BMW/Mercedes/Audi Design philosophies

[Centurion]

I totally agree Lu. I have suggested similar things in the past. Audi's design language/style is smooth and clean -- subtle and sophisticated. It has its roots in the traditions of Teutonic Modernism but it also has a fashionable aspect too.

At first glance, the Audi aesthetic seems quite subtle, maybe even slightly ambiguous, but it is actually quite a bold and dynamic style that expresses very modern ideas and values.

You're right Rob. Even though Audi's design is clean and smooth it is also bold at at the sametime. If Audi's designs were bold their cars would look like Volvo, barely interesting at all.
On the other hand Audi got a bit too fussy with the R8. It really doesn't fit in with the rest of the cars in the Audi line up. More over they have taken the use of Carbon fibre to an obsene level. CF is a material which should be used for weight saving and in a way replace metal. Take a look at the R8 and you will see huge chunks of CF panels which doesn't even fill a function, I thinking of the big big panels on the sides. That's something I never really expected from Audi.
They should start seeking their (Audi)o parnet B&O for some advise beacsue they really know how to use exotic and expensive materials in a tasteful manner.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

OK, the way I see it:

Audi - Aero, Bauhaus (first A4, first TT), Humanity/Emotive (current A6), IMO Animalical (R8), future, who knows, the most likely to switch (again) its design philosophy of the german marques. Brand - still not properly defined/undefined.

BMW - for the automotive industry it is avant garde, on a wider perspective not really. Don't like certain things (FL 7er head lights, 5er spoiler vs eyes (excluding M5, M package), new X5 headlights, Z4 headlight a bit to sad). Brand - probaly the sharpest of the german marques (despite runflat tyres and too much weight on most of its cars).

MB - idea good in theory = mix old with new, in practice, it varies from nice/good like new CL to the S/GL disasters (= too little of good old Mercedes and too much like cheap - kitch copies). Brand - Prestige (and luxury, comfort, even safety) vs. everything to everyone.

 

[SDNR]

OK, the way I see it:

Audi - Aero, Bauhaus (first A4, first TT), Humanity/Emotive (current A6), IMO Animalical (R8), future, who knows, the most likely to switch (again) its design philosophy of the german marques. Brand - still not properly defined/undefined.

OK ...I need you to explain more clearly "Aero" -- do you mean like aerodynamic/streamlined ....I'm not precisely sure.

 

[SDNR]

On the other hand Audi got a bit too fussy with the R8. It really doesn't fit in with the rest of the cars in the Audi line up. More over they have taken the use of Carbon fibre to an obsene level. CF is a material which should be used for weight saving and in a way replace metal. Take a look at the R8 and you will see huge chunks of CF panels which doesn't even fill a function, I thinking of the big big panels on the sides. That's something I never really expected from Audi.
They should start seeking their (Audi)o parnet B&O for some advise beacsue they really know how to use exotic and expensive materials in a tasteful manner.

Yes, I'm not crazy about the CF either Hassan ...it looks much better without it.

This is probably my favourite car right at this moment.


Could it be any better?

 

[Centurion]

^^
Preach

 

[Imhotep Evil]

OK ...I need you to explain more clearly "Aero" -- do you mean like aerodynamic/streamlined ....I'm not precisely sure.

The first Aero design was to my knowledge the Mk I ford Fiesta.
Other representatives would be the Mk III Mustang and the 83-88 Ford Thunderbird.

 

[martinbo]

Luw, I really like your observations regarding the styling and over-gratuitous use of carbon fibre on the R8. I feel exactly the same - you summed it up nicely - it's overdone without having any functional or aesthetic purpose. Seeing that this is a thread dedicated to the appreciation - of lack thereof - of car design I'll go so far as to say that the R8 takes the award for dullest and most unevocative supercar on sale today.

 

[klier]

Imhotep, those extremely ugly cars you posted mess up the whole lay-out of the site.

Please delete them or make them at least half the size.

 

[dyna-niet]

Imhotep, those extremely ugly cars you posted mess up the whole lay-out of the site.

Please delete them or make them at least half the size.

Imhotep, those extremely ugly cars you posted mess up the whole lay-out of the site.

delete them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bruce]

Please delete them or make them at least half the size.

I've sized them down for you.

-Bruce

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I've sized them down for you.

