Why BMW design matters

[icebiker]

I agree with zamboni … To quote Sesame Street…(sing it now)…"one of these things is not like the other … " 😀

[M3JetPilot]

Originally Posted by icebiker

I agree with zamboni … To quote Sesame Street…(sing it now)…"one of these things is not like the other … " 😀

When you see the progression like this I don't get how anyone could possibly think this is what an M3 should be. Prior to this redesign there was absolutely no call for a massive grill. Even those who like it are getting use to a look they wouldn't have imagined when the last F80 came off the production line. The new grill is shockingly coarse and unrefined. Even worse it's unnecessary. Hopefully designers will eventually move away from this grill nonsense.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

When you see the progression like this I don't get how anyone could possibly think this is what an M3 should be. Prior to this redesign there was absolutely no call for a massive grill. Even those who like it are getting use to a look they wouldn't have imagined when the last F80 came off the production line. The new grill is shockingly coarse and unrefined. Even worse it's unnecessary. Hopefully designers will eventually move away from this grill nonsense.

Who's to say a radical design departure is bad for design? There have been examples of subjective design improvements with radical departures as well as subjective failures. If something is subjectively attractive or unattractive, it is judged on its own characteristics, not on the departure from older generations.

Audi has done the exact same thing with their entire line going from small grills with the B7 to the bigger B8 grill. There was a similar pushback with with the Audi enthusiasts (I was one of them) but now it's an Audi staple. In this case, radical departure was a success.

Now, if you want to say that the G80, is not subjectively attractive that's fine, but it's not because design should be progressive and not departures. This is a case, in one's opinion, that this was an unsuccessful attempt.

Regardless, the BMW 303 actually does set a precedent for big grills. From a different perspective, the small grill is the departure, not the big grill.

One can certainly question the validity of a design element if functionality is questionable, but aesthetic beauty and function are two separate characteristics. Something isn't necessarily not subjectively beautiful because of its function, but it can certainly enhance it's validity. Does that make sense?

However, the big grill actually does have function. The M3/4 requires a lot of cooling and the bigger opening improves airflow. It also provides a place for the sensors to live in what I am guessing is an optimal location. They can "hide" these sensors within the large grill without sacrificing airflow. Does the functionality make it beautiful? Not necessarily, as such, the lack of functionally doesn't make it unattractive either. Again, two different characteristics that are independent of one another.

[M3JetPilot]

jmg, good thoughts. I accept that function sometimes necessitates radical design. I also accept that something radical in design can also be elegant. The problem is neither of these are true about BMW's new designs. The idea that this grill size and shape is required is false. Sensors and air flow could have been accommodated with any number of designs. Function does not validate a form. In addition, the argument that the 303 inspired this is somewhat weak. This current design does not resemble anything BMW has done in the past. Sure it's bigger but look at the form of the 303. Clean, smooth lines proportional to the overall shape and body of the style of the time. The new grill has none of that. It looks like it was pasted on with no thought given to continuity with the rest of the car. It also appears as if each grill has 7 sides to it, and even that isn't well defined. It's like it's constantly changing direction in an attempt to make a circle.

jmg, in your opinion do you think this design becomes a classic look and carries BMW into the future?

[R N M]

So sad that G8x is such a hideous design.
The pig nose grill, Charger hood, fake vents, shiny black trim underneath- its just truly unbelievable how far they had to go from F8x which was universally praised for its amazing styling.

The new “iX” models are even more frightening.
BMW brand has become a laughingstock on other forums. Let’s not even get to the interior with the stick-on Tesla Ipad with idiotic gauges.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by jmg

Who's to say a radical design departure is bad for design? There have been examples of subjective design improvements with radical departures as well as subjective failures. If something is subjectively attractive or unattractive, it is judged on its own characteristics, not on the departure from older generations.

Audi has done the exact same thing with their entire line going from small grills with the B7 to the bigger B8 grill. There was a similar pushback with with the Audi enthusiasts (I was one of them) but now it's an Audi staple. In this case, radical departure was a success.

