rmc523 Posted December 3, 2024 Share Posted December 3, 2024 I want to like it, but these just don't do it for me.....the back 3/4 is better than the front. It'll be interesting to see what changes from concept to production. For the pricepoint they're going after, I'd expect to be "wowed" by it, and I'm not seeing it. Maybe it has more presence in person, but from photos, it's just meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted December 3, 2024 Author Share Posted December 3, 2024 4 hours ago, rmc523 said: There is no elegance to the front (a Jaguar staple) at all...but even if they're pushing against the traditional Jag/elegant look, it's not bold either - it's a box "grille" + some horizontal headlights - not original at all. It's bold with how shitty it is. There seems to be a small, but lucrative market of wealthy one percenters who almost seem to get off on buying ugly things. Terrible looking clothing, ugly cars trying to be futuristic, a house that looks like a cube trying to eat other cubes and so on, and so on. Perhaps they're trying to appeal to that audience. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted December 3, 2024 Author Share Posted December 3, 2024 1 hour ago, mackinaw said: Just read that Jag is expecting only 10-15% of current Jag owners will be interested in the Type 00. This vehicle is being targeted to a new audience, young rich people in their 20's, not old guys like me. It looks like most folks here don't like the Type 00, but I can guarantee you the "Head of Design" at every OEM has taken notice. In a way, it's sort of like the Cybertruck. I personally hate it, but it does have a presence. And I just spent the Thanksgiving weekend with several teenagers who think the Cybertruck is cool. This younger generation sees things differently than 40+ year olds. I'm on my 20s. Maybe I'm just an old man in a young person's body, but I hate products that completely fly in the face of established product design principles. The only redeeming quality about the cybertruck design is the short hood and wedge shape makes it look like if Lamborghini built a truck. But it looks like ass from most other angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted December 3, 2024 Share Posted December 3, 2024 1 hour ago, DeluxeStang said: I'm on my 20s. Maybe I'm just an old man in a young person's body, but I hate products that completely fly in the face of established product design principles. The only redeeming quality about the cybertruck design is the short hood and wedge shape makes it look like if Lamborghini built a truck. But it looks like ass from most other angles. I don't like the Cybertruck, but there's no denying it has a presence. As for vehicles that challenge design principles, go back to 1934. In that year, Chrysler brought out the Airflow which was one of the first aerodynamically designed cars (pic attached). It was a radical design compared to the more conventionally styled 1934 cars. The Airflow, though, was a resounding flop, people just weren't ready for something so boldly styled. But just a few years later, every manufacturer out there was incorporating aero features in their cars (look at the 1939 Lincoln Continental). I always go back to what Jack Telnack once said, a new design, at first, should make you uncomfortable. If it didn't, then the designer didn't go far enough. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeluxeStang Posted December 3, 2024 Author Share Posted December 3, 2024 1 hour ago, mackinaw said: I don't like the Cybertruck, but there's no denying it has a presence. As for vehicles that challenge design principles, go back to 1934. In that year, Chrysler brought out the Airflow which was one of the first aerodynamically designed cars (pic attached). It was a radical design compared to the more conventionally styled 1934 cars. The Airflow, though, was a resounding flop, people just weren't ready for something so boldly styled. But just a few years later, every manufacturer out there was incorporating aero features in their cars (look at the 1939 Lincoln Continental). I always go back to what Jack Telnack once said, a new design, at first, should make you uncomfortable. If it didn't, then the designer didn't go far enough. True, but there's a good way to push design limits, and a bad way. Some of our best looking cars have come from designers pushing boundaries. But the same is also true for our worst looking cars. The challenge isn't being different, it's being different in a way that really appeals to people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mackinaw Posted December 4, 2024 Share Posted December 4, 2024 3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said: True, but there's a good way to push design limits, and a bad way. Some of our best looking cars have come from designers pushing boundaries. But the same is also true for our worst looking cars. The challenge isn't being different, it's being different in a way that really appeals to people. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder? I agree there are some real design dogs out there, e.g. the Cybertruck and Aztek, but there are also some cars/trucks that were at first highly polarizing (1986 Taurus, 1994 Dodge Ram) that are now considered design classics. And as somebody once said, "no guts, no glory". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew L Posted December 9, 2024 Share Posted December 9, 2024 On 12/3/2024 at 2:10 PM, rmc523 said: I want to like it, but these just don't do it for me.....the back 3/4 is better than the front. It'll be interesting to see what changes from concept to production. For the pricepoint they're going after, I'd expect to be "wowed" by it, and I'm not seeing it. Maybe it has more presence in person, but from photos, it's just meh. I have seen a few posts in car groups where people have done small tweaks to the design and made it look 100X better. I really think they are missing the mark here though. It really does feel like they are throwing their heritage away with the strange font hiding the leaping cat instead of proudly displaying it. I agree with others that the side view does look good with the long proportions but everything else about it is just flat out strange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.