Bangle BMW's

[Aaron]

The Bangle design BMW's. Innovative and ahead of their time or horrible miscarriage of a motoring dynasty? Discuss.

A.

 

[imageWIS]

Oh, Jesus. I just went through this...

Jon.

 

[Aaron]

Yeah, that's why I started this thread so you wouldn't derail the topic at hand. I'm curious, why do you think car designers have to take inspiration strictly on what's come before them in the automotive world?

A.

 

[A Y]

From the coolest car thread (Thanks Aaron!):

Originally Posted by imageWIS

And I've read about his speeches to journalists / design students, and again he mentions a lot of non-car, non-road related objects.

I don't disagree. But you originally said he based car design primarily on architecture, whereas now you seem to be agreeing that his influences are more eclectic.

--Andre

 

[imageWIS]

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.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

From the coolest car thread (Thanks Aaron!): I don't disagree. But you originally said he based car design primarily on architecture, whereas now you seem to be agreeing that his influences are more eclectic. --Andre
As per Bangle, they are primarily based on architecture. He then adds to that base design different aspects of different types of design, from other objects, most of which tend to be stationary. I never stated that he uses architecture exclusively, as the only source for his designs.

 

[briancl]

Personally, I don't care where he draws his inspiration. He designs ugly cars.

If he were ahead of his time, then his older designs would eventually look current and fresh. They don't.

 

[wEstSidE]

I like the look of the E46 M3. I actually appreciate Chris Bangle's designs. I think they're sleek and innovative. I'm one of two people in the world who have come to appreciate them. I have to admit, they're not cars you instantly fall in love with.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by imageWIS

As per Bangle, they are primarily based on architecture.

That is not true. It doesn't bother me that we disagree on his aesthetic, but I'd rather judge his cars by what they actually are instead of bringing whatever motivations he may have had into it.

--Andre

 

[matadorpoeta]

i've liked the new 7 series since it came out, even the taillights. i also like the 6 series and the 3 series coupe looks okay except for the rear.

i only really object to the 5 series and the z4. both hideous.

 

[SGladwell]

Originally Posted by briancl

Personally, I don't care where he draws his inspiration. He designs ugly cars.

Exactly. There is one exception, I think. His Coupe Fiat still looks good to me. But beyond that it's yucksville. Designs that will be remembered about as fondly as the Triumph TR-7 or Jaguar XJ40.

 

[faustian bargain]

Originally Posted by SGladwell

.... or Jaguar XJ40.

hey now!

 

[Nantucket Red]

A public service message from Bob the Angry Flower regarding the title of this thread (honestly, he forced me to post it).

 

[imageWIS]

NR,

You, don't like it, the apostrophe?

Jon.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

That is not true. It doesn't bother me that we disagree on his aesthetic, but I'd rather judge his cars by what they actually are instead of bringing whatever motivations he may have had into it. --Andre
My point is that they are not good looking, and it seems that because they are based on non-moving objects they simply do not translate well into car designs. The only car I’ve ever heard (video) Bangle talk about that uses moving objects, as an inspiration for its design is the Z4, which happens to be the only one of the Bangle designs that I think works. Thus logically I can deduce that: Bangle designs based on non-moving objects = not well executed car designs Bangle designs based on moving objects = well executed car designs Also, fresh and innovative does not always equal good looking. Giving BMW praise for being risky and doing something different isn’t the same thing as also stating that the cars are good looking / well designed. You can praise them for being different, but also realize that design-wise they failed. Jon.