Designing a car is an extremely complex task, requiring a precise balance between engineering, ergonomics, and practicality. The fact that automakers mostly manage to cope with this task successfully seems almost like a regularity, although in reality, it involves a tremendous amount of work. Nevertheless, even major brands occasionally make miscalculations that become clear examples of unsuccessful solutions.
Some of these cases are particularly telling — they demonstrate how non-standard ideas can turn into real operational problems.
One striking example is the Renault Avantime. Due to the absence of a central pillar, the doors of this model turned out to be unusually large. In confined spaces, such as parking lots, this created obvious difficulties: with a conventional design, such doors would simply bump into neighboring cars. To solve the problem, engineers developed a complex mechanism with double hinges.
The door first extended outward and shifted slightly forward, and then opened to the side. This allowed increasing the opening without a significant increase in the opening radius. An electric drive was additionally used: when the handle was pressed, the glass lowered slightly, and after closing, it rose back up to ensure tightness.
However, in practice, such a complex system did not gain recognition. Moreover, the mechanism often malfunctioned and broke down, which only amplified the negative perception of the model.
An equally controversial solution was implemented in the Mazda RX-8. The car received positive reviews for handling, although it was criticized for fuel consumption and the features of the 1.3-liter rotary engine. At the same time, the design feature of the doors remained in the shadows.
In fact, the car had four doors: the front ones opened traditionally, and the rear ones opened in the opposite direction. At the same time, the rear doors could not be opened without first opening the front ones. In some situations, this led to the fact that a passenger in the back seat could not leave the car on their own.
Another example of unusual ergonomics is the Citroën XM. This model was equipped with a foot-operated parking brake — a solution that was also used in some Mercedes-Benz cars.
In cars with a manual transmission, such a system actually added a fourth pedal to the usual three. A separate button was used to release the car from the brake. Despite the fact that some drivers eventually got used to this layout, there are several cases when it became the cause of emergency situations.
Unsuccessful solutions were also found in the area of car function control. For example, in the Alfa Romeo MiTo, the activation of parking lights was implemented in an extremely atypical way.
Instead of one simple action, the driver had to perform a sequence of several steps:
- enter the on-board computer menu
- press the buttons no less than seven times
- perform this procedure only when the car is stopped
To turn off the lights, it was necessary to repeat the same actions in reverse order. A similar scheme was also used on some Fiat models, but it was subsequently abandoned.
The story with the Mercedes-Benz A-Class deserves special mention. After the model was released in 1997, the Swedish publication Teknikens Värld conducted the so-called "moose test" — a maneuver simulating the avoidance of a sudden obstacle.
During the tests, the car overturned, which caused a serious public outcry, especially considering that even Trabant was able to pass this test. The scandal significantly damaged the manufacturer's reputation.
In response, the company took a number of measures:
- refined the suspension, taking into account the high center of gravity of the car
- introduced an electronic stabilization system
- conducted a recall campaign for 17,000 cars already sold
As a kind of apology, a symbolic gift was attached to the refined cars — a plush moose.
These examples clearly show that even advanced engineering solutions can be unsuccessful if they are not sufficiently thought out from the point of view of real operation. Mistakes can relate to both mechanical components and ergonomics or safety.
Nevertheless, such miscalculations often become an important experience for manufacturers, allowing them to avoid similar solutions in the future and improve cars.