Now, if you want to say that the G80, is not subjectively attractive that's fine, but it's not because design should be progressive and not departures. This is a case, in one's opinion, that this was an unsuccessful attempt.

Regardless, the BMW 303 actually does set a precedent for big grills. From a different perspective, the small grill is the departure, not the big grill.

One can certainly question the validity of a design element if functionality is questionable, but aesthetic beauty and function are two separate characteristics. Something isn't necessarily not subjectively beautiful because of its function, but it can certainly enhance it's validity. Does that make sense?

However, the big grill actually does have function. The M3/4 requires a lot of cooling and the bigger opening improves airflow. It also provides a place for the sensors to live in what I am guessing is an optimal location. They can "hide" these sensors within the large grill without sacrificing airflow. Does the functionality make it beautiful? Not necessarily, as such, the lack of functionally doesn't make it unattractive either. Again, two different characteristics that are independent of one another.

The pig nose grill didn’t need to exist and doesn’t improve cooling. You have the crash bar running in the middle of it and then most ppl will run the plates there.

That’s the other thing - a company touts a design element and then puts a giant plate that covers half of it and that the pic used for the promo materials lol That is just epic failure 👎 Good design doesn’t need to be proven- we all can recognize it.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by R N M

The pig nose grill didn’t need to exist and doesn’t improve cooling. You have the crash bar running in the middle of it and then most ppl will run the plates there.

You're right, it doesn't really need to, but it does anyway, and that's partly why I came to like it.


I think it does improve cooling in the sense that they needed a bigger opening that wasn't so wide as to disrupt the airflow around the car. So it had to be somewhat narrow. The front radiators and heat exchangers are quite large. See images attached. The bigger the opening, the better the airflow, and the more efficient the cooling. The optimal shape would be a large oval in the middle of the car between the headlights. The more traditional design would need to adhere to a top and bottom design that we see in the F80 (kidneys on top, bar in middle, opening on bottom), but that would mean that the cowling for the bar would have to be designed around the license plate. A body color painted cowl, aesthetically, would have to be bigger than the plate, similar to the F80's so as to not look awkwardly thin. If you compare that to the current G80 design (see attached photo), integrating the crash bar into the design of the larger grill, you no longer have to back the license plate with a body color painted cowl. You can instead make it as thin as allowed for the crash bar, instead of being dependent on the height of the plate. With the F80, the design elements to visually integrate the center car, while aesthetically pleasing, creates disturbances in the airflow into the grill. The G80 design, however, need no such elements are needed since its made to appear as 2 large grills instead of 3 grills separated by a bar. The airflow is more efficient without these additional design elements.

Originally Posted by R N M

That’s the other thing - a company touts a design element and then puts a giant plate that covers half of it and that the pic used for the promo materials lol That is just epic failure �� Good design doesn’t need to be proven- we all can recognize it.

Let's be honest, most people will run without the plate, but I agree, I don't know why the promotional material has the license plates. Bugatti and Alfa Romeo don't run plates in front of their large grills in promos.


In the end, I really can't argue about the subjective aesthetic design of the grill. It's all subjective. I can only really present a case when objective qualifiers are being used to justify a subjective opinion ie function. It doesn't even really matter if it's functional or not if we are talking about how ugly it is. Ugly is ugly whether it's useful or not. If it's functional, it doesn't make it less ugly, it just might make someone overlook aesthetics in favor of function and vice versa–something that is ugly AND has no valuable function is 2 strikes. However, function does not define ugly, it's just a separate factor.

Keep in mind, I love the F80. I hated how the G80 looked. However, the more I looked at it, the more I recognized its charms. It started to look more radical rather than ostentatious. I like it because it's so weird. Then again, I also drive an i3.

[zamboni]

The new design of G80 generate more heat than F80, instead of improve air flow the design team decided to go with bigger front end to cool the engine. That's not innovation it's cover up the poor design they made during the product development, if Biermann still with M division we would not end up with the current M cars period.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

It looks like it was pasted on with no thought given to continuity with the rest of the car. It also appears as if each grill has 7 sides to it, and even that isn't well defined. It's like it's constantly changing direction in an attempt to make a circle.

