and function, Loewy designed pencil sharpener is totally different from a notion applied to, say, a Countach, but at the same time, very similar. Earlier automobiles were designed, and engineered through, not much from science, but instead, a lot from imagination. A designer exercised an imagination to create the most efficient and aerodynamic shape possible (both in terms of real and suggestive), and they often got it quite wrong. It’s pretty shocking to find that Countach has the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick building. Shape of 911 was, too, one man’s vision of what the efficient, functional form was.
Sorry, I’ve kind of lost my point, but form/function has absolutely nothing to do with styling. Form/function is an engineering and artistic discourse, styling is putting a party hat on.
To each his/her own, and so on. In my opinion it’s a sliding continuum between the two, depending on what the intended purpose of the car is – and merge that with company pedigree to get it right. A Land Rover Defender is beautiful in the sense that neither it’s design nor function is compromised by one another. It’s car design and architecture blended into a purposeful machine that shows it’s intent right away. But to be honest, maybe a car that is not a compromise in any way, might force one self to some compromises..?
I stand by as well as live by in my own work the old ‘ Shaker ‘ philosophy when it comes to form and function ;
” First and foremost .. make it work . Then .. without sacrificing any of the original function … make it as beautiful as is humanly possible . But never sacrifice the original function in order to pursue vain aesthetics ”
Then add to the above Frank Lloyd Wright’s axiom ” .. the elimination of the insignificant ” … and you’ve got the proper balance for anything that should be called … an automobile . With the overwhelming majority of current designs today being more automotive jewelry intended to boost the owners ego rather than anything even remotely resembling an automobile
… and like your opinions of the NSX’s styling …. I think you’re dead wrong about the 911 as well . As a matter of fact I’d argue that amongst todays Exotic / Super / Hypercars the 911 is the only one left that does in fact attain any semblance of balance between Form & Function .