By the way, as I was finding those links up there, I also happened to find out that these exist:
Why are we like this? Also, Couldn’t one interpret these as acts of love, or at least lust instead of aggression? Anyway, let’s get back to the wholesome world of taillights. The specific taillights I want to focus on are the ones used on third-generation Chevy C/K trucks from 1973 to 1987, and sixth-generation Ford F-series trucks from 1973 to 1979. Ford also used these same taillights on 1975 to 1991 Econoline vans, so both Ford and Chevy lights were in production through the 1970s and 1980s. Also, both carmakers’ SUV offerings, Ford’s Bronco and Chevy’s Blazer, used the respective taillights from their truck brothers. Both of these are very American taillights, even iconic in their way, and as such do not even consider the use of amber for the rear indicators, so no matter how much you may prefer that, I think it’s unfair to judge these lamps based on that lack. It’s simply not in their nature, culturally.
I should also point out that both Ford and Chevy somehow couldn’t figure out how to work their custom-designed taillights into a truck with fenders outside the bed, called Flareside for Ford and Stepside for Chevy, and both huge companies with massive design resources just said screw it and used basic, off-the-shelf taillight units mounted on crude brackets for these versions of their trucks:
Seems pretty lazy to me, but, well, I guess nobody asked. Taillights on trucks have some unique challenges for the taillight designer, mostly due to the limited real estate they can use, because the vast majority of the rear of a pickup is the tailgate, and because trucks are often driven with the tailgate down, you can’t use the tailgate itself for any crucial, required lighting. This means horizontal lights are almost always excluded, unless you want to mount them below the tailgate. Some trucks certainly take this approach, but doing so makes the lamps almost invisible when the tailgate is down.
So, the other option is to use the more vertical areas on either side of the tailgate, which both Ford and GM chose. In Ford’s case, they opted to increase the taillight’s size by making it very vertical, an evolution of their earlier vertical lamps on the previous generation F-series trucks, only now they added a small reverse lamp near the bottom. The overall look of it always struck me as looking like a shoeprint: There’s just something very footprint/shoeprint-like about them, and I could never not see that. The reverse lamp is in the right position and of the right shape and proportion to read like a heel, they have a slight curvature like a foot – these are feet. Foot-resemblance aside, these I think are an effective taillight design, making good use of the space, being visible despite their narrowness, and managed to work well on a variety of vehicles, from pickups to workhorse Econoline vans to being dressed up with a bit of chrome on Broncos:
These taillights have earned their iconic status, but I have to say that I always felt them to be a little awkward, aesthetically, a little cramped and backward-feeling. This is also why I feel like they make such a good counterpoint to their main rivals, the GM-designed third-gen C/K lights.
Chevy took a completely different and fresh approach to their truck taillights. Instead of accepting the constraints of the narrow vertical area on either side of the tailgate, GM’s lighting designers realized they could wrap the light around the corner and gain a lot more useful area to use, especially since in reality you’re almost never looking at anything directly from behind or the side or wherever; life is full of oblique angles, so why not let a taillight take advantage of that? The result is something clean and modern and clever: the proportions are almost square, but a square partially wrapped around a cylinder. This also allows the side marker lamp to be integrated right into the main taillight, something that undoubtedly saved costs. The small, inset, square reverse lamp is perched right there on the corner, where it can cast its useful light a bit around the sides as well as directly behind, another little benefit. Aesthetically, I just really always liked the look of these. The proportions are satisfying somehow, hitting something visually deep that’s hard to express.
Maybe it’s because it reminds me a bit of Josef Alber’s midcentury minimalist series Homage to the Square? Is it possible some members of GM’s lighting design team were thinking about these paintings when designing the lighting for GM’s trucks? It’s possible! Just let me have this. Of course, this elegant GM taillight solution was never carried over to their vans, a decision I’ve never really understood, though I do admire the way they updated the simple, also square (though here a flat square) design for their later 1980s and 1990s vans:
I have to say that of the two iconic workhorse taillights, despite the seemingly greater flexibility of the Ford footprint lights, I think this is one of those cases where I’d rather push that Chevy than drive the Ford. The GM C/K taillights are really an unsung icon of modern design, clean and sleek and elegant, doing their job effectively and with an unexpected grace. I bet you’ll see both of these lights, without trying, within a week or so. When that happens, I hope you’ll take a moment to pause and consider them, not as utility devices that blend into the background of being, but as little simple sculptures of informative light and shape. It’s anecdotal of course, but my observation has been that those Chevy lights were frequently broken and taped. No matter what, they’re both miles ahead of the current Chevy truck taillights, which are atrocious. http://www.precisionunibody.com/2001NewVision3557FW.html Just wondering if you’ve noticed and had any thoughts. Example on the Maverick: https://www.mavericktruckclub.com/forum/threads/lariat-tail-lights-vs-xl-xlt-difference.1759/ https://img.kingandmcgaw.com/imagecache/4/7/bmwcm-5.0_fid-880607_fwcm-1.9_ihcm-76.5_iwcm-45.6_lmwcm-5.0_maxdim-1000_mc-ffffff_rmwcm-5.0_si-471015.jpg_tmwcm-5.0.jpg “Picasso Taillight” created a bunch of forgettable early 2000’s sedan taillights, without the distortion or misplaced elements I’d expect from Picasso. It looks a lot like a supplier’s parts catalog. “Rothko Taillight” created a set that is very much in line with your comment and the comparison Torch makes to Alber. “Salvador Dali Taillight” created a series of taillights that would be at home on 20’s-40’s cars, although with rather unconventional mounting hardware. It also created two Salvador Dali cyborgs with taillights grafted to the side of his face and wires connecting to his mustache and glasses. I truly wish I could post pictures. I highly recommend further exploration. I think that program produces the most interesting results when you hit a gap between subjects where it has to work hard at interpolation, but it did a pretty good job of identifying a more probable context for Picasso and Taillight than the artist. https://images.hgmsites.net/lrg/2011-ford-explorer-fwd-4-door-xlt-rear-exterior-view_100343538_l.jpg Of the top of my head I can think of about five Fords from that era in my neighborhood, but not a single Chevy from that area. In fact I don’t recall the last time I saw a Chevy of that age. I don’t know if that is because Ford sold more truck or that they just held up better. The step/flareside body is a continuation/throwback to older truck bodies, which used those little light assemblies floating around somewhere just outside of the main box. I think the newer models would look ridiculous with tail lights moulded into the tub somewhere. Your dedication and respect for the tail light is above calling the stepside lazy, especially without one of your lovely drawings to drive your point home. While you got me thinking about it, it is interesting to note the evolution of step side beds and the taillights they used. As noted they all started off with essentially of the shelf box lights, but then went to an integrated and shared taillight assembly, for one generation only (both Ford and GM) before reverting back to step side specific taillight assemblies, but still integrated, until their death (two more generations for Ford, two-ish for GM). This is such a brilliant response and as much as I don’t particularly agree with how well those updated step/flareside bodies integrate their taillights, it’s still a very valid point and opinion, also, I really appreciate the tidbit about how long Ford used the one tub! I think it’s time for Torch to cover the step/flareside tubs and their taillights throughout history.
