Design Essay: Instrument Panel Architecture
This Design Essay investigates how architectural principles—from the grandeur of Rolls‑Royce to the sleekness of Jaguar—have shaped the evolving form and function of automotive instrument panels
Architecture 1 - Rolls-Royce Phantom. Click for larger images
Architecture 1 - Jaguar XK120
Architecture 3 - 1963 Alfa Romeo Giulia Spyder
Architecture 3 - 1976 Mercedes W123
Architecture 4 - 1975 BMW 3 Series
A hundred years ago, car instrumentation was spread out along the ‘dashboard’ - a name inherited from the wooden board on a carriage that protected the driver from the stones ‘dashed’ up by the horses’ hooves. These instruments were there entirely to monitor the health of the engine - oil pressure, retardation, engine speed, amperage etc - and were positioned mostly according to where their bit of engine was behind the dashboard, as were the controls.
As car creation developed from engineering machines toward designing artifacts, so the instrument panel (IP) layout became more ordered. Still mounted on a flat or near-flat plane running almost vertically down from the base of the windscreen and full width across the cabin, instrumentation and minor controls were tending to be clustered symmetrically at the centre of the IP. This was the first standard IP architecture, evident in most cars produced from the 1920s to the 1950s. Dial size and positioning had become more considered, switches for minor controls were more uniform and the general approach was moving away from IP as pure machine interface and towards IP as focal point for an interior environment.
As car creation developed from engineering machines toward designing artifacts, so the instrument panel (IP) layout became more ordered. Still mounted on a flat or near-flat plane running almost vertically down from the base of the windscreen and full width across the cabin, instrumentation and minor controls were tending to be clustered symmetrically at the centre of the IP. This was the first standard IP architecture, evident in most cars produced from the 1920s to the 1950s. Dial size and positioning had become more considered, switches for minor controls were more uniform and the general approach was moving away from IP as pure machine interface and towards IP as focal point for an interior environment.
Architecture 4 - 1983 Ford Sierra
Architecture 5- 2001 Nissan Primera
Architecture 5- 2001 BMW 7 Series
Features such as wipers, heaters, heated rear windows, fog lights and even radios were becoming commonplace in America and then Europe between 1945 and 1965 and this along with a new consideration of driver ergonomics prompted a 2nd IP architecture to emerge. Still based on the flat or nearly flat IP, instrumentation moved to being mostly behind the steering wheel, heater controls were mounted centrally and low down, a radio above this and other minor controls centrally mounted in this area also.
Although there had been notable exceptions during the 1950s such as the Citroen DS, Rover P5 and Corvette, it wasn’t until the 1960s that a 3rd generation of IP architecture appeared. It had a similar layout to the second, but the IP form now projected farther backwards from the screen into the cabin, and thus has a distinct upper surface and greater scope for some elements to be recessed into this volume (such as the main cluster of instruments behind the steering wheel). This 3rd generation of IP architecture emerged in part as a result of windscreens that had become more steeply raked, and therefore had their bases pushed farther forward, so necessitating that the IP reached from this base backward to an interface within reach of the front occupants. And it also emerged as a result of the adoption of plastic as the material of choice for IPs, instead of wood or metals, as plastic could be cheaply and accurately moulded into a far broader spectrum of forms.
During the early 1980’s a 4th generation of architecture emerged, this time as the result of a more developed understanding of ergonomics (and marketing). Core proponents in Europe were the BMW E30 3 series of 1984 and the Ford Sierra of 1983. Both of these cars had IPs that wrapped around the driver so that the instruments and controls all faced the driver and were all within easy reach. Just as with the 3rd generation of IP architecture, the 4th still had a similar layout to the original 2nd generation, but more controls, almost ubiquitous use of plastics and the pronounced projection back from the windscreen of the center section gave a very different feel. The IP also increasingly wrapped into the door casings and was becoming integrated into the centre console that had grown progressively up from the floor mounted gear shift surround.
