I’m not going to have to go very far out on a limb to predict that the news I’m about to pass along will be well received in these quarters, giving the perpetual bitching here about all the overwrought styling and accent lines going in all directions on the sides of today’s cars. Mercedes is abandoning much of that, and moving back to cleaner sides and fewer lines, as this refreshed Mercedes A Class hatchback scheduled to be introduced later this year graphically shows. In case you can’t remember what the current one looks like, it’s right after the jump.
And Mercedes isn’t the only one; BMW says their also cleaning up their act. Given that they started it all with their “Bangle Butt” and “Bangle Flames”, that’s saying something. As in: this fad has run its course.
Here’s the current A Class. Obviously its only the side accent/character lines that are going away. But that’s a good start, as these lines on its side have become clichéd.
No word yet from VW, whose T-Roc is still very busy.
It all started in 2001 with the new E65 7 series, which rocked the world. of course it looks mild-mannered and rather handsome today, as the problem with new design directions is our intrinsic inertia. FWIW, I rather liked it quite a lot, although the trunk was a bit challenging. Of course, this was just the start. And Chris Bangle didn’t actually design it; that was Adrian van Hooydonk, although Bangle did inspire and encourage him.
“There is more competition now. The world has changed,” said BMW Group design boss Adrian van Hooydonk. “It’s a faster pace, so our design needs to change faster as well.””We’re going to clean things up,” the BMW design chief promised. “We’re going to use fewer lines. The lines that we will have will be sharper and more precise.” (autonews.com)
Of course the E65 was nothing compared to the real Bangle-mobile of 2001, the X-Coupe. Yeah; that was a bit harder to take, back then. But you probably wouldn’t look twice if you saw it coming down the street.
Regardless of how you feel about the Bangle Era, he was profoundly influential. And it may be a while before it’s over, as Toyota and others are still cranking them out.
And so the pendulum starts its swing back the other way…That A-Class looks a lot like Golf 7 from that angle if the grille is disregarded.
I think the gratuitous angles and whatnot styling work to a much better extent on both the mass market that struggles to stand out and/or needs a reason for being (like the Toyota C-HR) as well as the extravagant supercars where it, well, belongs. More refined, upscale carriages such as Mercedes E-Class were starting to get a little too Tokyo-Drift, especially around the front bumper. Yo.
The new A-Class looks much smoother with a few subtle (but not cheap, it’s definitely a reskin not a facelift) changes.. The lack of either a tacked-on droopy butt of a trunk or “the new fake wood” Rubbermaid cladding helps, though. A shame luxury buyers in the US seem to be the last to get over their ridiculous aversion to “pure” hatchbacks.
As for the overarching trend, auto design has cycled between pushing the boundaries and taking a step back for a long time, and some of those steps back are some of the most beautiful cars ever (think ’63 Riviera and the same year’s big Pontiacs); we’re due for such an alignment and it’ll be interesting what the next few years hold.
+1. Where do we go from here?
I don’t mind the “droopy butts” of the new Benz sedans but I do mind how similar they all look to each other. And the overly rounded design language has boxed Mercedes in with the CLS–it no longer has the visual impact it once had.
I must say I vastly prefer the exterior of the current A to this new one although I’ll reserve final judgement for when I see one in the street. My main reservation is with the taillights as they look so, so similar to those of the outgoing Kia Forte/Cerato hatch.
People often criticize crossovers for looking much the same as each other but I think if Americans had more hatchback options, they’d eventually say the same thing about them.
Yes, I find with both Mercedes and BMWs it’s hard to tell them apart now unless you look at them in terms of size – small, medium, large. The current A-Class always reminded me of a Toyota Auris.
Where’s our next ’61 Lincoln?
When I saw my first E63 back in 2001 I thought it looked like someone had compacted the rear end….or, like maybe it had backed into a wall?
The Z-coupe looks like a “normal” Z car that has had something VERY heavy dropped on it.
The Germans are still pretty conservative compared to the latest Japanese entrys which in my opinion are looking quite silly. Are we going back to the late 70’s of the Datsun 200SX, F10, etc?
The new Camry with gratuitous slits in the rear bumper or fake grilles at the rear of the Civic or the floating roof of the Lexus RX are all gratuitous bobbles. Nissans especially are one hot mess and even the new GMC terrain looks silly with its floating roof and tiny windows.