-Bruce

Thanks mate.
I was trying to explain to Roberto the Aero design.

 

[SDNR]

These posts were originally from the BMW unveiled "Concept CS" ! thread. They were deleted earlier today.

I'd love to speak to Chris Bangle one day, I can imagine it would be an amazing conversation!

So are all BMWs designs liked to things?

Wonder what they were thinking about when designing the X3!

Here is one interesting "lecture" by Chris (Bangle) - quite old one (from 2002) but still very interesting:

TED | Talks | Chris Bangle: Great cars are Art (video)

That was a very interesting video!

Well worth a watch guys!

I can't wait to see how the design elements of the CS translate into the upcoming X6 and F01 /02 .
BMW raised the bar for my expectations considerably now....I am very excited, because I can easily envision a lot of elements of the new F01 here.
And as Scott and Eni said earlier, probably the X6 will get a back like the CS

I think BMW will have a killer portfolio in the not too distant future.

I find the following Bangle's quote most interesting:


Quote: Chris Bangle

"The designers were asked to capture a feeling summoned by a scene in a James Bond film. You know the moment when Caterina Murino, the actress in ‘Casino Royale,’ gets into the Aston Martin? She does that with such assured fluidity. That is what we were shooting for.”

I just love the way Bangle communicates with his designers. He said once designers (the ones in BMW design department) created some sort of special language. It was necessary since design department is very international & multilingual. So the best way to describe the design is to compare it to some situations & phenomena - therefore notorious Bangle's "swoooosh", "zweeeeez" , "klink" etc onomatopoetic terms. And legendary hand talk & gestures.

I'm amused how with 3er copue they tried to catch some specific soft curves, sexiness yet strong & confident determination from some specific photo of Monica Bellucci posing, while this time the task was to recreate the fluidity of Caterina Murino's climbing into AM DB5.

Brilliant!

One gets the feeling there aren't many women working in BMW's design department .

These "inspirations" are intriguing, but they are clearly initial motivational flashes from which the tone of the project can be set -- rather than anything able to be directly interpreted.

Automotive design has always been a mixture of formal design principles and emotive styling but there is a point where the balance can be tipped ...and I wonder if Bangle is becoming a present-day Harley Earl.

Harley Earl was the head of GM's design in the 1950s.

Rob: These "inspirations" are intriguing, but they are clearly initial motivational flashes from which the tone of the project can be set -- rather than anything able to be directly interpreted.

Sure. I was not implying those women were direct models for the cars. I was talking about communication, about language - how Bangle explains what he wants from the vehicle design: with such intriguing examples. Recapturing a particular information, not design detail.

Bangle can go very abstract & philosophical sometimes - he is a designer after all , and I guess such metaphorical language is used to "explain" the abstraction. Even among the designers.

We should agree design is very difficult to explain. Design is not universal. It is very culturally (incl ideologically & religiously) and even personally dependent.

Design is a kind a semi-language - its a tool to express thoughts & feelings & ideas etc. Why semi-language? Because language is a system - with known rules & codes / symbols. While design can carry a message without any particular known rules & codes. Therefore sometimes some designs are difficult to understand - because we do not know the rules & codes behind - so we can not "read" the information properly. Therefore the creator / designer have to explain the design with a language we understand - so the recipient / observer is able to understand the message / information of the design.

Designers are often creating new languages with designs. Yet the rules & codes are know only to designers themselves. So other recipients / observers need a translation of the design - an explanation told in a language we understand. And with such codes & rules used the original message of design is skewed as little as possible during such translation.

Design is always particular - while sometimes it is just percieved as abstract because we do not understand the "language" behind the message of the design.

So ...

This time BMW are determined not to make the same mistake as they did with Z9 / E65 7er & xCoupe /Z4 - when designs were not explained. So people just saw the medium (a car with specific design elements), but didn't understand the message behind.

With new design everything will change. New designs will be explained - the message, and the codes & rules.

It would be fine BMW creating special booklets (design dictionaries) for every new vehicle - explaining its design. It would help people to understand the design better, and would offer a new dimension to the marketing (adding a new value to the car): offering a true mobile communication statement (the one which is understandable to the general public).

Eni a good design dosn't need any explanation.

Design is art. An applied art.

So by your definition every design / art you do not understand (is not compatible with your mindset frame) is automatically a bad design (eg. some designs from different culture, or eg. a design made by mentally handicapped person)?