Most of today’s cars have an IP that is closely based upon the 3rd or 4th generations of IP architecture, but now there is a new, 5th generation emerging. This is driven by the need to simplify the user’s interface with the car’s functions whilst delivering more information and providing more features that need controlling. Specifically, as climate control, sophisticated ICE and satellite navigation systems have become almost commonplace, these three areas of controls and displays are being integrated. Going even further than this, leading systems such as the BMW 7 series’s I-Drive, Nissan’s N-Form in their Primera and the Audi A8’s MMI enable telephone, internet, television and even trip computer and suspension settings to be controlled through one interface. To usefully reduce the potential visual clutter of a car’s interface, as these systems purport to do, has been made possible and expedient because the separate functions are now all electronically controlled and so may be easily integrated together.
The 5th generation of interior architecture has this centrally positioned interface as its core theme, with minor controls and information displays integrated in one central area with little or no bias toward driver or front seat passenger. Another characteristic of this architecture is that some instrumentation (or information displays) has moved to just below the centre of the windscreen, far forward on the top surface of the IP, and in some instances all instrumentation has moved to this location.
What is perhaps most significant about this latest 5th generation of IP architecture is that it is driven by the growth of features secondary to those that control the car. Just as the 1st generation IP architecture moved away from a purely machine interface to be part of an interior environment for people, so the 5th generation moves away from the driver and act of driving as the interior focal point, to more of an entertainment and comfort focused interior. And as cars spend a growing proportion of their time in traffic jams, so this more passenger, less driver interior focus of the 5th generation of interior architecture is likely to burgeon.
Although there had been notable exceptions during the 1950s such as the Citroen DS, Rover P5 and Corvette, it wasn’t until the 1960s that a 3rd generation of IP architecture appeared. It had a similar layout to the second, but the IP form now projected farther backwards from the screen into the cabin, and thus has a distinct upper surface and greater scope for some elements to be recessed into this volume (such as the main cluster of instruments behind the steering wheel). This 3rd generation of IP architecture emerged in part as a result of windscreens that had become more steeply raked, and therefore had their bases pushed farther forward, so necessitating that the IP reached from this base backward to an interface within reach of the front occupants. And it also emerged as a result of the adoption of plastic as the material of choice for IPs, instead of wood or metals, as plastic could be cheaply and accurately moulded into a far broader spectrum of forms.
During the early 1980’s a 4th generation of architecture emerged, this time as the result of a more developed understanding of ergonomics (and marketing). Core proponents in Europe were the BMW E30 3 series of 1984 and the Ford Sierra of 1983. Both of these cars had IPs that wrapped around the driver so that the instruments and controls all faced the driver and were all within easy reach. Just as with the 3rd generation of IP architecture, the 4th still had a similar layout to the original 2nd generation, but more controls, almost ubiquitous use of plastics and the pronounced projection back from the windscreen of the center section gave a very different feel. The IP also increasingly wrapped into the door casings and was becoming integrated into the centre console that had grown progressively up from the floor mounted gear shift surround.
Most of today’s cars have an IP that is closely based upon the 3rd or 4th generations of IP architecture, but now there is a new, 5th generation emerging. This is driven by the need to simplify the user’s interface with the car’s functions whilst delivering more information and providing more features that need controlling. Specifically, as climate control, sophisticated ICE and satellite navigation systems have become almost commonplace, these three areas of controls and displays are being integrated. Going even further than this, leading systems such as the BMW 7 series’s I-Drive, Nissan’s N-Form in their Primera and the Audi A8’s MMI enable telephone, internet, television and even trip computer and suspension settings to be controlled through one interface. To usefully reduce the potential visual clutter of a car’s interface, as these systems purport to do, has been made possible and expedient because the separate functions are now all electronically controlled and so may be easily integrated together.
The 5th generation of interior architecture has this centrally positioned interface as its core theme, with minor controls and information displays integrated in one central area with little or no bias toward driver or front seat passenger. Another characteristic of this architecture is that some instrumentation (or information displays) has moved to just below the centre of the windscreen, far forward on the top surface of the IP, and in some instances all instrumentation has moved to this location.
What is perhaps most significant about this latest 5th generation of IP architecture is that it is driven by the growth of features secondary to those that control the car. Just as the 1st generation IP architecture moved away from a purely machine interface to be part of an interior environment for people, so the 5th generation moves away from the driver and act of driving as the interior focal point, to more of an entertainment and comfort focused interior. And as cars spend a growing proportion of their time in traffic jams, so this more passenger, less driver interior focus of the 5th generation of interior architecture is likely to burgeon.