The Germans are pretty restrained, almost hearkening back to the Giugiaro era of creased surfaces…Look at the evolution of the Golf from Gen IV through Gen VII
The Germans never really went off the deep end.
Submitted for your consideration, the 2018 Lexus LS.
Further submitted for your consideration (yikes):
To think then they got the inspiration from a 1961 Plymouth…
To think anyone thought the 1961 Plymouth was a good jumping-off point (stylistically, not physically) – and Toyota would be the last company you’d expect! Lexus styling is in danger of looking as dated as tail fins in 1968.
The front of the 1958 Edsel was famous described as looking like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon. I think we have our modern-day equivalent. Only this time it’s a Lincoln Continental sucking the lemon.
The front of the 1958 Edsel was famously described as looking like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon. I think we’ve found our modern day equivalent. Only this time, it’s a Lincoln Continental with the lemon.
Sorry. Double post.
Nissan has been a hot mess for, well, practically forever. Toyota has decided the best way to change its image from making boring appliances is to go for maximum ugly. Honda seems hell-bent on following Toyota down that design overload rabbit hole. Mazda seems to be the only Japanese brand with a coherent and elegant design language that also has some panache.
Um, new Mazda 5, side view?
The Mazda CX3 is no stunner either.
Current Mazdas. The goofy-looking 5 has been out of production since 2015.
I guess it’s a matter of taste. In my eyes, Mazda went full boy-racer in the very early 2000’s with the ridiculous body kits and “altezza” lights, and their designs since then seem to just be an evolution on that theme. I haven’t really liked anything Mazda has made in the past 15 years or so, except for perhaps the MX-5/Miata. Though to their credit, they have gone as far into bizarre-land as Toyota which actually makes some of their designs actually look restrained now.
Really? Not even the current 6?
I can never remember the names of their design languages but Mazda designs this century can be divided into each “era” of design. And the era that included the second-generation 3 and 5 is by far my least favourite, with the giant, dopey grilles. Since then, they’ve really hit their stride and their latest models look refreshingly premium, inside and out.
I guess it’s a matter of taste. In my eyes, Mazda went full boy-racer in the very early 2000’s with the ridiculous body kits and “altezza” lights,
Personal taste indeed. I think the 02-03 Mazda Protege5 is the neatest thing on wheels from that era. I wasn’t crazy about the white faced instruments, but I could have put up with them. What I could not accept was the lack of headroom in every example that had a moon roof, which every one I looked at had.
When I showed the girls at work a pic of one when I was heading out to South Bend to look at one, they all said “ugh! it’s boxy”.
Count me as a fan of the Protege5 as well. I just saw one the other day and I still desire one. The other problem with them is that they are notorious rusters.
Actually Nissan had some beautiful designs in the 80’s…The 3rd generation Maxima (J30) was superb, clean roomy and a great performer. The first generation 240SX (S13) was also remarkably clean. The Nissan 300ZX (Z32), second generation was timeless also…Recently though you are right…a hot mess
Submitted for your consideration, the 2018 Lexus LS.
As I learned studying graphic design, there are many visual ‘pressure points’ in such angular design, with sharp edges. Your eye is drawn to these specific areas, rather than the overall design. Probably not a good thing in this example.
Imagine how this thing will look in 30 years’ time, when the paint starts to wear off all those edges…..!
Count me as a fan of the new LS, although I’ve yet to see one in person.
The new LC, however, I have seen in person and it is positively stunning.
I sure do hope that the era of crazy angles and bizarre designs (ahem, Lexus RX) comes to an end soon. It certainly is a breath of fresh air to see that Mercedes and BMW have decided to iron out the wrinkles in their designs. Hopefully others follow suit. Now, if the crossover era could come to and end too….. Crossovers are already becoming tiny enough as it is that they are basically hatchbacks with lift kits. I was behind a Taurus and a Mercedes GLA and the Taurus was larger in all dimensions.
My BIL bought a new GLA recently after owning 2 or 3 Mercedes sedans. I didn’t do it to tick him off but he got really upset when I wouldn’t go out to the garage and look at his new car. To me, all CUVs are the same, just a hatchback on stilts. The guy didn’t do himself any favors by telling me it was the cheapest Mercedes you can buy. I just didn’t care to bother going to look at yet another (presumably) white hatchback.
BMW can start by cleaning up there model lineup. i liked when it was 325,530 and 740 then sudenly it’s 328,330,440,750 and so on…….i would’nt even consider walking into a BMW dealer to buy a car in todays day.
BMW has based model names on displacement for…at least 50 years. Back in the mid 60s there was a 1600 an 1800, two different sized cars, BTW, and then a 2000 and 2002.
Today, BWMs have model names (apparently?) based on what corresponded to older power ratings. So you get things like 4 cylinder 325s. And BMW started naming 2 door models with even numbered model names 235, 435, 635, but then threw that out of the window with “gran coupes”/4 door models with even numbered model names.
In other words, your idea of a simple model name structure never really existed.
Eddie, hold up: you’re complaining because there are too many options? How is that a valid complaint? Don’t most people complain there are too few body styles, colour options, engine options etc etc
I stand corrected to an extent as you said in the 60s there was 2000 and 2002 in the 70s you had the E21-3 series,e12-5 series,E23-7 series and E24-coupe. in the 80s E30-3 series, e28-5 series and E32 and E34 7 series and waons respectively. 90s you had E36-E46 3 series, E39-5 series and E38- 7 series. then in the 2000s things got wild with a hodgepodge of series and numbers.
The T-Roc’s side sculpting is not nearly as bad as the Asians. Of course, VW could put a T-Roc grill on the Arona and send that to us. I wouldn’t complain.
So a return to the “bar of soap” styling? Be careful what you wish for.
xcoupe’s sides remind me of the original BMW serie 1 hatch which i think are some of the best looking cars in the last few decades.
Oh, I for one am sick of the “monsters from planet zero” styling on todays vehicles. Overdone, discordant and lacking in any kind of grace. The Toyota examples, as well as the new Civic are all wrong, IMHO. Here is an example of a kind of “styling” that I always liked, even though it was slammed as being “busy”, this is the ’74 Luxury LeMans I had for a while in the mid ’80’s.
And another one of GM’s “overstyled” Impalas, this one I had in about ’83/’84. A damn nice driver, with the 396 THM and usual niceties. The difference with these cars, vs todays garish lumps (Merc CLA for example) is that they had “presence” and with the range of colours available at the time, personality. Todays vehicles have more “styling” in the grille and wheels than my ’67 Impala had in the whole car. Cars from this era had details that would fascinate and delight, not overpower and dominate. A great example of the kinds of styling I appreciated then, and now was the subtle bulge in the rear 1/4 of the ’68-’70 Charger. It was no “character line”, it was sophisticated in shape and form.
Remember when car companies had real automotive stylists? Today, they have monkeys with software. Can’t tell the difference between a Camry, Impala or Mercedes.
Try harder. They are quite different from each other.
As a former die handling equipment designer I always wanted to see the die sets and stamping for the 67 Impala rear quarter panel. That must have been one big stamping!
Biggest I saw was roof panel for Grand Caravan at Twinsburg Stamping (RIP) which was amazingly floppy coming out of the press.
Anyway I welcome some cleaner exterior styling. Now if we could just reduce the screen size and have fewer, bigger buttons inside 😛
‘Cars from this era had details that would fascinate and delight, not overpower and dominate.’
Beautiful. And that’s what style should do. Overpower and dominate is what bullies do, I don’t need it in the garage.
I applaud any design chances taken, especially since we seem to be in an era where boring rules, but I really like the more clean approach coming back into vogue. That happened in the early 60s (the Continental comes to mind) as a backlash against the overwrought gingerbread of late 50s. It happens on the high end models first, then moves down mainstream. Since we seem to be stuck on the idea of 2 or 3 box styling on cars, it limits what a designer can do that would make it to production. I wonder if there will be any stylistic chances take on trucks and SUVs in the near future? The last true new look was on the Ram trucks back in 1994. All the others seem evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Fans complain about “look alike cars”, then when try to do something different, it’s “ick”.
Mostly since some just want re-manufactured “HS Dream Cars” from whatever time frame that occurred.
2002-2006? Yeah, I didn’t like modern car design then either.
And the complaint stems from the follow the leader path, cars are all look alike, and it’s because most designers are all on parallel thoughts, where most lines are dictated by wind and safety and the rest the same aspirational concepts(mostly from BMW/Mercedes) to emulate.
