Of course this argument has been going on since I've been alive. Same argument in the '70's, '80's, '90's and now. Companies always copy what is going on in the industry and is selling. If no one copies your idea, you've really created a pile of E36 M3.
aye.. love or hate bangle.. look at what he did for BMW's fortunes.. and then look at all the copycats that followed his radical ideas
Although I'm not a fan of most of his designs, Chris Bangle may be the most influential designer of the last 20 years.
Keep in mind he was head of ALL BMW design. (Motorcycles too)
Joe Gearin wrote: Although I'm not a fan of most of his designs, Chris Bangle may be the most influential designer of the last 20 years. Keep in mind he was head of ALL BMW design. (Motorcycles too)
Yeah, and they're mo-fugly too.
Joe Gearin wrote: Although I'm not a fan of most of his designs, Chris Bangle may be the most influential designer of the last 20 years. Keep in mind he was head of ALL BMW design. (Motorcycles too)
You have a point. Though he was well known for some of the really WTF moments in BMW and automotive history, he kinda set the bench for the rest of the nutjobs out there to try strange things. See said CTSV wagon. I betcha cadillacs would look like buicks now if it weren't for guys like Bangle throwing something out there to see if it stuck.
That's a good point. Cadillac's 'creased origami' styling definitely broke from stodgy GM tradition and if Bangle paved the way for that then not all is lost.
Even though I wouldn't buy a Caddy (too damn expensive etc) I still give them props for standing out in a big way.
funny thing is.. Bangle's BMWs do not look so radical anymore.. if anything they seem plain against the copycats that followed and surpassed his level of WTFness
Joe Gearin wrote: This thread is perfect proof that one man's ugly is another's beautiful. It all depends on where you are coming from, and that usually depends on where you've been.
No, it's proof that design software is NOT better than pencil and paper.
Duke wrote:pinchvalve wrote: Don't come down on the SUV too much, I mean at least Land Rover gets it:I saw one of those things last weekend. It caught my eye and it is a bold styling exercise. Where is the utility in an SUV with a rear window nicked from a Countach? No cargo carrying ability - check, little rear headroom - check, goofy hotwheels styling that looks like it was designed by a 6 year old - check. When I saw it, I didn't know what it was other than a Land Rover, and at first I was like "wow, look at that", but then within 15 seconds I was more like, "who paid money for that useless piece of crap?". Then the light turned green and I didn't see it anymore because I refused to look at it it fading away in my rear view mirror.Are you freaking KIDDING me? The Evoq is second only to the Murano convertible in "Ugly Overpriced Overdesigned Pieces Of Boutique Crap That Duke Wouldn't Be Caught Dead Driving For Fear People Will Think He Paid Money For It". The Evoq is hideous, stupid, useless, and a blight on the Land Rover / Range Rover name. That poor narrow-light Landy is SCREAMING in silent horror of what its progeny have become.
aircooled wrote: A lot of the reason why a lot of cars are so ugly these days is because of this:Since there was no real requirement to make SUV safe for collisions with car, cars had to adjust. Yes, that's right, another reason why... SUV's suck.
The safety arms race started by SUVs is also why newer cars are so damn heavy. Pedestrian safety standards are why a lot of new cars (especially the Impreza) have a hood shaped like a fat man's belly.
I also agree that Kia is doing the best styling these days. I think the Koup actually looks better than the Toyobaru twins.
If it had the proportions of a late '80s/early '90s car it would be HAWT.
Call me crazy, but when I back into a parking space, I roll down my window, look out, and align my vehicle perfectly with the stripe on the pavement. New vehicles make it difficult or impossible to do this. The new Ford Taurus, whose interior feels like a coffin, has such a high, wide door, that it isn't even remotely possible. I fondly recall my Volvo 945T which was about 1/3 sheetmetal and 2/3 greenhouse.
I hate almost everything about new cars. The styling, the ergonomics, the electronic nannies.... I'm sure I could go on and on.
Duke wrote:pinchvalve wrote: Don't come down on the SUV too much, I mean at least Land Rover gets it:Are you freaking KIDDING me? The Evoq is second only to the Murano convertible in "Ugly Overpriced Overdesigned Pieces Of Boutique Crap That Duke Wouldn't Be Caught Dead Driving For Fear People Will Think He Paid Money For It". The Evoq is hideous, stupid, useless, and a blight on the Land Rover / Range Rover name. That poor narrow-light Landy is SCREAMING in silent horror of what its progeny have become.
And I and many others completely disagree with you. The Evoq is one of the only smaller SUVs I'd own. And it's even a proper Range Rover with offroad ability.
I'm also one of those that can tell new cars apart at a glance at a distance, too. But then again, it's because I pay attention. You pay attention to what interests you and if that means you grew up appreciating '60s or '70s or '80s cars, then THEY are the ones that you think are different from each other. But the fact is, cars of every era looked like each other and shared styling cues. That's how you can tell what era a car is from, even if you don't know what car it is. You can tell any '50s car as a '50s car due to shared styling cues. Same for the '30s, '40s, '60s, '70s. '80s, etc. You instantly know what era they are from due to that era all looking similar, with very few exceptions (cars that either looked older than ther era, like the '80s Jags, or cars that looked to the future, like when the '49 Ford came out).
Personally I like each of the eras, for what it is, and liek cars from every era. But I pride myself on not being closed minded about any of them, either.
Joe Gearin wrote: Although I'm not a fan of most of his designs, Chris Bangle may be the most influential designer of the last 20 years. Keep in mind he was head of ALL BMW design. (Motorcycles too)
he was also head of BMW design since 1992, and was in charge of a lot of the favorites, as well, like the E46, E39 and my own E38. He was told by BMW management in the very late '90s to change things up and got Adrian van Hooydonk (who is now in charge of BMW design) to design the E65 7 series. BMW sales soared. Which is exactly what design is supposed to do.
I think cars of all eras have been futuristic looking for their time, up until the mid-'90s when all the manufacturers just said "meh" and started with the bland appliance style. Lotus tried to make their new 2014 Elise look futuristic but it's also quite ugly. I think the FR-S 2 concept was a really good looking and futuristic car, but it was severely blanded before it hit production.
You'll need to log in to post.
