2009-2010 BMW X1 – Bullishly fresh
Do you find the current BMW 1 Series, 3 Series, 5 Series ugly?
I’ll get back to this later.
To design something innovative is what many designers strive for. Their main reason for this is to come up with an idea that no one has thought of before, or to interpret something in a way that no one has. I guess its all about innovation and being ground breaking!
Do you like it? Flat blocky front...
I have to admit, the first time I saw this car with fresh eyes, I couldn’t look past the two vertical areas of the front glass (windshield) and front fascia. It just looked blocky, and if I was asked by BMW what I honestly thought, the only polite answer I would have is ‘…it’s different’. Now, there are two ways to interpret ‘it’s different’ – one being refreshing, innovative, and ground breaking, and I like it! – or – simply not liking it.
Cohesive connection from the upper and lower half of the car lowers the visual 'height'.
Trying to interpret the designer’s intent on the BMW X1 is like uncovering a thought process though the use of their lines in the end product. In recent models I have always found the body side of BMWs to be the most interesting, most notably coming from the ‘slap in the face’ design of the Z4. Following the body side crease from the front to the rear, it shoots up above the rear fender, pointing to the crease that is coming around the DLO on the C-pillar. This creates a notion of connection between the upper and lower half of the vehicle, and it makes sense since it’s a tall car.
Comparison of concept sketch and actualized model. Note the difference amount of 'light' between the lower feature.
Overpowering that body side feature is the standard issue belt line that has been built up creating a tension and speed in this dynamic theme. However, although important to the rest of the design, I think it takes away from what I think is a far more interesting feature on the body side/DLO mentioned earlier. In turn, I believe they still could have played up this feature by increasing the visibility of the crease as much as they had in the sketch.
Complex interesction of lines result in a surface solution that is just as complex. Surprisingly the rear is clean looking and does not look heavy due to the clever use of color and black.
From the rear of the car there are many lines that are coming together to create an interesting variety of surface solutions. A subtle line from just above the side rocker flows into the rear fascia to join the story from side to back. It is complemented by a crease that defines the bumper to the body panel, which in turn is intersected by a hook line that is framed around the tail lights (Creating that complex interplay of surfaces). Across the rear the surfaces are quite simple. This makes a focus on the proportions of the dark and color areas to be seen. As to not look heavy, the bumper is mostly black and when compared with the glass it creates a wider elongated color section that reduces the visual height of the car. To reduce the visual weight of the black, a bright metallic nappy also creates an elongated black section of the bumper. This keeps a the car looking visually planted to the ground, not looking like it may topple over due to the nature of this vehicle type.
Front lamp detail and bonnet buldge details
Similarly themed around the rear lamps are the front head lamps, having an interesting treatment of line work that makes up the front fascia. As a result I have mixed feelings about how it has turned out. The crease in front of the wheel arch coming out from the lamp suggests an angled front, yet the crease on between the grille and lamp is quite vertical. So the visual comparison exaggerates the boxy appearance of the front end. The only way of saving it from looking even boxier is a similar technique as the rear of the car, having a large area of black to make appear, just like the rear, wider than it is, and in this case making the proportions of the front similar to likes of a 5 or 7 series.
Are these the original concept proposal sketches?
If the released sketches of the X1 proposal were the ones used to make the concept X1, and from that, to the production X1, this BMW designer needs to be awarded for doing something that is quite hard to do, and that is to stick to his original idea, the one that he sketched, earning him the privilege to design this car!
I think the lines and creases all over the BMW X1 are quite fresh and exciting for their design language, however when it comes to the surfaces that excitement and tension is lost by becoming softer. If I was to compare this with the new Z4, it does make sense, having all this drama of lines mixed in with more elegant surface work, and by that, I guess it is quite ‘different’, and I mean that in a way that is good, as it is something exploratory, and something I can learn to like. I do like the current 1, 3 and 5 Series, and this X1 shows BMW evolving that style.
