Chris Bangle: Misunderstood & Discredited / Chris Bangle: The Steve Jobs of Modern Car Design....

[EnI]

@klier

You must know the sub-par materials & all the electrical glitches etc were a consequence of cost-cutting due to Rover fiasco. R&D budgets were much lower, there was not enough testing before launch, even best human resources were working on saving Rover etc ...

Eg. the porky E65 design was due to porky body frame & porky proportions - not due to external sheet metal design. And due to higher roof consequently the tail had to be tall to be aerodynamic enough. Therefore the opted for clam shell like boot lid - to make the tail visually less bloated as already was.

Mind E65 platform was developed to share the body frame with RR/Bentley car. Unfortunately - against all BMW's expectations - VAG got RR/Bentley ... later BMW got RR after all .... but decided to made a super-Rolls instead ... from scratch rather than putting it on 7er platform. Especially since there was no need for sportier Bentley car anymore - BMW only got RR, Bentley stayed @ VAG. Therefore Phantom is a stand alone platform. Much later the baby Rolls (Ghost) was greenlighted to fight Bentley directly & again put on 7er platform - this time F01 platform.

The E65-based RR/Bentley car was planned to be a direct Silver Seraph/Arnage successor.

 

[K-A]

Sorry to ruin the Bangle party, but Monsieur Patrick Le Quément, was doing radical/avantgarde designs before Bangle.
Obviously, in Bangle's case, being at BMW, their designs had much more impact on the industry than econocars like Renault.

I personally, hate "Bangle era" Bimmers (except E60, a master piece) and the consecuent effect on industry, when suddenly about every manufacturer felt they have to make in your face designs. IMO, his legacy was, for the worse.

On a side note, I've many designs books, and I've read several times on then what K-A says, the E63 was designed by Adrian van Hooydonk.....

I agree Bud. I don't like those designs either but just as he was responsible for overseeing the E65 gen, he was also for the F01 gen which showed his vision as a director was more brilliant than anyone gives him credit for, in my opinion.

 

[K-A]

Some explanation must be made here:

1.
Bangle didn't designed any of the so-called "Bangled BMWs". He was hired by BMW for his managerial skills, not for his designer skills. He was brought to BMW by Herr Reitzle himself - to rebuild the BMW design department after tragic departure of BMW chief designer Herr Luthe - who had been sentenced for killing his junkie son. All until Reitzle was the R&D chief @ BMW, Bangle couldn't influence & persuade the board since Reitzle had the ultimate word on designs (as R&D chief) and a power of veto, sort of. Very often he came to the studio & influenced the details of the design. Even when Bangle had already been the new design chief.

2.
The decision to go "Bangle" was not Bangle's idea only, but mostly Reitzle's & also the whole board agreed to it. They knew BMW design had been stuck in time since the Neue Klasse introduction. So they had several options to pick from: a) revolution (introduction of completely new BMW design trademarks - incl the grille, the kink etc); b) evolution; c) going retro; and d) going avant-garde. And they opted for the latest - since it was the best fit to the brand image (powerful, dynamic, modern etc) & to the digital revolution that was going on.

3.
Bangle did great with design department reconstruction. BMW AG even bought Designworks to enhance the department. And design department began with the implementation of the new design strategy - which was first introduced publicly with the BMW Concept Z9 Gran Turismo coupe. The stars of the new designs were: Adrian van Hooydonk (E65 7er, E63 6er), Anders Warming (E85 Z4), Davide Archangeli (E60 5er) and Chris Chapman (E87 1er). None of the cars were designed by Chris Bangle himself!
Mind the E65 7er was designed still in Reitzle era, and he opposed the front & the rear design of the E65 ... but during the final process Reitzle left BMW (after not being named CEO). And so - due to change of management, and Reitzle gone - Bangle word gained weight. Therefore avantgarde designs went on ... perhaps not as much refined now without Reitzle's "magic touch".
But ALL the decisions regarding the picked designs were made by the board of management!

