OK, that fascinates me and it's a great example of things that would never occur to me. Run-flat tires aren't a big deal because I'm not bothered by the idea of changing my own tire by the side of the road. Ponytail indentations in the headrests? I have short hair that doesn't need it, but alright, I can see why that'd be great for people who do.

And a key takeaway is that those things don't make the car worse for me. I know there are tradeoffs with run-flat tires but that doesn't make it less good, and while I can change tires, it'd be nice not to have to. And the ponytail indent makes it nicer for some people without affecting me whatsoever. Those make a more appealing product for buyers with different needs from mine, in ways I couldn't have anticipated.

Did I say that everyone should have that? No. I like working on my own cars. My personal gearhead top achievement was when my alternator seized up, and I had a new one installed and working 45 minutes later (including a quick run to the parts store).

That said, I've done nothing under the hood of our family minivan other than changing air filters. It wouldn't break my heart if I had to let the shop do that for me when I was there getting the oil changed every 2 (!!!) years. I can totally see why a lot of people, probably most people, would consider that a great tradeoff.

By the way, "these females" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Women", please.

so a small group of women made a unilateral decision that prevents others. again, it is just an example of one group making decisions without realizing (or caring) how it affects others.

the point is that every single decision can be construed as denying something to someone else when it was only made as a convenience for someone else. it's very strained here as not having a hood is just odd. Even if you only take the car in every 2 years, that cost of that service is going to be much higher because of the labor involved on removing the front just to access the engine rather than just popping the hood. We already have plenty of examples of cars where this has been the case

That's ridiculous. You and I don't have to buy that car. But if it existed and were brought to market, people who do like it have the option. It gives them choices they wouldn't otherwise have without restricting our options.

Tying this back to my earlier point, working on a product with people who weren't exactly like me made a better product for everyone. It didn't make it a worse product for older white guys like myself, while making it more useful for everyone else who isn't my twin. That's pretty cool, and customers rewarded us for it.

Without the input of diverse opinions, I wouldn't have thought of the simple changes we could make to expand its reach, again, without making it worse for me and people like me. The end result was universally better. That's a good thing for our users and our investors. Literally everyone involved was better off for it.

The fact that you think that removing the hood doesn't make it a worse product is baffling. If it has a hood and you choose to never open it, that does not make it a worse product. If you have no hood but have to incur extravagant service fees because of not having a hood definitely makes it a worse product.

I'm confused on how you accept A but not B

> If it has a hood and you choose to never open it, that does not make it a worse product.

This is only true if having a hood has no negative ramifications, the argument from Volvo was that removing it made forward visibility better. For some people trading a hood they never use, against better forward visibility, could be well worth it. Especially for short people, where forward visibility can be more of a problem than for the rest of us.

> Volvo had women design a car once.

To be more specific, Volvo designed a car specifically for women and chose to staff that team entirely with women. This is quite different than asking a team of women to design a car for everyone, and I feel that’s important context when considering the design decisions they made.

Volvo didn't design a car, people did. In this case the people were women.

Wow, the lack of a hood is baffling, was that actually a conscious design decision or an urban legend?

Because in the case of the former I find it unbelievable that no one on the team, or even at Volvo that dropped by to see how the project is coming along (I assume they weren't shipped off to some isolated island to complete their work in complete secrecy) didn't say something. The first question at least 80% of people I know would have when looking over a car to buy for the first time is, "Can you pop the hood?" Not to mention getting at the engine to adjust or replace consumables like belts, fluids, plugs or even minor repairs.

I'm far more willing to believe this is just a small detail that simplified the production process for a one off prototype than that anyone thought this was actually a good idea.

The idea was that self service would be unneeded because you would take it to the service center when it told you to.

The BMW i8 also had a hood that could only be removed by 4 service techs and it went into production.

If the i8 suffers from a similar problem (I'm not familiar with the design of that car) that's equally baffling to me on BMW's part.

A car telling someone not willing to maintain it itself that it's time to take it to a service center is fine and all and probably would avoid a lot of headaches for people that aren't mechanically inclined. But a design that encourages tacking on labor charges or being unable to give your car a quick look over yourself seems awful.

Right because the BMW i8's engine is mounted in front of the rear axle. You access it through the trunk, not the hood.

That said, this is a concept car. It doesn't have to be practical.

Are there more pics? It seems kind of sleek.