McLaren P14 spy shots

They all look too much alike to me.

Good idea or bad idea?

This can't be discussed?


I cannot understand why a simple comment that they all are starting to look like upsets you so.

Something else is going on here.

 

I just think its hilarious you guys are getting all worked up about whether a mule is beautiful

 

Aston Martins all look alike
Audis all look alike
Bentleys all look alike
BMWs all look alike
Bugattis all look alike
Cadillacs all look alike
Ferraris all look alike
Jaguars all look alike
Koenigseggs all look alike
Lamborghinis all look alike
Maseratis all look alike
McLarens all look alike
Mercedes Benz all look alike
Porsches all look alike
Rolls Royces all look alike
Hell, even Volkswagens (except the Beetle) all look alike.

Golly gee Bob... there must be a reason for that, huh?

It's called building a design language and establishing "Brand Identity" - it is NOT "lazy design".

>8^)
ER

 

Design is design. The elements of good design transcend any one discipline.

An experienced and great auto designer can critique the design of a cell phone and vice versa. We all use the same principles.

More importantly, as to not be a troll, I went out of my way to type up a respectful breakdown of my thoughts and you didnt address any of them.

 

LOL!!!!

Touche'

Now Noone can explain to you why all mules are ugly for a reason.

 

1) it absolutely is lazy design. The new Mustang is lazy design. Just look at it. Its one more iteration of one more iteration going back to the 60's. LAZY

2) who said making cars all look alike is a good idea? Maybe they do it because they are LAZY and don't want to break a few eggs.

3) there's a difference between a family resemblance and a copy. If you copy too much you can't tell the difference, like two identical twins in the family. You can still love both twins but you will get confused about who is who.

4) So, the Muira looks like a Gallardo? Really? Aren't they both Lamborghin's? Well, the Gallardo does look like a Countach because you see Lamborghini has been stick in this mold for 40 years since the Countach hit the market. A good thing? Well --- where is the "next evolution" of design supposed to come from if you keep repeating the past? Where's the next "Muira" going to come from.

Please explain to me how a 512 Testarossa looks like a 458 and if it would have been a good idea to keep making variations of it for the past 30 years. You don't think maybe some design runs its course after a while? There's no new designs out there? We've done everything we can so let's just repeat the past for the next 1000 years?

5) If you've worked in the auto industry, you know its not the designers. It's the marketing people who actually design a car. That's why every car we have today is retro or boring, including exotics.

Why? Because marketing types are lazy and look at the past to justify the future. That's why they are always behind the times. What you call "brand identity" is actually the opposite of risk taking -- until the Stuff hits the fan.

A brand is more than just it's style. Its what it stands for. Using style as an excuse to tie cars together is LAZY marketing.

 

I was clearly NOT talking about products produced decades apart (except maybe a 911) - I am referring to current model lineups, across the board.

If you want to criticize one then you better criticize all. Take the new Bentley SUV - it doesn't look rugged and purposeful. It looks like they raised and inflated the Flying Spur. You could make a comparison like that of every luxury automotive brand I listed.

>8^)
ER

 

I've already told you I'm the worst designer in the world. Why would you want any more information than that?

Jerry is right (who is also a designer). A designer can critique the work of others and be appreciated for their opinion outside of their field. (Not that this matters in my case as I've already explained I am a terrible designer). But if it were an actual "good designer", they could understand the visual issues of what makes good and bad design in almost any field.

It's like saying a brain surgeon can appreciate a doctor who treats bone disease. You don't need to treat bone disease to appreciate it when it's done well or know when its done poorly.

I don't believe a good food critic has to be able to cook like a chef. They only have to know what is and isn't good taste.

 

Ah, then you prove me right. Thank you for understanding what is wrong here.

You're starting to learn that if you keep repeating the same thing over and over, it's lazy design and you will get no where.

You've made a giant leap today. I'm proud of you!

Is the Miura better than a Countach? Well, in the late 60's they didn't think so.