4.
Soon after E60 launch Bangle & van Hooydonk explained the aim was to persuade the board to let the designers to move the design frontier as far as possible - and then in the next generations make all the further refinements ... but based on the original avantgarde design. So it was clear from the very beginning the next stages (next generations) would all be about refinement & detailing.

5.
Bangle left since his work was done: the design department was rebuilt, the new design strategy was implemented, and the refinement process has begun. It was time for a new man. For continuity: with AvH. He had been Bangle's right hand from the very beginning. OK, there was some dispute regarding the BMW i design but that was not the reason Bangle left. It was just the natural end to his very rich opus.

6.
Bangle himself - a great manager, even better motivator & inspirational speaker - is not known for best sense of aesthetics. Far from that. But he is known as visionary. As philosopher within automotive industry ... With his post-modern view on automotive industry ... how the tech & new materials will influence the design, how the urbanization in Far East will influence the mobility solutions, how the tech & shift in consumer behavior will influence the automobile as a product.
He's given the BMW & the industry some new angle, some new perspective on not only automotive design but also on the automotive future itself. Not only Bangle is a visionary, he is also a realo-futurist ... he influenced BMW AG very much ... all the departments. And therefore BMW is mentally ahead of the curve. Being a trend-setter. And how the brand image has also profited form that fact is also amazing.

7.
Sure some design details (re-)introduced in Bangle era has become very trendy - even when initially being criticized due to clumsiness & lack of aesthetic factor. But "the butts", "the eyebrows", "flame-surfacing" (convex-concave panels with sharp creases) etc are now design standard, a mainstream. Not that Bangle & BMW invented them, but they re-introduced these features & made them trendy again. They set trends. And so they made BMW a design leader, a design pioneer. Which will be reconfirmed with BMW i designs - which already do & will further do influence the core BMW design as well.

8.
The future ...
BMW: Further refinement. More detailing. Some BMW-i elements across the line. Mix of organic & techno-design. Special family-specific design elements (eg. X, Z, GT, AT etc) developed further.
MINI: Evolution. Retro is here to stay. Introduction of some contemporary design elements - eg. some sharp line and flame-surfacing here & there, LEDs etc
RR: Refinement & evolution of current designs. More elegance added. Sharper lines. Boxiness is here to stay.

Btw, the avant-garde role of "flame-surfacing" (now a mainstream) will be replaced with a new avant-garde design feature: "layering" ...

IMO that further confirms my thoughts on Bangle. Regardless of what one thinks about him, his legacy is very misunderstood.

Also as I pointed out in my initial post, it's clear that Bangle DID NOT design any of the cars himself. He's the manager, the fall guy, the congratulate guy, that's just how the laws of Managerial go. Still of course doesn't change his influence on the designs themselves.

 

[K-A]

Sigh. Sometimes I think some of you like to deride others who's process of thought you can't comprehend, like a prejudice.

I did a search for "Steve Jobs / Chris Bangle" to see if any other kindred minds came to the same METAPHORICAL (NOT LITERAL PEOPLE, JEEZ) conclusion.

This is pertaining to a different dynamic, i.e Bangle apparently being sourced by Samsung in 2011, and in this Wall Street Journal (that's right, WSJ arrived at a similar metaphorical conclusion, suck it) article, they ask the same question.... albeit in a different way

​

• October 7, 2011, 4:19 PM​

Is Chris Bangle Samsung’s Steve Jobs?​

​

By Kyong-Ae Choi​

​

One of the legacies of Steve Jobs is without doubt the elevation of the importance of design in technology. Before Mr. Jobs came along, technology lived in dull square boxes.​

​

Courtesy Herald Media​

Chris Bangle​

As they seek to emulate the aesthetic achievements of Apple, tech companies across the world have been investing more in design and giving key positions to designers.