Actually, the flat portions of the grill are defined by each surface of the front of the car–its a direct connection to the continuity of the car. See the attached pic where I highlighted these surfaces. I find it quite attractive.

In fact, I think this discussion has helped me discover another thing I like about this design. It's very angular. The more I look at this front, the more I see what they were trying to do.

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

jmg, in your opinion do you think this design becomes a classic look and carries BMW into the future?

Well, I actually hate the M440i design. The lower grill is awkwardly placed. The G8X is much, much more cohesive. But that's not the point..

It's easier to say what will be a classic than to determine what certainly will not. Remember the Z8 when it came out? It wasn't that popular, and they didn't sell many. Now it's considered a classic. Many people thought Elvis and the Beatles would be the downfall of society. Instead they changed rock and pop music forever. Who would have thought?

Does it carry BMW into the future? Did Bangel bring BMW into the future? Most definitely yes. Objectively speaking, you have to make mistakes to know what not to do next time. As a brand, BMW is strong enough to survive one subjectively ugly M3/4 generation. What they got right was how great it is to drive. If they got the design wrong, they will correct, because the market will require them to. In the meantime, no one can say they didn't take risks or try something new. Whatever design they bring next, this polarizing grill will influence that direction, and by design, will carry BMW into the next phase. The line between famous and infamous is thinner than we think.

[MethodRR]

While I don't have much to add in the way of the discussion, I can offer a couple of pictures. Walked out of home depot to see a nearly identically spec'd G80 parked next to me and snapped a couple of pics.

Of all the colors, black looks the best - though I suspect that's because it mutes the contrast with the grille. Thought you all may find this helpful for the debate.

[Gbcarmona]

Newbie member here! As a designer myself and long-time BMW fan, it’s terrible what is happening to the brand…mostly very sad! It’s just bad design, bad proportions which is basic in any type of design-work, complication for the sake of complicate…less is more usually! However I also have to say that the G80, if in a dark colour is looking better than initially when you look at it in person…especially the M4 I think looks better in various parts because it’s less fussy! A bit like the E60 when it came out, I think even today it looks good and aged quite well! But no doubt the F80, the current M5 and M2C are the top in terms of design…I can just imagine the next M2 will not look great either (look at the new m-lite) and the same for the M5 probably…hope I’m wrong!
Anyway, I’m looking forward to fulfil a childhood dream and collect my 2018 F80 M3Comp next weekend, after owning an E60 530D M Sport followed by a F21 M135i (which I truly loved)!

[pfrederi]

I agree for the most part as far as the new grill design. Not a fan at all.

However when i went to purchase my F83 M4 and the started it up the sound totally threw me off being an owner of a naturakly aspirated E36 M3 for the past 15yrs + i was waiting for that noteable BMW exhaust sound and what i heard was god awful at the time. BUT I must say man im in love with the sound now it totally grew on me and the fac that you can code for different burps and burbles is awesome. I never attributed this sound with BMWs before but NOW i cant wait to get in my M4 and drive to hear the exhaust esp in SPORT+ mode.

[M3JetPilot]

Another thing to consider with this whole debate is that large grills have an expiration date, and it's quickly approaching. Not only are large grills unnecessary today, they will be even more so in the future as electric cars begin to dominate. The reality is the future belongs to designs like this, not what BMW is doing to their M cars today.

[M3JetPilot]

jmg, this picture you posted really shows how fragmented this design is. There's no flow or continuity at all. One part of the front seems separate from the other. Does this really look good to you? My point with Bangle was specific to his one design with the trunk. That was a mistake and it does not show today in any of BMW's designs. He had other designs that were successful but the "Bangle butt" wasn't one of them. The same is true for this randomly shaped grill.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

jmg, this picture you posted really shows how fragmented this design is. There's no flow or continuity at all. One part of the front seems separate from the other. Does this really look good to you? My point with Bangle was specific to his one design with the trunk. That was a mistake and it does not show today in any of BMW's designs. He had other designs that were successful but the "Bangle butt" wasn't one of them. The same is true for this randomly shaped grill.