But is the Miura better than a Aventador? Well, if you ask that question today most would say "of course it is"

So, where does the next step in design come from if you repeat the same crap over and over? Did car design just stop in 1973?

 

I'm not proving you right - I'm telling you that is how the automotive industry works. The people involved are working plenty hard, I can promise you that.

In the old days of the Miura and Countach they weren't forced to conform to a million safety regulations that impact what their imagination might bring forward. You were right that Marketing plays a huge role in limiting the freedoms of the designers today, but you are still wrong to criticize any of the designers for lack of effort. If anything, working against those barricades to their imagination and original thoughts forces them to be the furthest thing from "lazy" today.

>8^)
ER

 

But Bob, a lot of these companies won't take a risk in the design because what they have sells. Call it lazy if you will but originality is expensive and not always rewarded. It's the same reason movie studios remade Spider-Man 8x in the last 20 years.

 

Mayor has a point. All mclarens look similar, have similar engines and drive trains with various mods and bolt ons to give them difference.

Ferraris are not all the same. They have front engine, mid engine, sport car, GT car, family car designs. Each is individual and very different from an engineering perspective which helps the designers as it's easier to make them look different too.

How hard can it be to accept this basic point?

Ps - mclarens might all be similar and derivative, but I still like them

 

I have worked in the motor industry for my whole career. I'm not a designer but have often been involved with appraising designs - what will sell, what will be more problematic etc.

It is only one element. And each company handles it differently. I once heard a country manager for Alfa Romeo describe design in his brand. "At Alfa, the designer is king; they say to the engineers that they can put what engineering they like in the car but DO NOT disturb the beautiful lines". He went on to say that another brand, Subaru, is the reverse. There the engineers are king. They engineer the car and say to the designers, "make it look how you like, but DO NOT change one single bolt or wishbone of our beautiful engineering".

Alfa does come up with some original designs and you can certainly see that they prioritise design and Subaru prioritise engineering. This is good; the customer has a clear choice based on his own priorities.

There are a few principles to the way design has relevance to a car company. For instance, a designer has to balance his (usually) desire to be innovative and creative with the preference of customers for brand recognition to be evident in the appearance of the car he bought. This is especially true at the higher end. "If I paid for an Audi, I want everyone to know I did".

I think even if customers did not dictate this, manufacturers would. Somehow, cars look better tied together in a family. It's how we work as humans, we're used to it. I look quite different to my sister but you can see we're siblings. This is brilliant design - the best of both worlds. It therefore can be done.

As with the Alfa/Subaru comparison, each company needs to decide the role design will play in its appeal to the market. If people are buying a brand because of reasons other than design, then don't excite but certainly don't offend (Subaru), if design is key then be exciting and risk offending (Alfa, for instance 4C). If you want to be restrained but emphasise substance and stance you do what BMW does - really strong family look with the quad headlights, kidney grille, hofmeister kink etc. But still leave room for Chris Bangle's 'flame surfacing' of a few years ago.

The principles they have to work within are dictated by us, the consumer. If a car company does not sell, it is not a car company for very long. The job of the designer is to innovate, develop, inspire, within the confines of the rules that apply to a particular brand.

Since we have been discussing this for a while, there are a few things that I disagree with. First, this is probably not a 'mule' but a spy shot, so it could be very relevant. And even if this is not a 'nearly finished' car, it is interesting to talk about this stuff. Otherwise, why be a petrolhead? Second, lots of cars design is similar and that can be OK, depending on the role the brand (and its customers) have decided design should play. But there seems to be a confusion between family look and similar. For instance, a 488 is clearly a Ferrari, as is an F12. But they are not at all similar. In fact, the LaFerrari and the 488 are both clearly Ferraris with the same layout, but again, not at all similar.

The P1 and the 650 are much more similar, but, the 12C wasn't. If we put that down to new designer wanting to put 'his' face on a pre-existing car let's leave it at that. But, the replacement for the 650 has real significance because it is from the same family and designer as the P1 and as a ground up new design should be able to retain a family appearance but be different to the P1.

