Fügener was one of the guests at the Car Design Event organized by journalists Des Sellmeijer and Jens Meiners—and personally, he was the one who impressed me the most. His talk began by citing the 1980s Fiat Panda and the more recent Citroën Oli Concept. If the event were held today, I’m sure he would also mention the Dacia Hipster Concept. Why? Because these are three examples of cars that are both aesthetically refined and—more importantly—practical, designed to make driving and everyday life easier for their users.
This brings us back to Rams’ initial quote, which anticipates the idea of Less is More, the minimalism that later made Scandinavian design so successful, including in Volvo cars. There’s no need to add unnecessary frills or functions to a car if they are hidden away in menus and submenus. The less you have to interact with, the better.
Hey! Did you know we have a Telegram channel? You can subscribe here to remain updated with all the last news from car and tech industries.
Car Design and Modern Vehicles
“A car, as a product, gives us enormous freedom, because with it we can practically do anything,” says the professor. Yet this freedom has a downside. The exterior of a car today is no longer strictly tied to what’s inside, unlike other vehicles like bicycles, or as was more common in older cars. A bicycle, in fact, has no real “interior”: everything is visible, everything is functional, and nothing can be hidden. With cars, however, it is possible to “trick” the eye, creating shapes that do not correspond to internal functionality.
Electric cars are a striking example of this design freedom that often goes unused—or is even sacrificed. Despite their innovative structures allowing for new aesthetic and functional solutions, car design often remains bound to traditional combustion car forms. “We could do anything, but somehow we don’t, because we’re often held back by fear of customer reactions,” Fügener observed.
Indeed, in our own tests, we have often noticed puzzling choices in electric cars—for example, fitting enormous central tunnels when they could be avoided, which would allow for more space and practicality.
An interesting comparison comes from motorcycles. Unlike cars, motorcycles are freed from the need to be practical: they can be purchased purely for the pleasure of riding. In fact, they are bought for that reason—the rider is a true enthusiast. Cars, however, almost always prioritize functionality: some people need them for work, family, pets, hobbies, etc.
This connection between form and function is at the heart of the “form follows function” concept introduced by the modernist movement and still fundamental in automotive design today. However, not all cars follow this rule, and some iconic vehicles ignore pure functionality while remaining beloved for their bold, characteristic style.
From the Concept C to the Google Car
So why can’t the Concept C or many iconic cars be considered Bauhaus? A comparison with the contemporary house from 1927 shows a telling discrepancy: while the house still feels modern today, many of these cars already feel dated—and the more futuristic they appeared at launch, the faster they age. “If you want to create a Bauhaus car, you have to find the balance between form and function, and between innovation and stylistic coherence,” the professor explained.
In the last 20–25 years, designers have overdone surfaces, adding lines, folds, and shapes to the point of making designs overly busy, almost mannerist. Today, the pendulum is swinging back toward simplicity, with cleaner, more minimalist surfaces—sometimes sterile and unsuccessful, other times more effective. In this regard, the Concept C is cited as a good example.
There are, however, other prototypes that better embody collaboration between designers and engineers, combining functionality and innovation where “form follows function.” Take the Google Car, for instance. Here, design was never intended to visually please the customer but to communicate safety. “The design brief said: it must not look dangerous at all. It had to convey: ‘I’m not dangerous, don’t be afraid.’ The rounded, friendly shape was functional, designed to reduce both perceived and actual risk.”
Or, returning to earlier examples, cars that could meet as many needs as possible—this time in Europe. Small cars, low-cost, easy to park, yet with everything within reach, enough space for the driver and passengers, and flexible enough to carry both people and objects. Giugiaro’s Panda did this with its iconic design and unmatched versatility. Fiat tried to revisit this with the Centoventi concept (a largely wasted idea), later echoed by the Oli—a compact, electric, versatile pickup for European streets—and today by the Dacia Hipster, with its ultra-spacious interior, simple forms, and a dashboard reduced to essentials but still equipped with everything needed.
Now that manufacturers and policymakers have realized that people need this kind of car for daily life, it’s likely that Bauhaus cars will increase over the next decade—or at least, one would hope.