Samsung Electronics, now facing allegations of copying designs from Apple, is no exception and in March contracted former BMW styling head Chris Bangle as a master designer. The 55-year-old American will work with Samsung on specific projects, rather than being a member of the in-house team. Samsung Electronics has seven design centers in as many countries, home to 1,200 designers.​

Mr. Bangle and Samsung are tight-lipped about what exactly he’ll be doing for company, but Mr. Bangle said he is “definitely” not working on mobile phones or tablet computing devices.​

In 2009 Mr. Bangle left BMW after spending 17 years there as design director and now runs a design consulting company. Mr. Bangle is known as one of the world’s three renowned car designers, alongside Volkswagen design head Walter Maria de Silva and Kia chief design officer Peter Schreyer.​

“What I left was being inside the car company. I didn’t really leave the car industry because I have clients now from the car industry,” he told reporters in downtown Seoul.​

There are two parts to what car design is about: drawing the cars and being the manager to make sure the right cars get designed, he said.​

“The first job, you can do it as consulting (but) you have to be in the company for the second job,” he said, appearing to allude to the need for design to be a top management priority.​

 

[Gianclaudio]

Apple has been very important in taking good design to the masses, but that article is wrong in telling technology used to live in "dull square boxes"

Just ask Braun.....

 

[K-A]

Apple has been very important in taking good design to the masses, but that article is wrong in telling technology used to live in "dull square boxes"

Just ask Braun.....

Shhhhh mannnnn, Apple has to get credit for that ALL of that work.

 

[Giannis]

Objectified. It's a design documentary and it features Bangle. Find it and watch it. You will learn a lot about design.

 

[Mr. Mercedes]

Apart from the blatantly OBVIOUS agenda of the original post, at least it resulted in a very interesting post by Eni.

Eni, if you have the time I have four questions:

1. Can you shed more light on the dispute between Bangle and Adrian in respect of the 'i' cars and how this may have been a contributing factor to his departure? What was his vision for BMW 'i' and how did this dffer from Adrians? Did the board get behind Adrian rather than Bangle?

2. While I keep on hearing that the current design trend BMW is going through is refinement, I see VERY little carried over from the Bangle BMW's. Sure there are design details that have been retained, but the simplicity, proportions etc. are far more in line with the classic pre bangle BMW's than those that he is often credited for, E65 onwards. To me it appears more of an about face on his design direction than actual refinement, even if the current boss (Adrian) was his sidekick all along and the designer of the E65.

Perhaps I simply can't see deep enough into the current lines and proportions of the attractive, yet sometimes overly conservative, range of current BMW's to see what Bangleness has been retained and refined? The only 2 cars I perhaps see the influence are the Z4, arguably the most beautiful BMW, and 1-series, arguably the ugliest. Are you able to shed any light on this?

3. Will BMW be going avantgarde again? The current classic design theme is obviously serving them well in most markets, so will they be pushing the envelope again at the risk of alienating customers again in the hope of attaining new ones?

4. Somewhat tied into question 3, Do you have any insider insight into the 'Chinese' design aesthetic which major manufacturers will obviiously be catering to in the decade to come? Do the Chinese respond to avant-garde Bangle like designs or do they prefer the more conservative classic approach? Where will the obvious need to satisfy the Chinese market be taking desing to next, specifically at BMW?

 

[Hofmeister]

4. Somewhat tied into question 3, Do you have any insider insight into the 'Chinese' design aesthetic which major manufacturers will obviiously be catering to in the decade to come? Do the Chinese respond to avant-garde Bangle like designs or do they prefer the more conservative classic approach? Where will the obvious need to satisfy the Chinese market be taking desing to next, specifically at BMW?

All that I know about Chinese car tastes is that they dislike very angular designs like Cadillacs, if this is of any help
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/us-gm-china-cadillac-idUSBRE8A41F020121105

 

[EnI]

Apart from the blatantly OBVIOUS agenda of the original post, at least it resulted in a very interesting post by Eni.

Eni, if you have the time I have four questions:

1. Can you shed more light on the dispute between Bangle and Adrian in respect of the 'i' cars and how this may have been a contributing factor to his departure? What was his vision for BMW 'i' and how did this dffer from Adrians? Did the board get behind Adrian rather than Bangle?