I deeply disagree with you. Like I said: design (language) is not universal - and therefore sometimes it needs an explanation. So presence or absence of need for an explanation does not make design good or bad.

Even the design you can easily understand can be "bad". Or it is "bad" because you understand it incorrectly? Or perhaps it is not usable / applicable in any possible (physical) way - then design can be described as "bad": when it has no applicable purpose. And even in such case it is usually recategorized as ART, and not labeled as "bad design".

Eg.: a spoon with a whole, or a cup without bottom. A bad design? Absolutely not! But an art!

There is no such thing as bad design. It can be faulty (not offering what it promises) but definitely not bad.

But ... we can talk about aesthetics. Then we can call something beautiful or ugly. Since taste is a completely subjective matter (based on cultural grounds).

You bring up some interesting points Tine. There is the continuing debate in the design world over where design ends and art begins. This BMW concept seems to cross over into the realm of art in some respects. The industrial/product design world has become very preoccupied with fashionable trends.

Quote from The International design Yearbook 2007

'Designers should be the guardians of the man-made environment'. Unfortunately, design [in general] has taken another course and has become a source of visual pollution. It's no longer a case of serving the consuming masses with objects that are easier to make industrially and that are better to live with. Now even big businesses are competing to make design as noticeable as possible by colour, shape, or shock value.

Interesting ...and I have some sympathy with your point of view ...but ultimately a good design has to carry out its function thoroughly and [hopefully] better than its predecessor. As I said earlier, car design has always been a mix of formal design principles and a more emotional aspect -- I guess The Automobile still adheres to the romantic Modernist love of The Machine.

I look at this concept and think of Marinetti's Futurist manifesto from 1909 and the Futurist's obsessive love of machines - speed, noise, power ...and the pure expression of it in an industrialized world. Yes, there is poetry and art in all great vehicles, Bangle strives to make this very explicit with BMW.

We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel - a guillotine knife - which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,' I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!' -- F. T. Marinetti, 1909

Here is the X6 back as designed by Hussein a while back. This represents exactly how I would envision the back of the upcoming X6 ... just brutally beautiful..

As you can see, the back of the CS is not too far off ..
The deep cut character line morphes into the back light cluster


Hussein, did they offer you a job at our friends in Munich, when you visited the design center ? They can't let you fall in the hands of the competion ;-)

In your various designs you capture very good the spirit of BMW ...just great work . Congratulation !!

Any comments from Eni or Scott on this one ??

 

[SDNR]

>>>>>>

Hated the last part. "It's just a concept - for now"

COME ON ! PRODUCE IT BMW.

Ok am a little biased. But this car is soooo perfect for me, reasons:

[1] I like Astons but can't really trust their reliability + its not in my price range. The BMW CS concept is clearly inspired by Astons design
[2] I like the CLS but not how it drives + the rear is not that great, however I like its coupe-ish design which is greatly interpreted in this concept
[3] The Quattroporte is one of my dream cars for its shape and driving dynamic, bearing in mind has been testing those QPs as a benchmark, I can almost guarantee it will deliver similar driving pleasure.
[4] Space, High end technology + Safety !

Which car is possibly going to have all these ?

The BMW CS concept if it came to production.
OK now I've seen the RL pics, my thoughts:
[1] The front: Although many here hated it but it is an exciting mix of retroness + futuristic styling. Retroness because how the grill looks a little bit tilted backwards like old beemers and futuristics for the rest of the grill desging (3D effects, Headlights design ..etc)
[2] The shoulder line & profile: Although reminds us alot of Aston's, but it compliments the Hofmeister kink greatly, I mean from my POV, the front 3/4 view was the weakest angle of all beemers due to the kink, now it is one of the most beautiful angles.
[3] Trunk & Rear: the perfect interpretation of the bangle butt (although this design was used by some other manufacturers earlier).

As many said, the design is not 100% original, but it indicates the return of "iconic" BMWs not only in driving pleasure, but design passion also.

Vabboud: 2 lebanese on the team?! by God we have conquered BMW!

When I was at BMW in Munich Mr.van Hoodonk told me that they have a designer from Lybia and that his name was Karim Habib. We were talking about what languages I can speak and he told me this info when he knew that I can speak Arabic.
I thought it was a wierd name for a Lybian guy. now it makes sence that he must have confused Lybia with Lebanon

Where are the door handles? I wanna get in..