Even when brands change their face significantly (for instance 360/430, 599, 612 moving to Cali, 458, FF and F12) you should still be able to see a link with the brand. 458 was quite different to a 430 but it couldn't have been from any other brand. I'm talking Ferrari because this is a Ferrari forum but it equally applies to other brands; the BMW I mentioned earlier, Chris Bangle's 'flame surfaced' 5 series. Controversial at the time but clearly a BMW. It couldn't have been other.

And that's what seems to be disappointing about the P14. There seems to be few groundbreaking ideas, although this could be totally wrong, after all, these are very clever people we're talking about. (For example, perhaps the side vents are internal - air coming from the high pressure wheel arch THROUGH the doors to the intakes at the rear). But in terms of appearance, the car looks like it could have been designed for a number of manufacturers (so no strong family resemblance) and does not seem to move the game on as was promised. So, if 'lazy' is correct, and I don't really like that word because I highly doubt FS could ever be described as that, it is because there are too few family features and the car seems to adopt some key features from other brands - cab forward/stubby hood from Audi R8, split waistline from 458.

There are things that may not be accurate from the spy shot, but these are very unlikely to be the side profile, glass house, front and rear lamps, wing mirrors, rear wing.... The cost to design and produce those in such a finished state is astronomical, so why do it for a testing car and then dump it? This is not a mule, which is a new chassis with old panels glued on. So I reckon we are seeing 80%+ of the surface of the finished car. And therefore comment is not irrelevant.

BUT....perhaps McLaren don't see the role of groundbreaking design as key to their appeal? That might make sense. Sort of like the Subaru argument - engineering first, emotion second. I must admit, since my initial shock, I have got used to it a bit more and with the undoubted tweaking that they will do, plus a nice shiny paint job, perhaps the appearance will become vanilla and they have some exciting stuff underneath to give reasons for people to buy this car? In which case, my criticism at least, might be a bit too harsh. It's just that FS has suggested otherwise, so for the moment I remain disappointed and a bit confused as to what McLaren is trying to be.

 

As big a Ferrari fan and proud owner that I am, all I have is one word to say regarding your long winded comment. Wrong. Well ok, two words then. Very wrong.

 

Noone1, I'm getting the vibe that Mayor just gets his kicks out of taking the "no clue about design but I know what I like" approach. Honestly, he can't be serious about his comments, nobody is THAT ridiculous. Let's just let him be happy in his own fantasy world.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure this proves your point. 348 and Testarossa are good examples of same era cars using a family look but both using fairly different, and in the case of the TR, really interesting design. If that P14 car did similar there is little issue.

The Testarossa is now becoming quite iconic I think.

 

Whereas these two will also be contemporaries from the same stable. I don't see it personally.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I love a good argument from authority If you think their cars look terrible, that's your subjective opinion. But can you please do some serious award winning design guy analysis for me to point explain how the 570GT looks exactly like a 675LT?

 

We shouldn't forget: most cars we see today as milestones in design or design trendsetters were well critizised when they were launched.

I woulnd't overrate the design of a new car, normally a new design is growing with time.

I didn't like the 650S design when the car was launched, today this design is much more interesting for me than each current available Ferrari. The current McLaren design makes me currios, the current Ferrari design language is boring me, in my eyes Ferrari is in a design "dead end". From Ferrari I expect a design revolution, from the new brand McLaren I expect only a design evolution.

Has McLaren now the better design than Ferrari? No, definitelly not, these both design languages are just in a different lifecycle regarding my personal sensation.

 

I love people that fabricate things.

When did I say they look terrible ? When did I say they looked exactly the same ?

In fact I said they looked good, just not different enough.

Hmmm ? Oh you cant find my saying that can you ? Oh gosh...apology accepted.

 

Just want to directly counter ^^^^ post by thanking Lukeylikey for his own well thought out contribution. I appreciated the time you put into it and I believe it included some very salient points.

Also looking forward to you warming up to this new design even more under the pretty lights at the Geneva Motor Show.

>8^)
ER