My sources told me Bangle was ready to go completely wild with the BMW is cars, while AvH opposed such decision. More or less AvH won the argument, got the board behind his view, and it was clear AvH's visions had better support within board. I guess that give Chris a clue his era @ BMW is over - after all the work has been done (except the BMW i). But mind Bangle was destined to go due to Rule 60 anyway (BMW chiefs are required to left top position @ age 60).

2. While I keep on hearing that the current design trend BMW is going through is refinement, I see VERY little carried over from the Bangle BMW's. Sure there are design details that have been retained, but the simplicity, proportions etc. are far more in line with the classic pre bangle BMW's than those that he is often credited for, E65 onwards. To me it appears more of an about face on his design direction than actual refinement, even if the current boss (Adrian) was his sidekick all along and the designer of the E65.

Proportions have more to do with platform: chassis & body frame. Designers just dress the frame. If the frame is ill-proportioned, the dress (sheet metal design) can't produce miracles.

Regarding "Bangle" designs details: "Bangle-butt" is still there yet refined (6er), flame surfacing (tons of convex-concave body panels) still there, eyebrows still there, shark-fin antenna still there etc. But all better implemented.

Simplicity - the refinement was announced in advance. Eg. even some Bangle cars were already transitional: eg. E92/3 3er coupe & cabrio & E70 X5 ... not to mention the LCIs - especially the 7er.

Perhaps I simply can't see deep enough into the current lines and proportions of the attractive, yet sometimes overly conservative, range of current BMW's to see what Bangleness has been retained and refined? The only 2 cars I perhaps see the influence are the Z4, arguably the most beautiful BMW, and 1-series, arguably the ugliest. Are you able to shed any light on this?

"Overly conservative" compared to what? The Bangle-era BMWs? Sure - the step back was planned & announced in advance. Yet compared to the other cars on the market BMWs are hardly conservative-looking. But sure compared to fresh Bangled cars the contemporary BMWs look much less avantgarde.And it's against BMW long-term design strategy to introduce revolutionary designs with every new generation. Expect 3rd or 4rd generation to be more different.

3. Will BMW be going avantgarde again? The current classic design theme is obviously serving them well in most markets, so will they be pushing the envelope again at the risk of alienating customers again in the hope of attaining new ones?

Avantgarde is now reserved for BMW i cars more or less. Sure some elements will trickle down to regular BMWs but do not expect radical moves in regular BMW design. With BMW i brand introduction BMW get the dedicated experimental design lab ... so no need to experiment within core BMW line.

Yet there will be more experimenting with details (eg. grille, H's kink, headlights & rear lights graphics etc). Even some very avant-garde & modern features coming. While proportions & side profiles & lines will stay more or less conventional & sporty-elegant. No zig-zag lines ala MB is introducing lately. No design experiments on core lines anymore.

But sure there are some more daring actions especially on low-end models targeting younger crowd, and on sporty cars (ala Z-family) and on some niche cars like cross-overs (like GTs & SACs etc).

4. Somewhat tied into question 3, Do you have any insider insight into the 'Chinese' design aesthetic which major manufacturers will obviiously be catering to in the decade to come? Do the Chinese respond to avant-garde Bangle like designs or do they prefer the more conservative classic approach? Where will the obvious need to satisfy the Chinese market be taking desing to next, specifically at BMW?

Regarding the record high sales in China & Audi success there the Chinese obviously like the current more BMW & Audi designs.

 

[K-A]

My sources told me Bangle was ready to go completely wild with the BMW is cars, while AvH opposed such decision. More or less AvH won the argument, got the board behind his view, and it was clear AvH's visions had better support within board. I guess that give Chris a clue his era @ BMW is over - after all the work has been done (except the BMW i). But mind Bangle was destined to go due to Rule 60 anyway (BMW chiefs are required to left top position @ age 60).




Proportions have more to do with platform: chassis & body frame. Designers just dress the frame. If the frame is ill-proportioned, the dress (sheet metal design) can't produce miracles.