It’s said that BMW has to constently update their design because Lexus and Infiniti keep ripping them off.
Not sure if they would do it just because other companies keep ripping them off, I’m sure they have their own timing and agenda… Not sure about which cars specifically you’re referring to that look similar to the BMW, but it is an interesting perspective none the less! BMW are always keeping their ideas ‘fresh’.
I go back to an old quote by Chris Bangle talking about the dead end that ultimately awaits any company that relies only on incremental or evolutionary design. Frankly, I think Apple Computers is a much better example of the opportunity inherent in revolutionary design then the BMW 7 series at that time.
So, when I look at the X1 or almost any of the other BMW products including their “spiritual successors” to the 2002 I see nothing other then discarded bits from some 3 series parts bin and tepid variations on a theme that have become both tepid and predictable.
Interesting perspective. Would you consider an example of incremental/evolution design in an automotive sense, Porsche? I can see it from the Apple view of revolutionary design. From those colored macs to the clean flat lines of today. For sure, that is revolution.
I can see what you mean with the X1, I have been more ‘dissapointed’ with the front fascia’s of the models of recent time. You are correct, as mentioned in the write up, I do like the body side, but it still fits in the ‘theme’ of the models of 2002. At the same time, I think there is just enough there in the X1 to be called ‘different’ and a ‘good different’ at that.
Thanks for the comment!
Interesting point about Porsche, perhaps they are the exception to the rule. Though it was in their break with tradition that their best seller Cayenne SUV came into existence.
Once again the curiosity is that if we are both disappointed with the front fascia and the design elements that BMW chooses to hold on to. Why are they not disappointed? The questioned turns my thinking to Acura whose design team seems to have come up with a universally disdained front fascia that they cling to with dear life. Where does the disconnect occur?
Ahhh, perhaps, the reason they want to hold onto these ‘designs’ is that they are trying to become like Porsche? Having such a strong corporate ‘face’ on their cars? Ok, so perhaps that would be more related to Acura but in their case they are not anything like Porsche, and maybe just too timid to venture out from that design…
For BMW on the other hand, I’m not sure. I’ve seen many concept cars both from BMW and students/folio website who have managed to capture the BMW corporate ‘face’ to the point at which there is no doubt it is a BMW. Why BMW do not go down a similar path is anybody’s guess. (Design directors that are not bold enough?)
If only we were able to see the designs that did not make the ‘cut’.
What are your opinions on the Old vs New Z4? I wrote up about it in another post http://www.autocritical.com/blog/2009/05/2009-bmw-z4-roadster/
I am confused by this vehicle. I know that there is a difference between the segment that the X3 is in and the one this X1 is intended for, I just don’t know what that is. How will there be separation between those models when their size and functionality seem identical? Overall I believe the design fails due to overuse of lines and detail and not enough focus on proportion and simplification. There are conflicting themes on the body side, and way too many lines on the rear and front fascia. Not to mention the blocky front end and lack of cohesion in the lines. Look at that first 3/4, lines going everywhere, wheels look inset, sloppy graphics. How will it look on the road though?
Yeah, I don’t remember where I heard this, but someone mentioned, as you did, there is little dimensional difference between the X3 and X1… Maybe BMW are trying to kill it off, because there have been too many negative connotations associated with it? No better way to replace something that has a bad name then to rename it!
There are many many lines! Similarly with my opinion on the McLaren SLR – but when I saw that on the road, wow, that is striking! (OK, so I didn’t choose the best example)
Still, I believe they will sell both simultaneously here in the U.S. Will they in that case phase out the X3?
One thing the SLR has in it’s favor is the exaggerated proportions (long hood, low stance, huge dash to axle, low greenhouse, and overall sports car proportions). The X1 is not nearly as fortunate as the SLR in that regard so it does not have the extreme proportions to use as a crutch for clumsy lines and busy surfaces.