Before its intro in Europe some time back, I found this a fun and interesting looking addition to the small car ranks.
Now being promoted for 2010 roll out in USA, its little more than an oversized formal allusion to the old Fiat 500 (as is the new Mini to the old Mini) coupled with an uninspired pastiche of visual tricks and cues.
Starting at the front with the sausage beveled fascia, and working back through all manner of localized surface angles and curves that seem to have almost nothing to do with one another, and nothing at all to do with the old Fiat 500, I get the feeling that the car has been Starcked--my coined phrase for an allusion-packed conceit of a car that does not really organically advance car design in any new direction at all...except toward allusion packed conceits, if you will. No basic new form organic to the chassis. No surface details evolving logically out of the overall form. No working out of a design problem from the inside out. Not even a thorough working out of a design problem from surface to surface. Just an attempt to take something old, and make it new again (not a bad thing in and of itself) by stealing and inflating the old form, then putting a sausage bevel on the front to conform to current EU saftey requirements, then surface tricks to maneuver the eye, or more accurately, the advertisers camera, over the surface for pictures.
What makes it work for you?
Seriously, I want to know. This car is very hot right now. It has won some awards. So what works for you?
The baloney sliced front?
The asymmetry in front and back over-hangs?
The awkward handling of the front license plate mounting?
The placement of the driving lights at a place where even a minor parking lot bump shatters the lens?
The pointless indentation of the bottom of the doors to achieve a character line where salt and road grime can collect over time and thus perpetuate the tradition of Italian cars rusting to pieces of shit after three weeks of ownership?
Or is it the annoyingly asymmentric placement of the door handles between the two character lines on the upper part of the doors?
These are the things that have come to bug me about the car, after I initially fell in love with it.
But so far as I know, at present I am the only one to fall out of love with this car (some disliked it from the beginning, of course). So: I am interested in what is keeping others in love with it?
I confess...
I've always loved Dick Teague's AMC Pacer, not the chassis and engine, or build quality, but the styling. I love it. And I think it is in any conventional sense of design language impressively articulate. I would much sooner buy a contempo-retro version of the Pacer, than the Mini, or Fiat 500 re-takes, if the performance and quality were made equal.
The Pacer updated the streamline language to the 70s in what I think remains a timeless design.
But so far in small cars, buyers prefer cute, to streamline, and so we must endure the Minis and the Fiat 500s.
To me, the Pacer is still the most sensible and best looking small car ever designed, though it had, unfortunately, to be inflated up to the size it was, because AMC could not afford to build a separate small car platform intended originally by Teague. It looks absurd, because its proportions grew to big for the look in scaling it up to the big platform.
And, by the way, just so you know I am not a total heathen about small cars, I really like a lot of the small Alfas and Peugeots over the years.
People who cannot see the beauty of the Pacer, also generally cannot see the beauty of the old Citroen DS series either. Both were great and shockingly unconventional styling efforts. Alas, the Citroen got a pretty good car under the skin, and the Pacer did not.
It may not occur while I am alive, but sooner or later the Pacer will become recognized as exceptionally well styled.
subjective....
d.c. you obviously hate this car and this your right..... but its kind of silly to ask someone what they like about the car and then rattle off possible things in derogatory and damning terms.... essentially implying they are stupid if they like it.
way to encourage participation in your thread.
bye.
. . .
. . . little more than an oversized formal allusion. . . an uninspired pastiche of visual tricks and cues . . . sausage beveled fascia . . . all manner of localized surface angles and curves. . . almost nothing to do with one another, and nothing at all to do with. . . Starcked -- allusion-packed conceit . . . not really organically advance car design in any new direction at all...except toward allusion packed conceits . . . No basic new form . . . No surface details evolving logically out of the overall form . . . No working out of a design problem . . . Not even a thorough working out of . . . Just an attempt to stealing and inflating a sausage bevel . . . surface tricks . . .
"Methinks he doth protest too much !" (Shakespeare, innit ?}
So . . . what is a sausage bevel ?
Looks a lot better than the...
Looks a lot better than the Ford Ka (built on the same platform)
Saw one in a metalic brown the other day with the italian stripes down the sides looked very nice, not keen on thepastel colours
I'd still pay extra for the mini, when it comes to cars german only please 🙂
SDR addendum...
Sausage bevel is a term used in car mags by some auto journalists. It refers to a part of a curved body shape on a car rather arbitarily sliced flat, as is the nose of the Fiat 500. In this case, the beveling was used to achieve compliance with EU rules seeking to make cars less injurious to pedestrians in impacts. Another example of the term's usage would be for the recent Cadillac styling, e.g., the Cadillac CTS. Thanks for asking. 😉
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com