You see “look-alike” cars because we buy them. Yes, buyers complain whenever the boundaries are pushed. Not so much real fans. Just as all color has been replaced by white/silver/gray/black due to people mostly choosing those colors when purchasing, manufacturers are bound to make what sells best. Oddly, daring design tends to be on either end of the spectrum. High priced cars need to be distinguished from common cars by unique (and often trademarked) design cues, while low end cars, being simple and basic, tend to go for unique fun looks to attract the supposed younger buyers looking for something fun and unusual. Plus, the reality of meeting more and more safety requirements (especially pedestrian safety, with the elongated noses on new cars versus the same model 10 years ago) make doing something different very challenging.
The idea of HS Dream cars being recreated seems to be a boomer ideal and more focused on clones and recreations in the “classic” car market.That explains the rash of similar Tri-Fives, Mustangs, Camaros, Chevelles, Corvettes and the like at most show and shines. It seems that the pre-boomers went for classics and one-offs, and post-boomers go for almost anything from tuners to minivans. For new cars, all anyone seems to want at the moment are pickups and SUVs, so really, it is always a moving target to create what the public will actually want.
I agree with you 100% Tomcatt and JFrank.
The styling direction in the last ten years would parallel the one during the 1950s, getting more and more flamboyant before everything reverted back to the clean and simple design of the 1960s.
Good. However I sooner wish something could be done about the angry face look first, which seems to have no chance of disappearing anytime soon if the new A class is any indicator.
I remain convinced that in an alternate universe, where Chris Bangle didn’t pen designs for BMW but instead applied his designs to, say, Cadillac, the sphere of influence would have never left GM, and the criticism of his designs wouldn’t have so many devils advocates(more likely they’d be deadly sins). But BMW was already at peak cool when he came on board, and countless designs from other automakers had clearly taken quite a lot of tracing paper to pre-Bangle BMWs during the 80s-90s, simply because any association with the ‘ultimate driving machine’ would lure buyers. Of course they’d continue to copy, doesn’t mean it’s good.
Really though, in addition to the designs being unattractive I never even found them particularly original either. Bulging random lines on the sides of cars has been done since at least the 1960s, and used on many American cars(most immediate that comes to mind is the Buick side sweep) and many Japanese cars, especially Datsun/Nissan, in the 70s had them as well. The lines on this skyline actually remind me of the ones on that silver A-Class
I remember thinking the rear fender crease/swoop of that model was overwrought – now the whole car looks refreshingly clean.
While some toning down of the exterior would not be a bad thing, it will be interesting to see how much of the same calming influence gets sprayed into the interior.
Maybe I’m being contrary, but I spend more time looking at the inside of my car / truck than I do gazing out the outside.
Great point and great question. Won’t be sorry to see overwrought interiors like the ones in the current Camaro and Prius be relegated to the history books.
However, my fear is that the “next big thing” could be an over-reliance on touchscreens and an uber minimalistic look (like the Tesla Model 3), suitable for a mobile device but not a car.
Ford has already committed to expanding the next Focus on the outside, which they could’ve accomplished far more cheaply just by using thinner seatbacks and a much slimmer console.
I saw one of those Toyota C-HRs yesterday. in a very intense shade of green. To be honest it did look overdone and “try hard”, but there was nothing particularly jarring about the lines or proportions. I quite liked it, and it stands out nicely in a modern line up of bland CUVs.
Wouldn’t buy one myself though.
The main cause for the overwrought styling is the packages on which they’re applying all the lines and concave-to-convex surfaces is they’re to short for those features to play out gracefully. The most painful to see are those small compact crossovers, a mass of confusing features and details. Someone needs to remind the stylists that “Less is More”.
Great example is the most recent Mazda MPV ( Mazda 5 ). Holy cow, the whole side panel is bananas with some bizarre lotus flowerish thing going on…And the generation before was rather restrained and shapely! Don’t forget! There are “design teams, focus groups and corporate cluster F**ks” going on to decide these things. But you would think it happens in some Bangle addled vacuum, with some designer gone rogue. Having been in that type of corporate environment, I always think of the accountants going all pirate in Monty Pythons “Meaning of Life”. (The Crimson Permanent Assurance sketch) as being the way things really are.
