Car Design - Evolution, revolution or plagerism?

[Tornado]

AND NO OTHER CARS HAVE THIS

The Camry M-Spec posted quite clearly has that.

That's my point - people are copying the GOOD parts of Bangle's design - i.e., the Volvo bits - and NOT the bad parts - the separation of the taillights and the stupid trunk. Do you understand now?!

The problem is that they are not only copying the Volvo bits. They are also copying the plunging lines that wrap around the back and flow into the trunk. The Volvo did not have that. Both the original and refreshened BMW 7-series have that, as does the new Camry and the Acura RL (which also does have the seperation of the tailights from the trunk). What I am trying (and what I think M-Spec was trying to say) was that the seperation of the tailights and the trunk is not the only thing that makes the Bangle rear end different from the S60's. There are many more minute details that are copied in full by various other manafacturers.

 

[1X83Z]

The Camry M-Spec posted quite clearly has that.

Once he edited the photo to remove the taillights! Until then it was pure Volvo. Anyone with eyes can see that.

They are also copying the plunging lines that wrap around the back and flow into the trunk.

Simply not accurate.

 

[Tornado]

Once he edited the photo to remove the taillights! Until then it was pure Volvo. Anyone with eyes can see that.

How in hell does the Camry not have a the trunk cut mounted directly above the taillights? The current 7-series is the exact same way, despite having tailights that extend into the trunk.



Toyota copied it to the letter, only adding a poor crease to the fender as it curves down to try to make it look vertical. It still curves smoothly horizontally, however. Nor does it share any other elements with the Volvo other than the gap:

Honda did a far better job of hiding it's BMW influence, and nearly looks original:

​

Simply not accurate.

Oh really? Because simply looking at them tells you that the 7-series, Toyota Camry and Acura RL all have rounded rear ends, despite a hard crease in the edge of the trunk as it drops. The Volvo's is composed of angles in every way that you get to the rear of the car.

 

[1X83Z]

Oh really? Because simply looking at them tells you that the 7-series, Toyota Camry and Acura RL all have rounded rear ends, despite a hard crease in the edge of the trunk as it drops. The Volvo's is composed of angles in every way that you get to the rear of the car.

So the sole feature of the Bangle butt that has been carried into two products is the trunkline which meets the shoulder line? Very influential.

 

[Tornado]

I fail to see where I said it was very influential, but fine:
Hyundai Azera.
Hyundai Sonata.
Nissan Altima (though it is cleverly done).
Lexus LS.
Lexus GS.
Infiniti G35 (albeit smoothed out quite a bit).
Lexus ES350 (albeit also smoothed out quite a bit).

 

[Danny]

I said the M5 deserved lose?!

That's...interesting use of grammar!

I don't think anyone has really copied the Banglisation, or t'other way round. The changes between brand models are significant.

 

[///M-Spec]

Exactly my point...

M

 

[1X83Z]

I fail to see where I said it was very influential, but fine:
Hyundai Azera.
Hyundai Sonata.
Nissan Altima (though it is cleverly done).
Lexus LS.
Lexus GS.
Infiniti G35 (albeit smoothed out quite a bit).
Lexus ES350 (albeit also smoothed out quite a bit).

So now we're up to nine cars each of which possess an extremely minor trait, not definitive of the Bangle butt as the traits M-Spec mentioned are. And four of the vehicles barely even possess such a trait. Yes, this is sweeping the automotive community like wildfire. You'll notice M-Spec only got the Camry to look like Bangle's design when he Photoshopped the picture.

 

[///M-Spec]

In my view, the Bangle butt has been used on zero cars outside BMW products and I'm still waiting for someone to show me differently*. Bangle invents the trash that goes on BMW products. I just hate how everyone is trying to show how his design themes are getting into other cars. They're just not*.

* All emphasis mine.


M

 

[1X83Z]

* All emphasis mine.


M

You realize that based on your (poor) definition of the Bangle butt back in the other thread, I'm still correct, and it wasn't until he changed the definition to make it broader did we finally find a small amount of "copycats."