Regarding "Bangle" designs details: "Bangle-butt" is still there yet refined (6er), flame surfacing (tons of convex-concave body panels) still there, eyebrows still there, shark-fin antenna still there etc. But all better implemented.

Simplicity - the refinement was announced in advance. Eg. even some Bangle cars were already transitional: eg. E92/3 3er coupe & cabrio & E70 X5 ... not to mention the LCIs - especially the 7er.



"Overly conservative" compared to what? The Bangle-era BMWs? Sure - the step back was planned & announced in advance. Yet compared to the other cars on the market BMWs are hardly conservative-looking. But sure compared to fresh Bangled cars the contemporary BMWs look much less avantgarde.And it's against BMW long-term design strategy to introduce revolutionary designs with every new generation. Expect 3rd or 4rd generation to be more different.





Avantgarde is now reserved for BMW i cars more or less. Sure some elements will trickle down to regular BMWs but do not expect radical moves in regular BMW design. With BMW i brand introduction BMW get the dedicated experimental design lab ... so no need to experiment within core BMW line.

Yet there will be more experimenting with details (eg. grille, H's kink, headlights & rear lights graphics etc). Even some very avant-garde & modern features coming. While proportions & side profiles & lines will stay more or less conventional & sporty-elegant. No zig-zag lines ala MB is introducing lately. No design experiments on core lines anymore.

But sure there are some more daring actions especially on low-end models targeting younger crowd, and on sporty cars (ala Z-family) and on some niche cars like cross-overs (like GTs & SACs etc).




Regarding the record high sales in China & Audi success there the Chinese obviously like the current more BMW & Audi designs.

Considering Bangle obviously oversaw the entire F01/F10 design process, and how you're saying he wanted to stay wild while AVH was more in tune with the "refinement process" of conservatism.... do you know if Bangle has any hard feelings toward the current design idiom which he oversaw (F01/F10), or are they very much his ideas and passion-projects just as much as the E60 gen were?

I figure if a revolutionary designer like Chris Bangle was head of BMW design while they entered the "refinement phase" of F01/F10, then he very much would have controlled just how those designs came out, or were they balanced out by way of some internal conflict? I.e One part Bangle's "keep it wild" and one part AVH/Boards "go back to conservatism"?

Either way, the children of such a dichotomy if it were indeed that way sure benefited from the "both worlds" approach.

Funny you mention about the intricate sheet metal on the "conservative" models now. I'm about to go into my "F10" thread and post about how when I was scanning my doors for door dings (an OCD ritual I have), I thought I saw a dent right after the front door (at the beginning of the rear door, just under the strong character line). I was about lose it until I went to the other side of the car and noticed the same thing. Turns out they bend the sheet-metal at that area so it "evens out" with the front door. Very complex stuff disguised as simple/clean work. Nicely done. On my E-Class the lines were so hard cut and angular you made no mistake about where the "sheetmetal joints" were, this one is a lot trickier, yet is made to look a lot less tricky. Some of those bendy surfaces can fool you into thinking the metal isn't straight (i.e "dented"), when in reality that's its whole purpose: "Flame Surfacing", albeit not as desperately blatant as some manufacturers are ripping it off (cough).

 

[marley71]

The photo is not mine, I've pilfered it from somewhere on the internet eons ago.

I don't know who is responsible for it, but every time that I am fortunate enough to see a Z4 coupe, the 3.0, not the M, I'm thankful. Not since the Zagato DB4GT have I been so compelled by a car, and to think that it was produced in my lifetime and that it is within the reach of mere mortals like me...well, thank you, thank you, thank you!

 

[EnI]

Considering Bangle obviously oversaw the entire F01/F10 design process, and how you're saying he wanted to stay wild while AVH was more in tune with the "refinement process" of conservatism.... do you know if Bangle has any hard feelings toward the current design idiom which he oversaw (F01/F10), or are they very much his ideas and passion-projects just as much as the E60 gen were?

