One trend that I have noticed lately here and in the automotive rags that I
read is using the word "retro" to describe any styling that shows
influences of past designs. I think that this label does a great
disservice to the designers involved in the project, unfairly biases the
public towards the design in question, and deflates the value of the
original work.
To me, the basic questions of car design is whether it is efficient and
whether it looks good. Each year many new auto designs are introduced and
of those new designs, only a few could be called original. Of the original
designs, even fewer could be called efficient and good looking and even
less will withstand the test of time to become classics.
So, most new cars are, by nature not original designs but more derivatives
of other existing cars. Most are derivatives of the "flavor of the year"
or the last car to be considered original, efficient and good looking.
This flavor of the year tends to bounce between simplictity and style on
one axis and sportiness and luxury/status on the other axis. The early
nineties were dominated by efficient designs and kind of middle of the road
for sporty/status. The late fifties in the US were dominated be status and
style. At this time people are starting to revolt from the one look
efficiency trend and style is creeping back into the cars. We also seem to
be swinging towards sporty in cars since most of the status seekers have
jumped to SUV's. The late nineties promise to be very exciting times for
the enthusiast!
So style is coming back and every car that uses a styling cue older than
the flavor of the year is immediately christened as retro. The history of
automotive styling is rich with variety and has created some designs that
are almost universally praised as stunning. The Cisitalia, the original
Stingray, and of course the XK120, E type, MGA, and big Healies fit in this
mold. Most designs are loose copies anyway, so why not copy something that
is generally acknowledged as one of the best? Does it make you backward
thinking turn to the E-type for inspiration instead of the Taurus? I don't
think so. Surely the XK-8 is a better looking car than most of the jelly
bean cars produced today.
I have heard people say that the XK-8 and Boxster are popular now becaus
"retro is in." Hogwash. The new Taurus and the Z-3 are worlds apart in
there styling inspiration but they have both achieved similar results.
They are butt-ugly. The Z-3 looks like the designers were handed a bunch
of parts and pictures of styling cliches and told to connect the dots. The
Taurus is an original design but ugly is as ugly does.
Another negative offshoot of this whole "retro is in" philosophy is the
attempts to graft design cues of older designs onto newer shapes. The XK-8
looks wonderful. The drawing that I have seen of the new mid size sedan
that tries to pick up styling cues from the MkII is ugly as sin, however.
The grill does not go with the body. Mix and match does not work no matter
what you call it.
The new MG World (yes, I finally found a copy last night) has some good
pictures of the RV8. In general, the design is fairly well integrated and
they did not try to graft unharmonious styling cues together too much. As
others have mentioned, the rear fenders and tail lights are wonderful.
If I was given the torch for the new MG, I would take the conservative
approach and develop a derivative design. I would base this design on the
styling cues from one car that has survived the test of time and is
generally acknowledged as good looking. This would be right in line with
the present trends in automotive styling towards sportiness and style.
Also, look at the cars grabbing the headlines now. The Boxster, XK-8, and
Viper Coupe are gathering steam while the Japanese jelly bean cars are
dying on the vine (can you say Supra?) So, what MG is generally regarded
as their styling high water mark? That's right, our own favorite "Bob
Allen certified performance bimbo," the MGA! In fact, that rear view of
the RV8 that everyone likes has a fender line much closer to a cleaned up
MGA than a B. Why not carry the concept through to its logical conclusion
for the next big MG.
I could see a smoothe MGA shape retaining the litheness of the original
rather than bulking up like a Cobra wannabe. Using headlights similar to
the new E class Merc and smoothing the grill area would do wonders.
Remember, the original grille was there mostly to provide connection to the
T series. Adding rollover strength to the windscreen and adding roll up
windows would add unwanted visual heaviness to the middle of the car but
this could be managed with the appropriate use of bright vs dark trim. I
would also avoid adding too much rake to the front window. This can look
great on coupes but, in my opinion, can ruin the look of a convertable.
Rename tha F successor the Midget and MG is back in business! BMW moves up
market with their latest large sports car prototypes shown in Japan (quite
nice) and disctoninues that Z-3 piece of garbage and life is good!
Regards,
Bill Eastman
61 MGA the once and future king of MG's!
|