Yes I think it looks good, that's the beauty of subjectivity. That's fine if you don't like it, I can't really argue that.

However, this photo I mocked up was specifically showing how the design of the grill specifically relates with the surface areas of the front. It's not "random" at all.

If you don't like how it flows, that's fine too, but that's not the same thing as lacking flow. It's lacking flow that you like.

Furthermore, flow and continuity aren't the same thing. Flow is a function of continuity. How the continuity of design transitions from one element to another is the flow of said continuity.

The G80 design language is about sharper lines, and the flow of continuity is harder, sharper. The theme is generally interruption of flow.

The F80 design language is more elegant and the interruption of continuity is gradual. The general theme is progression of flow. It generally has softer lines that curve into other design elements.

So you are right, the G80 doesn't have the same flow as the F80, but that's not a bad thing. Flow isn't just smooth. It's a state that includes everything between smooth and rough, straight and angled etc. Aesthetically, while one might have a preference as to what kind of flow they prefer, there is no rule that says smooth flow is objectively superior than sharp flow.

Subjectively, I didn't like how the G80 looked because I favored the more elegant shapes of the previous F80. I was used to it, and I didn't expect such a design language departure. However, the more time I spent looking at it, especially in person, the more I started to understand what they were doing, the more I started to appreciate it and eventually came to think of it as quite attractive. That is not to say that the F80 is less attractive. In fact, I think the F80 will go down as one of the most attractive sedans of all time. It's just beautiful. Maybe BMW didn't think they could top it using the same design language. If I am to be quite honest, I don't find the current 3 or the current 5 series particularly exciting. They are more evolutions of their predecessors and they look fine, it's just more of the same, and they are a bit bland. The G80 however, totally different design language. Its bolder, sharper, admittedly more polarizing. To me, it's exciting.


My issues with the points brought up in this thread is that it just seems like dissenters are trying to find a rational for why they don't like it. But here's the thing". You don't have to justify it at all because it's an opinion. That doesn't mean that some justifications aren't perfectly valid, but some seem like we are just making up "rules" about design that we think help support our point of view. There is now rule that says design change has to be gradual, there is no rule that says the grill has to be wider than it is taller etc, and one might even argue, that design evolution is all about bending and breaking design norms to avoid stagnation. If someone thinks design change should be gradual, that isn't a fact, that's also opinion, and isn't a universal indication of good or bad design.


PS on a side note, the F80 Cd is 0.34. The G80 Cd is 0.33. A slight improvement, but pretty much the same. Regardless, I don't think the size of the grill or the design language introduced any additional drag.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

Another thing to consider with this whole debate is that large grills have an expiration date, and it's quickly approaching. Not only are large grills unnecessary today, they will be even more so in the future as electric cars begin to dominate. The reality is the future belongs to designs like this, not what BMW is doing to their M cars today.

Aren't those all electric cars? Function over form in this case. Combustion engines need air, EV's don't and the smaller or non-existent grills are better for aerodynamics and thus range.


The Audi still has a fake grill that's even bigger than the G80 grill.
The SF90 is a mid engine hybrid, it doesn't need a large grill in front, it has two large ones behind the cabin.

[M3JetPilot]

Wow! Once again incredible response and I really like the points you make. The one point I would like to counter is that this is all subjective. The logic you're using, taken to it's extreme, could be made to justify any design. Asymmetrically sized grills, crumbled metal, or 3 wheels instead of 4. No matter the design, someone will like it. This means any design is good, you just have to find the person who says it is. But that isn't true. There are objectively bad designs. There are also companies who have built their success on certain design hallmarks that are part of the legacy they have established over many years. Porsche, Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and many other car makers all have much narrower design constraints and for good reason. The design and the company are one. Changing the design changes the company.

This will take us back to my original post. The BMW brand stands for something, or at least it use to. It stands for clean, understated, classic design, luxurious and quality interiors, and driving performance that caters to the driver and driving experience. BMW is the ultimate driving machine that doesn't need to attract attention by being outlandish in its design.

