I think even if people were willing to let go of some features that require additional parts, just getting a car made that would conform to modern security and environmental regulations would probably be an impossible task. It's not like we forgot how to build like that or that car companies want to waste money with superfluous parts.
totally get that, and i don't want to give the impression that it's a simple thing to ask for, but there is definitely something here that is enviable.
think of how fixed gear bikes made a comeback in a market swelled with ridiculous mountain bikes that were simply overegineered for what they were needed for ( or poorly manufactured with hindering mechanics ).
People can appreciate a simple design, that's easy to maintain and fix.
Why? Crumple zones are simply part of the vehicles material designs and require no additional parts. A piece of sheet metal with engineered weak points takes as many parts in a vehicle as piece of sheet metal. Both form the hood of the car just fine.
> It's not like ... car companies want to waste money with superfluous parts.
Built in pre-market Satellite Radio isn't a superfluous part, especially when you can't opt out of it. The 'man-step' from Ford isn't superfluous? It's the most redundant feature in any work vehicle as it's less 4" lower than the top of the wheel and is placed where a toolbox is, making it impossible to use in the vast majority of vehicles it is placed. Whilst using the wheel (the method used probably since shortly after Ford released the first truck) allows you to grip the side, and gives you enough height to lean over and fully reach into the bed.
Companies place superfluous parts into their vehicles all the time. DVD players and LCD screens help with environmental regulations and vehicular safety? Really?
If so, don't you hate it when people come up to you and suggest that programming Facebook is no big deal and maybe you should help them with that next weekend?
You just did that.
I am not an automotive engineer, but large swathes of my family are and I have had many discussions about their work from an engineering point of view. You would not believe what goes into just that crumple zone stuff, nothing the word "simply" applies to. Did you know there are entire engineers dedicated to making sure the cars pass rather stringent noise emission requirements from the body (that is, not the engine)? It's hard enough to get cars to pass specifications without adding in yet more restrictions about the nature of the cars. (Or adding $20,000 to the price.)
A lot of automotive complexity comes from the evolutionary nature of their designs. If you built a gas turbine electric car you could have far fewer moving parts. But you would add a new set of basic downsides that you would need to tweak. By the time you had something with reasonable tolerances, materials, pollution, noise, and vibration levels you would probably have built something almost a complex as a modern engine.
I'm mostly talking about the engine, chassis and transmission section. Whether the whole entertainment or "lifestyle" sections are superfluous or not doesn't event matter, as this really doesn't increase maintenance costs or makes the car itself that more complex. That's pretty orthogonal to the basic design. You could revamp a Model T with DVD players if you'd want to. I'm not saying that we need all that all that added stuff (AC, sound etc), but that even the essential components nowadays require a high level of complexity.
To get a reasonable amount of safety, you have to be either very cleve or apply huge amounts of brute force, i.e. build a friggin tank. Which probably still won't be as safe as other vehicles, neither for the car itself nor the one it hits. And the fuel economy will be utterly atrocious, especially if you want to keep the engine simple and user-maintainable.
I'd like to be proven wrong, but I think that it's simplicity, safety, performance – pick two. Maybe not even that, depending on current laws, standards and morals. I doubt that even something like the VW Beetle or the Citroen 2CV would be feasible today. You'd either end up with a gas-guzzling tank or a not-quite-car like the Vespa Ape, if simplicity is a constraint.
Again, I'd like to be proven wrong. Then at least I know what car to buy next.
Don't forget that this is not a unibody car, but a rolling chassis. The crumple zone concept does not really work for a rolling chassis because it transmits the forces in a completely different way compared to a unibody with subframes.