Actually if you look at that Mazda from a three-quarter front view you can see where those lines come from and how they relate to the overall shape. They do fit – kind of. But that’s the only angle from which they make sense. A side view looks like someone gratuitously welded in part of a sheet of corrugated iron.
It’s high time for a change in direction! Today’s cars are as obnoxious as the overwrought monstrosities of the late 1950’s and the gaudy broughams that followed in the 1970’s. In fact I would argue that things have digressed to the point where even aesthetically pleasing shapes are being negatively impacted by having to adhere to today’s design language. The 2018 Camry is a case in point. Were it not for the obnoxious grille and the grates in the bumper, it would be quite the looker.
Sigh…where’s Bill Mitchell when we need him…
+1
I believe we are at a point much like 1959. Common sense and restraint are bound to make a comeback.
+ another. Bill Mitchell – styling hasn’t been the same without him.
Agreed on the new Camry. It’s great to see the belt line finally dropping, and apart from the wild touches you mention, it’s a pretty good-looking car.
Here’s hoping. That new A class Mercedes is a good sign, though it still has the silly cheek scoops.
As a twenty-year Prius fan I’ve been horrified with the current generation, which looks downright damaged. Prius Prime’s 25-mile EV range is a major disappointment too. No way either Prius would grace my driveway, I’m sorry to say.
As Toyota seems to go six years between generations, I may have to wait until 2021 for a new one. Unless I stray to another brand before then…..can I really see myself in a Chevy?
‘…the current generation, which looks downright damaged.’
Snorted my coffee!
I always thought it looked like an enraged fish, myself. Oddly, though, the Prius’ styling never really turned me off. The maddening center instrument layout bothered me much more, but that’s just my preference.
Every Prius since the start has its primary instrument display centered high and back near the windshield. The digital speedometer is at the driver’s side of that display (left or right depending on the country). I’ve always found it easy to read, with a minimum of glancing distance between the speedometer and the road.
Tesla Model 3’s radical center-mounted dashboard makes even me wonder if I would like it, but people seem to so far.
The biggest problem with the Model 3 is that dashboard adjustments (air vent direction, glovebox door opening) are controlled through the touchscreen that should be done manually and directly, and are on every other car.
Apple thinking, pursuit of a minimalist aesthetic even when it demands greater complexity behind the scenes to make it work, at the expense of actual simplicity and functionality.
nlpt, I think it’s a lot less expensive for Tesla to write software than to engineer and produce buttons and switches and gauges, most of which aren’t physically connected to anything these days anyway. To me, that interior looks cheap as heck. But since it’s Tesla some people fawn over it and ignore the shoddy overall quality of the vehicle.
nlpt, I think it’s a lot less expensive for Tesla to write software than to engineer and produce buttons and switches and gauges, most of which aren’t directly physically connected to anything these days anyway. To me, that interior looks cheap as heck. But since it’s Tesla some people fawn over it and ignore the shoddy overall quality of the vehicle.
Sorry for the duplicate, website gave my 503 errors and didn’t post. Not sure what’s going on.
It’s apparently finally a nice car though other than that.
This is the best news I’ve heard in a long time!
Every once in awhile, when there are no other options, the human species is forced to rediscover good taste.
The Mercedes shown is a bland, boring redo of what has come before, without any real elegance. Putting the “Star” on the front of this effort is nothing but a parody, even an insult, when compared to the well styled, and almost universally admired, elegant efforts of Bruno Sacco, the now long retired master of MB styling.
Now, lets start with a different, thinner proportioned A pillar,with variation in vertical angularity, followed by an improved/increased greenhouse for improved safety enhancing visibility deviating from the current compressed “machine-gun nest/pillbox” greenhouses so apparently and universally in use now. Then combine the greenhouse alterations with changes and variations in the again, almost universal, now current front rear proportioning. Reconsider the wheels and tires with different aspect ratios, thus requiring different fender and wheel well shaping. With these considerations, then you might have the the “new way forward” that PN hopes for as a new design direction. This might be a way from the “garish rolling appliance” architecture so much in vogue now in some current design studios.
Bill Mitchell and Bruno Sacco, when in their prime working their best, are solely missed now.
