Klier, these aren’t “imaginary lines”; they are more so guides, or traces if you will, to where everything originates, is placed, and ends. The in-between is where the designers have chosen to place the sculpted lines. I don’t know who Scott is so I’m not sure if you are trying to insult me. Regardless, many members have already responded with respect to the wheel arch. Its purpose is to give the vehicle a wide stance in the rear, accentuating its stability, strength, and power; just as a menacing animal sits low on its rear legs before launching to take its prey. I too think the W204 has a great side; its side line is lively as it tapers upward, but it is modest. The CLS, however, is way more pretentious and therefore more aesthetically appealing and seductive. Assuming the majority of us on here are men, we all can relate vehicles to women. When a woman has an accentuated figure, one with an hourglass figure with a curvature of body lines, it represents beauty, elegance, and sex appeal. One that is straight does not do as well. The history of the aesthetics of hourglass type female figures dates back to prehistoric times and its raw forms can be seen in body forms of prehistoric sculptures and paintings. Humanity continually proves that the ideal female body is the hourglass figure, which we perennially focus our attention to as the source of aesthetic pleasure and sexual attraction. The same applies to the CLS. If you don’t understand it, well then I suppose some men on this planet are meant to find the straight women more appealing.
KA, you have really proved yourself to this forum and the world. You just outdo yourself with every comment. I sit back with friends and get a good laugh. This one especially took the cherry: “Once again…you seem butt hurt that I'm right.” What is your basis again? Right, you have none, it’s just silly old you. I may not have the same connection to Audi and BMW as much as I do with Mercedes-Benz, but that is not to say I shut myself down arrogantly or do not try to understand their designs. They are just ordinary, described exactly as I said above: designed with a “Point A to Point B” language already connecting the dots for you. What excitement does that bring to any individuals’ mind? It requires no process, no analysis, and no conception. Maybe that’s just my mind thinking as and industrial designer and mechanical engineer; who knows. But I suppose your tenacious little mind isn’t capable of comprehending more than an ordinary design. The amusing thing is that you hated the W212 when it came out, picking at it with the same negative way as you do with any new Mercedes-Benz model. Now you drive a W212 and ‘love it for its unique design’. The facelifted W212 debuts and you ‘hate the ponton fender flare’. That’s odd; you didn’t like it initially on the pre-facelift, then you seemed to comprehend it, and now you don’t like the different rendition of the wheel arch on the facelift E-Class. Can anyone cue the REPEAT button? So you see KA, you are a prime example of history foolishly repeating itself. Everyone has a right to critique a design, but you have the most uninformed and wrongful of intentions. Your issue does not lie with comprehending a design, it’s just you. With the best of intentions, I wish you inner peace.
That is all, utter drivel. You sound like a marketing guy or designer who's mad that someone righteously can pick apart his work.
Some of you guys act as if the CLS is the only car in the world with curvy hips or a "pronounced pose".
You drew imaginary lines as if putting your interpretation on the CLS. Clearly the designers don't agree with you because they didn't draw it that way. They slammed the dropping line into a random point in the door, breaking it up in a haphazard fashion.
Also, I never said I don't like the W212 facelift, again, except for the Star grille. I said it shows that I've been RIGHT all along, M-B designers clearly can't even find their own way, thus can't stand behind their own work.
I love being the villain here because you M-B apologists have no case.... I critique the ACTUAL design of a car and you paint hypothetical and imaginary lines and throw personal attacks at me because I don't see it the same way? LOL.
Funny how you then launch into an "ordinary" tangent against Audi and BMW designs, claiming they don't inspire. I guess a connected design isn't "inspiring" anymore? You really think you need random lines and discordance to the point where you NEED to draw imaginary lines to make sense of it, is needed to find passion from design? I'd say you've been watching M-B's too closely.