I figure if a revolutionary designer like Chris Bangle was head of BMW design while they entered the "refinement phase" of F01/F10, then he very much would have controlled just how those designs came out, or were they balanced out by way of some internal conflict? I.e One part Bangle's "keep it wild" and one part AVH/Boards "go back to conservatism"?

I was talking about BMW i design, not the core BMW brand design.
It was about BMW i whether to go completely wild & revolutionary, or not.
Obviously what we can see on i8 & i3 is quite moderate.
Now imagine wilder designs.

The core BMW design was never the issue. You got it wrong ... perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

 

[SCOTT27]

The Vision ConnectedDrive concept portrays how the next generation of BMW'S will look in the case of minimalist surface work and intricate detailing , under the term "layering" the main work will not be as wild and dramatic with lines submitted wherever there is a clean sheet of metal it will be clean , technical and very modern, Unlike the CLA which I have seen in a holding garage here in Detroit. On dark colors the prominence is hidden but on the white example the detailing is all too prominent. Then you have the Lexus IS which I had hoped would look better in real life but it does not Then the new Infiniti which is aiming at those who were disappointed the F10 5er was not an evolution of the E60.

Stay informed for the big reveals at the NAIAS.

 

[K-A]

I was talking about BMW i design, not the core BMW brand design.
It was about BMW i whether to go completely wild & revolutionary, or not.
Obviously what we can see on i8 & i3 is quite moderate.
Now imagine wilder designs.

The core BMW design was never the issue. You got it wrong ... perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Sorry.

Ahh OK. Do you have any personal thoughts as to how it seems his "legacy" via the public perception seems to be tied solely to the E65 gen, as if people almost refuse to believe or credit him for overseeing the F10 gen? I just think it's quite intersting considering unless there being internal strife, it would be just as much "his" as the E60 gen would be.

 

[Giannis]

Thread cleaned.

People, read the forum rules, mind your language, put in your ignore list those that you just can't stand and respect the fact that we are here to discuss cars and not to fight each other. We visit this site every day expecting to learn something new, not to go through tons of nonsense.

Grow up.

Seriously.

Any other off-topic posts will be deleted without any further warning.

 

[Wolfgang]

Some words of wisdom from the bearded one?

The auto industry's inability to look at itself objectively is stifling progress, says Chris Bangle, the influential BMW design guru who left in 2009 to establish his own independent design studio.

In an interview with Automotive News Europe Bangle said car designers are stuck in a phase he terms "mannerism," relying on much the same approaches and elements that they have in the past.

"There is a real need for a change and that's just not happening," he said.

In Bangle's opinion, many designers talk about innovation, but nobody is really doing it. "Even concept cars today simply anticipate the next production model coming down the line. Is this innovation? No. And at the end of the day this is what's preventing car design from moving into a new era."

He confirms he has offers to become design director at some automakers, but has turned them down every time. "Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong." While he loved working for BMW, "you have to know when to leave the party."

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-auto-design-is-stuck-in-a-rut#ixzz2dRmeSIsX

 

[Wolfgang]

Agree with this article. And please no further 7-series Bangle Butt incarnations. Pretty please.




No longer working in the automotive industry since he quit BMW back in 2009, controversial designer Chris Bangle says current car designers are stuck in past designs and lack innovation, although many of them talk about moving in to the future quite often.

"Even concept cars today simply anticipate the next production model coming down the line. Is this innovation? No. And at the end of the day this is what's preventing car design from moving into a new era," Bangle told Automotive News.

While we agree that most present-day auto designers are rather dull, we certainly don’t wish to see another car fitted with the infamous “Bangle Butt” seen on the fourth-generation BMW 7 Series.

Now working for his own company, Chris Bangle Associates, the American designer says he has turned down several offers to become head of design at a number of automakers. “Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong,” he added.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/auto-design-lacks-innovation-says-bangle-66094.html

 

[klier]

The Bangle butt is a creation of BMW's current head of design, though

 

[mini_cooper4]

The Bangle butt is a creation of BMW's current head of design, though

And was adapted by many... hmmm can't remember which exactly