In the car world, we take aspects of design as shorthands for labels. There’s the badge on the hood or hatch, for sure. But BMW‘s kidney grille is branding. So are the triple taillights that Ford uses on the Mustang. Whether we know it or not, these design elements form the greater whole of what we think of a particular car or carmaker. Close your eyes, and you can easily picture a Porsche 911 or a Mk1 Volkswagen Rabbit. You may not be aware of their iconography, but trust me, they each have a specific design language.
Unfortunately, between regulatory requirements and safety standards, as well as aero demands, there’s an increasing sameness to car appearances.
EVs were supposed to be the opportunity for carmakers to turn that page. Without front engines, designers should’ve been freed to innovate and create wilder styles. That sort of happened around the edges. A Hyundai Ioniq 9 does not look like anything else on the road. Then there’s the Cybertruck.
Whether that Tesla is better or worse for being different, we’ve seen another tech trend—just slapping some LEDs on the car to signal to buyers that the rig is “higher tech.” Then they figured if LEDs were good for the grille, why not just throw LEDs everywhere? Well, because LEDs aren’t special. They’re cheap to deploy and now as ubiquitous (and as irksome) as gum on the sidewalk. Carmakers have to cut it out. Here’s why. And how that will happen.
A Sullied Signal: LEDs Are Not Luxury
I asked Ford‘s Josh Blundo, who’s overseen the design work around Ford’s Maverick Lobo and F-150 Lobo, to weigh in on what’s happening with LEDs. I also approached Eric Trageser, who headed brand communications at Fisker. But before that, Trageser was a commercial director of photography, lighting sets for shoots for massive brands in the auto world, including Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Hyundai. Trageser, who no longer has to speak for a carmaker, was decidedly less reserved than Blundo.
“I’m not pro or anti-LED. I’m in favor of thoughtful, human-centered design. In architectural lighting, you’re creating mood, positive and negative. The more lighting design is integrated and seemingly soft, warm, broad, and “invisible” in its source, the more refined, relaxed, warm, and luxurious a space tends to feel. Opposite a 99 Cent store.”—Eric Trageser, Former Head of Brand Communications, Fisker
The Rise Of “Shy Tech”
Blundo brought up the concept of what’s coming to be known as “shy tech.” Another way to put this is technology that’s veiled, so the bling is less bling-y.
“We’re seeing a lot of people who want tech decompression in their cars, and when they get in, they want a calmer mental state.”—Josh Blundo, Lead Exterior Designer, Ford
Trageser thinks that perhaps we want our tech to be “shy” because designers went too far in the other direction. For instance, he thinks, adding that lighting sequences that fire from a car’s sideview mirrors, projecting the brand’s logo onto the ground, “Are not going to age well.” And Trageser thinks LEDs, when they’re too garish, are simply tuned incorrectly. “There’s fashion lighting and horror-movie lighting,” and not every brand seems to know the difference, he says.
The Right Face
Blundo is very cognizant of a car’s legacy. He works on the F-150, which is one of the most iconic vehicles in history. And while he thinks that Ford got the balance right in making the Lightning look very consistent with the gas F-150, the addition of so many gas cars getting LED logos now muddies the idea that electrification and tech equals LEDs.
Trageser says a brand that nailed the distinction was Rivian, with their “stadium-shaped” headlamps. These don’t say “EV.” Instead, they say “Rivian,” speaking for the brand, not the powertrain.
Even if these headlamps are polarizing (and they are), they serve as a substitute for a brand logo. Non-Rivian owners, if they know Rivian, know it from the carmaker’s headlight shape, even if it’s subconscious, rather than from Rivian’s diamond-shaped logo.
Back To Basics
One reason we may see an LED backlash is a lack of brand distinction. Blundo points out that for a brief time, customers seemed to be positive about having “screens everywhere, and then people wanted them to be larger.” But that tech-forward approach has already reached its limits. In part, this is because it has been damaging to some brands. By switching everything to screens, carmakers quickly eroded their own identities.
Trageser called out the now-canceled-in-the-U.S. Mercedes-Benz EQS as problematic, not just for its sweeping Hyperscreen, but because owners of that car can turn the LED dial to “1988 prom limo” mode way too easily. He thinks that just because tech made that possible, they were abdicating their own branding.
And if you’re buying a Mercedes or a Honda, you’ve already identified with that brand. Trageser says that if a carmaker doesn’t then harness LED (or other tech) to “differentiate their brand,” they’re missing an important opportunity.
“Just because you can customize the lighting doesn’t mean you should. I love lots about the new Sony-Honda Afeela, but if I had one, I’d switch off all the interior lighting and screen mode customizations right away.”—Eric Trageser, Former Head of Brand Communications, Fisker
The Fancy Restaurant Theory Of Automotive Lighting
Both Blundo and Trageser believe in the fancy restaurant theory of LED usage. Blundo says carmakers have to be sure that the lighting feels warmer, “Hiding the actual source and just letting it sort of drape into the interior and create a mood for the space.” Trageser goes back to basics when it comes to tech: Its use and intensity should be up to the owner. Just as it is in our homes.
“Being able to customize brightness level to time of day is table stakes. A blaring bright interior light at nighttime, or a too-dim space at high noon, fails the ‘function’ part of design form and function.”—Eric Trageser, Former Head of Brand Communications, Fisker
The Future Is Bright?
Blundo at Ford is always balancing against history.
“Whenever I’m designing, I’m looking at this from the perspective of not only making a great new car, but a great used car as well.”—Josh Blundo, Lead Exterior Designer, Ford
Blundo says that’s tough, because you always have customers who are looking for new functionality, which makes building something that will feel timeless in a decade or two very difficult. With LEDs, he says, it has to be handled like any form of technology.
“You need a certain care level, and understanding of emotion. People are emotional about lighting, because it’s in all parts of our lives.” Trageser, thinking back on his time at Fisker, explained that the carmaker wanted to create a walk-up lighting program that would detect the driver at…”20 or 10 or 5 meters away from the car, and initiate different steps in a lighting sequence as you approached for unlock. Fun idea…but it [involved] seven or eight different ECUs in the vehicle and made for pesky software difficulties, as well as burning through the key fob battery.”
For him, his argument leans toward timelessness. If lighting, or any other design element, remains “comfortably in the background, leaving you more relaxed, you’ve probably done a good job. If it makes you turn your head, demands your attention, or gives you a little cortisol spike, you should probably think twice.”