Geelong your comments make sense. Particularly about the angularity of A pillar. These are now so angled back as to make front seat passengers bow to get in. Back seat passengers have to contort to enter modern autos even SUVs. Take a look at the packaging of a Mid Fifties Roadmaster; the rear seat is very far back in relation to the door cutout. To me the packaging that makes the most sense is the last Checker. There you had the back seats waay back, and the extra passengers seats were jump seats. I think the packaging of cars (seven passenger) should be with the extra seats in front of the regular rear seats.
Totally agree on Bruno Sacco–he doesn’t always get the recognition that Bill Mitchell receives, but he delivered some of the best Mercedes-Benz designs ever.
Agreed on all points.
Agreed on points.
Bangle’s styling cues came out just as I was starting to consider a BMW. They were a total turn off , and BMW has not returned to my wish list. Did this all start with the Nissan Murano? The original was radical and different and seemed to become acceptable in a short time. Then Nissan went crazy with Generation 2 Murano , and crazier yet on Gen. 3. Toyota seems to have fallen hook , line, and sinker for the bizzare. The new Prius is awful to look at , same for the entire Lexus smash up.The whole mess makes me appreciate Porsche more and more
That so often happens when a great-looking show car makes production – what to do for a second generation?
Either you go further and further overboard until the styling is almost nausea-inducing but stands out (Nissan Murano), or you go for maximum bland and it becomes just another anonymous appliance in a crowded market sector (Toyota Rav4).
I like Bangle’s BMWs – there, I said it (runs and hides….). That picture of the 7 series above is so much more palatable that some of the designs currently on the market.
One design trend I wish would have continued was the Ford “New Edge” design. I thought the Ka, Focus, Cougar and Mustang New Edge designs were quite nice.
But some of the sedans produced under that theme – ick!
I’m potentially in the market for a first generation Focus. The three-door is preferred, the five-door is acceptable. The sedan and wagon are flatly off the table. Just too awkward looking to look at every day.
Indeed maybe the freaks of nature age is about to end, finally. The rate of beautiful to ugly automobiles has been decreasing since the 80’s but in the last 10 years it has been pretty much a free fall, IMHO. Does car design suffer from the same problem as rock’n’roll? I mean what is left to be invented after the golden age from it’s birth until maybe the last true innovators in the 80’s? Anyway it must be possible to improve things a little bit. Maybe put some true engineers and less clothes/furniture designers in command.
Okay, I’ll admit the M-B is cleaner and an improvement.
But what’s with those damned vent things or whatever they are under the headlamps on the fascia? I’d paint those body color if was my car.
In comparison to today, that 2001 Bangle Butt BMW doesn’t look so bad. But the trend has gone far far overboard, kinda like wrapped windshields in the ’50s. And I for one will be happy when all the tortured, twisted boxes on today’s roads disappear and more styling restraint comes back into vogue.
Current Kia design = good. Clear, discernible grille without the other stuff.
Very old Mercedes 124/129/201 design = excellent.
Use the two as a guide to getting over this malaise.
That Toyota Whatsit in the article makes me eyes bleed.
Ah yes, the pendulum starts to swing back…. it’s about time.
I’d argue that BMW’s Chris Bangle was a contemporary version of Virgil Exner. Like Ex, the Bangle did well with overall forms, but lost it on detailing. The basic shapes and sculpting of the Bangle cars, like most of Exner’s designs, were very nicely executed, but strange cutlines, odd headlight/tail light treatments and a few too many gratuitous stampings weakened the final designs.
I’m going to play a bit of contrarian here about that bangled BMW 7-Series. If GM had brought that car out, they’d have gotten the same derision the Aztec did when it came out. Almost 20 years later, I still think that’s one of the most cringe-worthy luxury sedan styles since the ’61 Imperial.
Audi seems to be capable of producing some really pleasing bodystyles. Too bad it’s… well, Audi. Mercedes hired Hyundai’s Styling Chief and now new Mercedes’s look like Hyundai’s. Shocker. The new Lexus LS looks much better in person than it does in pics, but it’s a very color contingent bodystyle. On the other hand, the GS, ES, and IS aren’t bad looking at all.
Was Bangle influential? Yes- but I’d contend more in the way Virgil Exner was influential, and not the way Bill Mitchell was influential.
*I just read GN’s post. Great minds must think alike (grins).
Well, you make a good point there. When you’re the style leader, it’s easier to set trends. If Beyonce started wearing dresses made out of newspapers, women would want to copy her. If your Aunt Patricia did, I don’t think she’d get much traction.
