Posted Mar 14th 2005 10:29AM
One big tidbit gleaned from this
Q&A with BMW's Chris Bangle is the fact that he says
BMW is ready to "start again from scratch" in the design department. Oh boy. After constant dissent over the current
state of BMW design, folks were finally settling down with the new 3 Series. Now we have to prepare for something
totally new?
As long as the hardware is BMW-ly build,we can always welcome the new-look.Times change n so things also gotta....................
May 20 2005 at 2:39 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI believe the BMW board is trying to move in the correct direction with bolder designs and moving the designs for each series toward the target group for that series but maintaining a very strong corporate familiarity. We will never see the alternate designs that the board had to choose from but from what I have seen from Bangle's design team I believe they probably picked the best choices. The problem is that Bangle is just trying to make some sort of statement about how he sees the world of design and, as he has stated many times, he doesn't care at all what everyone else thinks or wants. He has made the designs goofy and very fadish with his odd, cartoonish features. I believe BMW will eventually recover from this major design desaster but not without loosing a great many sales and not before Bangle is gone.
March 18 2005 at 8:54 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThe guy's an arrogant jerk. His new design paradigm fails because while individual details work--the way in which a particular lamp edge interacts with a side panel, for instance--the overall shape and theme of each car is incoherent or ill-conceived. The 7 looks heavy, leaden, and anything but dynamic. The front and rear suffer poor proportions and unnecessary tackiness in the shapes of the lamps and grill housing. They look like afterthoughts. The 5 looks like a jumble. The front end is even worse than the 7--it looks tacky. The back looks like it could fall off just aft of the C-pillar and the shapes are just not pleasing to the eye and bottom-heavy. The 3 looks like they chickened out, instead of finding a way to make the design language work. I'm all for aggressive, ground-breaking styling, and in fact year for it, but it should sell the car's capabilities, and look handsome doing it. These cars are all UGLY and that's Bangle's fault.
March 14 2005 at 11:37 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI laugh and cringe every time I see another interview with Chris Bungle. Another name to remember is von Hooydork. It is actually von Hooydork who pens many of the most hideous design pretentions at BMW. Von Hooydork and Bungle belong in the museum of automotive disasters right next to iDrive. With these three losing propositions at BMW, the company is neither a driver's company nor a true car company. It is a style and marketing firm.
March 14 2005 at 8:40 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyJust bring back the E30 M3, in original body with a higher revving inline-4 and I'll be happy..
March 14 2005 at 5:37 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI agree with Joe. This whole BS about the " design paradigm shift" is a prime example of BMW's arrogance. A “design paradigm shift” should be more significant than slapping some tricky surfaces, fussy details on a classic BMW proportioned package. A REAL paradigm shift should be inspired by technology breakthrough, not by the desire to shock nor just to be different.
March 14 2005 at 4:10 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI think Bangle's arrogance is the real problem. Deign snobbery leads to a lack of appreciation of what these cars are supposed to be all about: THE DRIVER! Unfortunately, Mr. Bangle believes it is all about elegance and "bold design statements." Design has become the goal instead of the means to meet the driver's needs and desires, and that's a shame.
March 14 2005 at 2:56 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI would rather have a reporter throwing some high heat and missing sometimes than someone lobbing softballs to car execs all the time. Sure not everyone will agree about a car's stylings (some people even liked the Aztek!), but those decrying Bangle's designs are not an insignificant minority. Bravo to Ciferri for asking the tough questions.
March 14 2005 at 2:26 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI haven't tracked much of this anti-bangle crud in the press, but I didn't look twice at BMWs between the early 80s styling and the new 7 series. Every time I see a 7, I have to change my pants because it is so great looking. It is an exceptionally good looking car. The new 5 is a different story. Bleech.
March 14 2005 at 1:57 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyWhile the journalist had an unprofessional chip on his/her shoulder, that's no excuse for being an arrogant jacka**. His refusal to take responsibility for the design direction of BMW is appalling. Sure, the board of BMW votes and guides, but he's the one who did the designs. Can't you just hear him selling these designs to the board? Regardless, the designs HAVE taken a lot of heat, and BMW refreshed the 7-series significantly earlier in the cycle than on past models. Further, the statements by other BMW execs that the 3-Series design had to appeal to a broader audience is practically an admission that the 7-Series design is, to be polite, a bit out there. Not to mention the fact that Bangle even says that they are starting from scratch with new designs, which says to me that this 'theme' isn't working for them. I also recognize that you can't just go out there and say "sure, we f'ed it up, but we'll fix it next time around." Of course, he's right about the sales figures, but I don't think that speaks to the design issue. I, for one, don't find the 7-Series design particularly attractive. I also don't think Bangle is evil - in fact I think the designs are interesting, incorporating some great concepts and functionality. The 5, 3 and 1 Series are all mostly fine looking. Agreed, that I-Drive is most certainly a fiasco.
March 14 2005 at 1:14 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply
