I still desperately want Ford’s 2007 Airstream concept van.

Photo Credit: Ford

Contact the author at raphael@jalopnik.com.


Obfuscatio: philosopher at large

It’s pretty... awful. Just one of the things I always love about prototypes is the artist’s complete lack of respect for function.

Headlights? No? Just gonna generate too little light and distribute it widely?

A windshield with an awkward tab into the roof line? Was sealing a regular windshield too easy a challenge? Do you hate glass installers? Are conventional windshields priced too low? Same goes for the keyhole skylight at the back.

Wipers? No? Ok.

The passenger door is... gullwing? ... falcon? ... sliding? ... rolls down into a pocket below the floor? ... ridiculously too wide to open anywhere but a farm field? ... likely to be folded completely forward if opened into an unfortunate amount of tail breeze?

It’s a van, but the floor in the rear is some kind of mishapen pit with a high lift-over? That’ll be fun. Oh, and the capacity of a 2-door hatchback. When you said it was a van, were you doing that air-quotey-fingers thing?

Does the designer prefer it that when, as a passenger, he rolls down the side window to speak to a hitchhiker, the fellow can just dive straight into the back without encumbrance?

Just remember that if the “van” is going to roll over, have the forethought to be in the driver’s seat, as there’s precious little supporting the roof on the passenger’s side. Once that window pops - and it will - you can kiss your cranium good-bye. One also wonders if the passenger’s shoulder belt will be anchored to the collapsible roof.

And just in case you thought Marketing was going to get off lightly: do you think the people at Airstream might have something to say about the name?