Ever see something online and sigh and think that you know what the comments are going to be like? That’s how I felt when I saw the studio pictures of the Bentley EXP 15 concept car.
I feel like I could have told them. And while I know that what people say on social media is not a true representation of what the public thinks, especially those who can afford a Bentley, there is enough ‘Jaguar-lite’ and ‘yikes’ sentiment to see that this is a challenging car.
Bentley must have known that, mustn’t it? The EXP 15 is not set for production but that doesn’t mean it won’t inform the cars Bentley will make in future.
The company has form here: remember the EXP 9 F from the 2012 Geneva motor show? It was not exactly a looker, was not widely gracefully received, and while not destined for production in that form, it did preview the Bentayga, which arrived looking even worse.
‘Challenging’ seems to be a word of the moment. Even Julian Thomson, the General Motors designer who has created some truly beautiful cars, used it in our interview with him last month.
Designs, he thought, should challenge; although he works in an advanced design studio so he has more reason to believe that, and there’s nothing ungainly about his studio’s latest Corvette concept. But designers today do seem to like cars that are challenging. They like dissonance. Why?
Clearly it’s a choice. Car designers know what beautiful is because they’ve studied it, and they’re beautiful people with beautiful lives, houses, dogs and partners, and they can pull off wearing suits with trainers.
When it comes to dating apps and sessions on Rightmove, are they swiping yes on ugly people and houses because they’d like to be challenged? Because it doesn’t seem so.
So why the challenge when it comes to cars? Why should a car be difficult to look at? An argument goes that you think a car is beautiful straight away and then over time its appeal will fade. It’s too obviously pretty, or bland.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Car designers are increasingly drawn to challenging styling because it sparks conversation, sets their work apart, and can future-proof design relevance, but this approach often leaves consumers frustrated by looks that feel unnecessarily difficult or discordant.Quite often the senior management of major car brands ask their designers to make radical changes to brand design language. A good example is Chris Bangle when he was at BMW. He was hired as BMW Group Design Chief in 1992. Therefore, he oversaw the design and launch of many of BMW's celebrated designs, such as E46 3 series, E39 5 series, and E38 7 series, before the controversial designs associated with his time at BMW.
The back story was that during the late 1990s, the then BMW management board asked Bangle and his team to come up with a new design language that would be a major departure from the traditional "3 box" design approach associated with BMW.
Bangle had spent some of his career working for Fiat and was big into Italian design so he knew about flame surfacing. And the rest is history. However, to be fair to Bangle, he was only a figurehead (or a lightning rod, really) and never personally designed any of the controversial cars linked to his name.Equally, during Bangle's time at BMW, the brand's sales started to overtake Mercredes, so BMW senior management probably felt vindicated for requesting a bold change of design direction. Of course, they were different times in the global car industry.It's fair to say that BMW's "experimentation" from the early 2000s has emoldend many other car makers. However, it's also good when major car brands acknowledge mistakes and poor judgement. A recent case is Mercededs accepting that its EQ deaigns did not find favour and deciding to ditch them. So there's hope.
New designs and concepts don't need to be challenging, they need to be original and inspiring. Anonymous designs are lost in the flood of identical vehicles, and ugly ones, simply turn off potential buyers. When a designer says it should "challenge", then it's a sign of arrogance. A designer who thinks they know better than the customer or general public what makes a car, or indeed any product, look good. As the rise and fall of touch controls in cars demonstrate, ignore your buyers wishes at your peril.
Spot on. I'd love to buy a new car, and there are plenty of technically accomplished cars out there. But the vast majority are ugly outside, with terribly designed dashboards inside. Then add limited colour choices inside and out, and poor ADAS systems. Why would I do it?
And a good point on the sludge of life. Now imagine how bad it is if you're old and don't have internet access.