What's worse is BMW telling long time fans like myself to like it or leave. It's unprofessional and disappointing to say the least. That's why many of us are looking to Porsche. Knowing my luck they'll start making their cars cubed-like and this same discussion will happen again.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by M3JetPilot

Wow! Once again incredible response and I really like the points you make. The one point I would like to counter is that this is all subjective. The logic you're using, taken to it's extreme, could be made to justify any design. Asymmetrically sized grills, crumbled metal, or 3 wheels instead of 4. No matter the design, someone will like it. This means any design is good, you just have to find the person who says it is. But that isn't true. There are objectively bad designs. There are also companies who have built their success on certain design hallmarks that are part of the legacy they have established over many years. Porsche, Rolls Royce, Mercedes, and many other car makers all have much narrower design constraints and for good reason. The design and the company are one. Changing the design changes the company.

This will take us back to my original post. The BMW brand stands for something, or at least it use to. It stands for clean, understated, classic design, luxurious and quality interiors, and driving performance that caters to the driver and driving experience. BMW is the ultimate driving machine that doesn't need to attract attention by being outlandish in its design.

What's worse is BMW telling long time fans like myself to like it or leave. It's unprofessional and disappointing to say the least. That's why many of us are looking to Porsche. Knowing my luck they'll start making their cars cubed-like and this same discussion will happen again.

Bad design depends on the primary objective intent of the object.

Is a functional car with square wheels bad design? Yes, because it no longer functions as intended, it's can't roll and operate as a car.

Is a piece of art that consists of a car with square wheels displayed in a museum bad design? No ,because it is meant to function as an art piece, not primarily as a car, it's not "designed" to move.

With the G80, it's primary function is to be a car and the grills function to deliver air to the heat exchangers at the front of the car. In that sense they are objectively good design because they succeed in that aspect.

The question is are they subjectively aesthetically pleasing design. Since it's subjective, that depends on who's looking at it.

So there is such a thing as bad design if you consider objective characteristics. But there is no such thing as universally "bad design" when considering subjective characteristics because that would contradict the very definition of subjectivity-it's not universal, it's based on the viewer's perspective.

Re: changing design changes the company. That is one of the "rules" that we subjectively assign even though there is no real universal truth to it. It's actually an opinion. Another, just as valid, opinion is that companies need to evolve to survive, and changing the company is not only desirable, but sometimes necessary.

Coincidentally, I made similar arguments about going against brand aesthetics back in the 00's with Apple. People didn't like the design direction Apple was going. They also said that there was an "Apple aesthetic" that Apple shouldn't deviate from. I said it back then, and I'm still saying it now, 20 years later:

"Who says?"

[M3JetPilot]

That's an interesting question to ask. Did BMW need to evolve to survive? Considering that they are in the top ten of car manufacturers by revenue, I don't think it can be argued that any change they make is a survival move. Perhaps a move to become the number 1 manufacture but whatever the reason for their drastic design changes it isn't so they can survive. If we can agree on this then there has to be another reason. To follow a trend in bigger grills and become the new Toyota/Lexus? To be number 1 in sales? To appeal to a different demographic? Or just change for change's sake to appear radical and fresh? I don't think any of those are valid reasons to change a loved and iconic design trait, but either way you look at it they are cutting customers like me loose. My opinion no longer matters and in fact they find those with opinions like mine worthy of ridicule in their advertising. Regardless of design opinion, that isn't the way to build a brand or sell a change.

[M3JetPilot]

Also, I agree with you about Apple design. I still haven't gotten use to some of their newer designs, and I love Apple products. But that's probably a conversation for another time.

[allinon72]

We can argue design choices all day long, but the simple fact is BMW is all in on China and their designs match that. Most of us on this forum are used to cars being designed for…us, in the North American market. Look at all the design cues that most of us revile, now look at the current trends in China. BMW is making the calculation that they will succeed in China and the rest of the world will come to accept the design language after its become normalized.

[White340]

They just had record sales for M division and said that m3/m4 demand is greater than ever. No one in my friend circle likes the design. Then again we are in our 40s now. I guess I'm getting old…