 

[Tornado]

Yes, this is sweeping the automotive community like wildfire. You'll notice M-Spec only got the Camry to look like Bangle's design when he Photoshopped the picture.

I still find it rather comical that you are so centered on the taillights still when I already showed you how similar the refreshened 7-series looks to the new Camry.

 

[Flame-returns]

When I see the Fiat Coupé I think Alfa GTV (1996 and upwards)

In terms of shape they are two very similar cars. When the GTV was out Alfa Romeo were owned by Fiat and the GTV was based on a heavily modified Fiat Tipo platform. Both the GTV and the Fiat had interiors designed by Pininfarina.

 

[niky]

So the sole feature of the Bangle butt that has been carried into two products is the trunkline which meets the shoulder line? Very influential.

Bangle-butts are clearly becoming more and more enmeshed in mainstream design, whether or not any of us actually like it.

The difference in design language between Volvo's stepped rear end and BMW's separated rear end is very clear. Volvo's is well-defined, an architectural sort of delineation between curve and line. But besides that very distinctive and Volvo-ish S-curve that rides the flanks and terminates abruptly at the rear end, Volvo's rear end is downright traditional.

Bangle's design language is more organic, challenging us aesthetically by breaking up the vehicle in ways that we are not familiar with and oftentimes not comfortable with. It's not just attaching the trunkline to the shoulder line, it's detaching the trunk from the rest of the car, and reshaping it in an unfamiliar way.

Of course no one is going to copy BMW directly... but now that Bangle's bashed us over the head and has softened our affection for square butts, design at the rear end is getting a bit more fluid, all around. Of course, there have been round butts before, but no one was rushing out there to copy the Lexus SC's bulbous and shapeless rear-end. That was too timid... too conservative.

------

RE: The Audi Grille

Lots of designers have been struggling to cope, trying to find ways to hide all the holes that the massive amounts of cooling air many modern engines demand. After VAG came out with the "Audi Grille" and the "VW Goatee", I think a lot of them breathed a sigh of relief... there you go! Someone else has finally done it! Chuck out that ghastly, complicated lower bumper and the vented hood... we'll just stick a huge hole in front of the car.

-----

But neither of these things can be called "firsts"... if anything can, anymore. Cars used to be dominated by grilles like that, even before full-width fenders. They also used to have trunks like that, separated from the body in design and concept (back when they were actual trunks!).

Flame surfacing? As controversial as it was, the idea harkens back to when cars had actual shape, instead of being skins wrapped around the same basic body shapes. Heck, in the Z4, it's as if the car is just asking to have actual wing fenders instead of creases... But the "mark of Zorro" on the side is truly distinctive, as is the idea of having geometric relationships to the surfaces that extend beyond the car.

Every designer has this great big pool to draw from in working on car designs... it's the ability to synthesize this, to filter out what's there and find something that actually works that's the trick.

 

[///M-Spec]

You realize that based on your (poor) definition of the Bangle butt back in the other thread, I'm still correct, and it wasn't until he changed the definition to make it broader did we finally find a small amount of "copycats."

Don't change the subject and don't change your argument just to suit the facts every time you get proven wrong. It's not about my definition. If I say a goose is similar to a swan because they both have the same beaks (ignoring any other feature they might have in common), that doesn't mean they don't look similar.

And Toronado didn't change the definition. He did a great job expanding on what I wrote, which was also correct --none of the features he pointed out contradicts what I drew.

The Camry has a Bangle Butt. Period. It doesn't matter that they covered it with lights. As was pointed out, the redesigned 7 is also covered with lights, but it is still the same basic design.


M

 

[High-Test]

The Audi grille is totally ripped off of the early 1960s Studebaker Lark. You can't deny it. I am the Voice of Reason.


[img=http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7861/1960studebakerlarkconvecu1.th.jpg]

 

[Philly]

Wikipedia has an article on this styling feature.

Bangle Butt

 

[Metar]

Anyone cares for a revival of the thread?

I'm bringing up the subject of Citroen, particularily the new line which started, I think, around 2004.