Look closely at the chrome strip right beneath the windows

You know what guy? it seems like it's a crime not following the forum for 2 days! you made more than ten pages where it's impossible to read everything

Anyway.. So this is the new Design direction BMW are going. I'm happy that it's an evolution from the flame suface theme. It's sleek and more muscular than the currrent desgign language. I like that.

Now to talk about the design elements: I like everything about it except for the front. I always like the idea of a large front grill, because I believe that large grills are the key for a undeniable presence. best example for that is Rolls Roys and old Benzes. But I hoped for a more V-shaped grill, than this rectangular out line. The lights are.. well.. not what I would do. I hink slimmer lights would do it much better. But anyway.. this is a concept and designer like to play with shaped and elements to messure the public reaction.
Actually although I don't like the front very much, it was the direction I was expecting BMW to go to in the future. Those of you who say one of my interpritations of the X6 would know what I'm talking about.

The side design is great, what I don't like is the -for BMW standards- long front overhang. Otherwise it's brilliant. The shoulder line is really cool and was expected from BMW for some future model.. I thought maybe the Z8 or Z4 successor would get a similar thing.
IMHO the Hofmeister Kink ruins the coupé-like roofline. For a so-called 4-door coupé a flowing roof line into the rear is a must, to emphasize the characteristics of a coupé, but I'm aware that this couldn't work with BMW as the H-Knik is a main design element for a BMW just like the kidney grill.
Though I think they could have left the upper line of the side windows chrome-less. this was the roof line won't be very influencd by the sape of the windows. What I mean is an L-shaped chrome strip that starts from the point where the upper window outline meets H-Kink, runs underlining the windows and ends right under the side mirrors.

Now coming to the best part: the ass.. i mean the rear!
It couldn't look better IMO.. it's just perfect. i like the fact that BMW are returning to the L-shaped rear lights as a main design element. Very strong and beautifully modelled rear design. It also has the hight I miss in the front.

The interior is really nice. What I like the most is that it will ende the era of the angular ugly interiors BMW are offering now.. I could never like them or classify them as luxury or even sporty interiors!

Final score 8/10

 

[SDNR]

Hmmmm ...

Yeeh, but ... No, but ...

So ...

Functionality and design. Yes, like I said - design is an applied art. It has to be functional & have a purpose. Otherwise it is "just" art - a creation without functional value (but still have huge emotional value).

We have gone beyond optimal functionality with design: eg. contemporary architecture, couture, jewelery, interior design, electrical appliances.

Forms steps forward. Function lags behind.

Form over function.

This is the world we live in. Form prevails (and co-exists with acceptable function).

After all - what is a perfect functionality? This is a very subjective matter. Something that is very functional to me can be very nonfunctional to you. Personal preferences, personal abilities, cultural preferences etc - factors that influence functionality.

So ... Many years ago form prevailed over function. In some field earlier, in some later. Form became additional value - an emotional component to the rational one (=function).

So it's nothing wrong with a bit more artistic ("overdesigned") objects.

But ... cars are a very specific item. They almost have status of a pat.
And their general shape haven't changed for decades!

I can see Bangle pushing envelope further. Making cars a bit emotional & "nonfunctional" again. And I still remember his claim he wants to shift a paradigm in a car design - to reconstruct a car design paradigm completely. I'm eager to see what is going on in his head.

So essentially the role of the designer has been reduced to making objects instantly desirable to the insatiable appetite of the consumer market ...constantly looking for the next thing to acquire, the next fad to try -- that is a very sad state of affairs in a world of finite resources and serious environmental issues.

It seems we human beings are becoming less and less interesting as time passes -- many people now almost entirely identify and express themselves through the things they buy -- who needs a personality when you can afford to wear Prada and drive a BMW? ...and everyone talks about "Lifestyle" these days -- what ever happened to living a real life?

this is what we can bet with the F01's successor Eni, i am lead to believe, the revolution revolution that will ensure later on will see some very controversial creativity!

