Car designs don’t have to be based on the past. Sure, they have, inherited similarities to the cars that have gone before them, and certain design aspects that are part of the ‘standardized’ design aspects for a particular brand. For BMW those design aspects are: the Hofmeister kink, the double kidney grill, the roundel set atop the kidney grill, etc… those set aspects form the basis, partially for what makes a BMW, a BMW. So, obviously, there are design aspects that are unavoidable (unless we start going in to the absurd, asking questions like: why must you design a car that utilizes wheels?). At the same time, cars are moving objects and as such should reflect this. Other than mentioning how the side of the Z4 looks like an arrow being shot, the rest of Bangle’s design ideas are all based on stationary objects, which are designed for a completely different purpose than a moving object is designed for. They are concepts, which are very hard to pull off when crossed (although not impossible, but then you lose the ‘car’ aspect of the design, as found in the original TT, which IMHO only looks good standing still). You wouldn’t use a car as the basis for the design of a skyscraper, and you shouldn’t reciprocate the same type of design concept by basing a car on a skyscraper. I never stated I was against the ‘retro’ car movement, simply that I think the MM is a badly executed prototype that does a disservice to the memory of the original 328 MM. Take a car like the Z8 for example, which was a ‘retro’ version of the BMW 507. But, it was so well executed that it looked and still does look beautiful, it is a well-designed car. Jon.