Also agree with you on Lexus’ design language. I love all their sedans and coupes.
You mean this awesome car? And look – it’s BROWN. Well, maybe bronze.
Thank Gawd. I was wondering how long it was gonna take.
Now if we could get rid of the angry kitchen appliance front end treatments…
I agree with you on the Bangle 7, Paul. For all the whining people did about it then, it’s actually aged quite well (and iDrive, another thing complained about, has continued to be improved). Sure, the trunk is a little odd but I’m glad Bangle shook things up. Since then, BMW has become increasingly conservative. Under Bangle, a 3, 5 and 7 had shared design themes but all looked remarkably distinct from each other. That’s changed, although BMW is just following Mercedes and Audi’s lead with the whole “same sausage, different lengths” design philosophy.
And the Bangle 6 is still stunning to me after all these years.
This is like asking for the opinion of slightly odd nostalgists, on some internet forum devoted to rusting appliances parked near the gutter, as to whether old cars should all be scrapped. Guaranteed Opinions will follow. For example, I have one. CC-bait, Mr N.
Well, of course I think the past 20-odd years have been the work of the Universal Awfulizers and nearly every design of the era is indistinguishable from the crushed scrap it will eventually be, but putting aside that finely balanced view, you have it right in saying our intrinsic inertia is the greatest resistance to the new. Though oddly enough, I too liked the Bangle 7 when it was new.
I would add that timidity, corporate and artistic, is dominant as well. Crash requirements are onerous, but they do not dictate, say, headlights faired back into the guards, a steeply rising beltline, vast C-pillars and vertical roof-high streaks of tailight common to every Euro hatch for the last 10 years, homogenous to the point of anonymity. Perhaps as in art movements, there seem to be few top players in the auto styling field, and dominant characters with adherents.
Corporately, there are engineering solutions to treetrunk A-pillars, to fast windscreen angles, to Maginot Line viewing portals. (To think makers once boasted of the 360 visibility from their cars). Sedans have not just been abandoned because of chair height but because travelling entombed low is unpleasant.
One can only hope a new Messiah leads from the wasteland of the Overwrought Era, an era which has none of the gaudy charms of the last one. The last was a product of space-high optimism, glassy, blatantly impractical, with a touch of whimsy. This one, angry, competitive, bunkered, uncertain of itself, is a reflection of times that seem much darker and fractured. Which they both are and aren’t – it’s just how the world appears during revolutions of history, of which this internet one we’re living through is as dramatic as any that preceded it.
My wish for the new era is that it is the Era of Elegance. Slimmer, calmer, finer, and perhaps even a beautiful car might again reappear.
Not that I care much for current automotive design – especially the obnoxious trends in light truck design, yuck! – but let’s at least feel a little sympathy for the designers. Caught between the rock of safety standards and the hard place of MPG demands (aero uber alles) doesn’t leave much breathing space for elegant designs. Hopefully materials scientists and engineers can flip the script and give us some new ways to make cars strong and safe enough using some lighter, less baroque looking designs.
At the very least I hope the giant M-B star has run it’s course – simply dreadful compared to the Benzs of old.
The days when Mercedes was a unique classy handsome sporty luxury car and very desirable, are long gone. I owned one exactly like this one back in the early 1980s. When people saw me in it, they would address me as Sir! Not with today’s Mercedes.
Should the Pontiac Aztek’s design now be considered “Ground Breaking”, in that it was maybe the first of modern cars to have the grotesque design theme?
The very latest Toyota. Not as wild as the C-HR, but still…Meet the new Auris, aka Corolla iM.
It’s in the same segment as the Benz A-Class.
….
Meh, shrug, whevs, ¯&\_(ツ)_/¯ . From where I sit, we’re vigourously discussing what differentiates German Shepherd poo from Collie poo. They all look like they’ve been through a digestive tract, and they all look pretty much alike. Now get the hell offa my lawn. Harrumph.
I might be alone in liking the Toyota C-RH. I don´t see it as being about feature lines but a very different conception of automotive body styling. The features and crease school is more like an overextension of a familiar approach: add a line to give the car some visual length. The C-RH is a more about primary volumes and secondary volumes. The lines are secondary. In the Mercedes/BMW approach, lines are apparently addtional to the main volumes.