Citroens used to be the edge of technology in the 60s, and were also known for very good designs, from the simple 2CV:

To the DS:

Even in the 80s, the boxy-shaped BX managed to attract my attention as a child (though, that was the 90s, but the car was very popular here), and I think it actually came out pretty good:

The ZX, which came in the early 90s, looked OK-ish. It was very similar to the 306, but there were small details which made the ZX look worse than the 306 - the paralel edges of the headlights and the square taillights look worse than the 306's lights, but other than that they're very similar (my family owned both).

Late 90s were, in my opinion, a dark era for the Citroens. I've never really liked the designs of those. They just seemed so bland, you could easilly mistake them for a wall. The headlights just seemed to scream "Daewoo" to me...

The Xsara, which looked like thin air, is a good example: You could ignore it and never miss a thing.

Yet, I somehow like those sharpy headlights they have now:

The C6, supposedly so pretty that Jaques Chiraque ordered one before it was officially launched. I really like the small, XK-esque lights, and the double smooth line which integrates the emblem.

That line also repeated itself on other cars, such as the C5:

And the C4:

On the C4, kinda like the Megane, they created that sharp-angled hatch. It's a pretty daring design, in my opinion, which can easily fail. I didn't like the way Renault executed it, but Citroen's came out nicely, mainly because it wasn't overly exaggarated. I mean, the angle is sharper on the C4, yet the lower part doesn't seem so much like a butt (it doesn't stick out as much). On the Megane, it just made the car look a little too fat and heavy, compared to the C4, where it makes the car seem shorter and sportier:
I prefered the previous-gen Megane Coupe

So, what are your opinions regarding this, at least in Israel, very controversial design-line? Many magazines around here described the current Citroen lineup as butt-ugly, yet others seem to like it. I like it, since it gives the car a fresh look.

 

[rovens]

I like the new Citroen models fomr the C4 down.

 

[Metar]

Actually, thinking about it... A comparison of Peugeot Vs. Citroen designs it a whole subject by itself.

 

[land sea air]

I've always wondered why many cars featured a higher rear end than front end during the late 80s into the mid 90s, Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, Volvo, and Alfa Romeo all featured sedans with a rear belt line that was higher in the rear than in the front, YSSMAN and M5Power might agree since YSS's Jetta,M5's old Volvo, and my 300E all share that trait (I think?). I really like this styling trait and it almost gives the cars a slight wedge feel IMO

 

[niky]

It's a triumph of style over practicality. Why limit rear vision just for a sexier body? It's a pet peeve of mine, and it bugs me every time I drive a "safe" Volvo that I can't see squat out the rear window.

I think the DS is a triumph of styling that can never be repeated... look at those utterly practical windows!

 

[Metar]

I like that long, high hatch as well. It really gives a much sexier body, and also looks sportier than a regular sedan.

The Mazda 6 agrees:

It also has this long hatch which ends up higher than the highest parts up front.

 

[///M-Spec]

I've always wondered why many cars featured a higher rear end than front end during the late 80s into the mid 90s, Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, Volvo, and Alfa Romeo all featured sedans with a rear belt line that was higher in the rear than in the front, YSSMAN and M5Power might agree since YSS's Jetta,M5's old Volvo, and my 300E all share that trait (I think?). I really like this styling trait and it almost gives the cars a slight wedge feel IMO

I can think of two things that benefit from this design trend: trunk capacity goes up and aerodynamics are improved, increasing fuel economy --the higher trunk line allows engineers to manage airflow better at the rear of the car, reducing drag.


M

 

[land sea air]

and I've never had any trouble with rear visibility in my car or in my friends 960 the little I drove it before it got wrecked

 

[1X83Z]

and I've never had any trouble with rear visibility in my car or in my friends 960 the little I drove it before it got wrecked

The 960's trunk was really high compared to the hood, too - perhaps one of the best examples of what you're talking about.

Trivia: for 1998 only, the 960 was called the S90, and the wagon version was called the V90.

 

[land sea air]

how much difference would there be with the 850 and 960? Did you ever have any rear visibility complaints in the Volvo Doug?