But there really is no "revolution" here -- seriously, we don't know what "The Shock Of The New" really means today. The Italian Futurists were not just some bunch of imaginative artists who painted nice pictures -- they were anarchists, many were thugs who started fights in the streets, they were racists and wanted war in Europe "“War, the Sole Cleanser of the World” -- they loved machines more than nature. The Futurists gave rise to the Fascists in Italy, they actually fought it out with the Fascists for dominance but shared many of the same "values".

So when Bangle talks about Futurism and contemporary architecture, it is generally in a very superficial context -- purely a stylistic influence -- the real revolutions happened long ago

 

[EnI]

So essentially the role of the designer has been reduced to making objects instantly desirable to the insatiable appetite of the consumer market ...constantly looking for the next thing to acquire, the next fad to try -- that is a very sad state of affairs in a world of finite resources and serious environmental issues.

It seems we human beings are becoming less and less interesting as time passes -- many people now almost entirely identify and express themselves through the things they buy -- who needs a personality when you can afford to wear Prada and drive a BMW? ...and everyone talks about "Lifestyle" these days -- what ever happened to living a real life?

Yes, it's a sad situation indeed.

But this is the world we live in. Consumerism & materialism rule.

Visual appearance means everything. People are obsessed with absolute beauty & eternal youth & (true or fake) status. A total mass hysteria.

But this is human nature. Look into history: western civilization has always been obsessed with visual appearance. Identity (usually based on social status) of an individual was also seen through artifacts individual used & possessed, and through his visual appearance. But in the history only the upper class could afford that.

The "problem" is that today more people can afford using artifacts & visual appearance to express their identity. And even more- now you can build your identity with artifacts & visual appearence, while in the past your identity was given to you by the status you were born in. Customs & rules of a certain status gave you an identity in the past - and you were able to show & express it via artifacts & visual appearence (which was usually also ruled & coded). It was always the easiest was of building your identity - it was actually already built - given to you by your status.

Today in the time of globalization & corporatism brands & certain artifacts are universally accepted codes / symbols - as a product of marketing. Corporations via marketing set rules & codes - they offer us a language that is universal. And with this "language" we are able to express our identity - and even build it. All based on visual appearence & possession of artifacts. This is the easiest way of identity building & expressing - due universality of brands => universal language. An very uncreative way of course.

Past: status -> identity -> visual appearence
Present: visual appearance -> identity -> "status"

It will be much more creative to build & express your identity via some language you've created on your own - a completely non-universal language. But in this case you would be forced to constantly explain your self. And this ain't easy.

It's way easier using brands & artifacts --- the ones that have universal code & rules (made via marketing activities of certain corporations), and therefore being universal language --- for expressing & building your identity. And majority of people are usually tend to go the easiest way possible.

Fortunately not all the people are in that group.

 

[SDNR]

Keeping in mind these two vehicles represent the new design identities of these marques in their purist forms. What is your opinion of the styling of these vehicles when they are compared with each other?

Mercedes-Benz Ocean Drive Concept



BMW Concept CS

 

[wltsm]

To me, both these cars seem to share a lot of design clues. The ocean drive concept appears to have flame surfacing appears to have a huge grill, that must be the new big thing. The BMW has a large grill as well.

Although I'd say the BMW is much more radical on the right and back of the car, the merc looks very similar to the S Class, just different lights, while the BMW is completely new and looks a lot more aggressive.

Interestingly, both these cars are in the same price range, if there were to be sold, and personally I think the BMW looks like it much more expensive than the MB, it looks more aggressive and has more presence while the MB looks a bit boring!

 

[Sayyaaf]

BMW_Dude: I couldn't agree more. Except for the part that both are great. The MB isn't that great IMO. Being topless 4-door saloon is the only radicality I can see about that car. MB looks like it was taking into account the negative press that came along with the introduction of the S Class (flared fenders, Bangle Butt ...) and improved it a little bit.

Rob: thanks for bringing this to the correct thread/section.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

To the future thru the past.

4 door cabrio, gills, z-line/hip, the guages on the dashboard, all elements of 1930s, 1940s and 1950s MB and BMW cars.

Not radical but reinterpreted.

 

[EnI]

To the future thru the past.

4 door cabrio, gills, z-line/hip, the guages on the dashboard, all elements of 1930s, 1940s and 1950s MB and BMW cars.

Not radical but reinterpreted.

Avantgarde retro. Evolutionary revolution.

Mille Miglia 2006 Concept was the first indication of future BMW direction.