BMW F80 M3 Continues Public Testing After Approval

[kueks29]

Originally Posted by Harold Wood

Could we add the M GT as well!

I feel sick...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Harold Wood

Could we add the M GT as well!

It actually looks pretty good, but I think an F81 M3 touring would be much better.

[Uli_HH]

According to this rendering it looks much like the 3er GT was more A5 Sportback-Style than 5er GT-Style ... very much 4-door coupe-style, more than expected - if you call an car like the A5 Sportback an coupe.

BUT it would be much better if BMW/M-GmbH would cancel an car like this and give us real M-fans an real M-worth engine therefor.

Greets Uli_HH

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

According to this rendering it looks much like the 3er GT was more A5 Sportback-Style than 5er GT-Style ... very much 4-door coupe-style, more than expected - if you call an car like the A5 Sportback an coupe.

Agree. Recall that SCOTT has suggested the actual production 3GT may in fact lean more toward the above rendering than the styling direction of the 5GT.

Audi seems to be set on covering these two segments with one body style, while BMW has chosen to do both a Gran Coupe and Gran Touring. I for one think that an A7 and A5 Sportback with a notchback/trunk more like the A5 coupe would look better than the current hatchback designs, but I am sure plenty of others feel differently. I like that BMW has made the 6 GC mirror the 6 coupe, while basing their hatchback on the sedan instead. I think the next 5GT will probably look more like the 3GT is rumored to look, thus becoming a less polarizing car and finding more fans.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

The driver was not bothered by M, in Germany there are laws that prevent people from being secretly photographed without their permission so "spy shots" violate this law. Cameras on the roads for speed are permitted as you acknowledge this when you get a license. This is how it was explained to me anyways.

That's quite inaccurate. What you're mentioning is called "right to own picture". Pursuant to this, it's not allowed to publish a photo of a person without their consent. However, there are exceptions from this clause. It is for example allowed to take a photo of a "scenery" with people shown in it as long as the people are obviously not the main motive for the photo. Also, it's not illegal to shoot these photos, and to avoid even arguing if said exception applied or not it's perfectly fine to publish these photos with the faces of the driver and the occupant(s) blurred.

Finally, speed cameras et al can be a legal issue for other reasons than mentioned above. Authorities surely don't publish these photos to the public.

Sorry all for digressing a bit here.


Best regards,
south

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by southlight

That's quite inaccurate. What you're mentioning is called "right to own picture". Pursuant to this, it's not allowed to publish a photo of a person without their consent. However, there are exceptions from this clause. It is for example allowed to take a photo of a "scenery" with people shown in it as long as the people are obviously not the main motive for the photo. Also, it's not illegal to shoot these photos, and to avoid even arguing if said exception applied or not it's perfectly fine to publish these photos with the faces of the driver and the occupant(s) blurred.

Finally, speed cameras et al can be a legal issue for other reasons than mentioned above. Authorities surely don't publish these photos to the public.

Sorry all for digressing a bit here.


Best regards,
south

Sounds good to me.... as I said I have no idea but that was what I was told by someone (as we discussed before).