Well here it is, The 2014 F56 pictures and details.
#77
07-02-2013, 06:29 AM
#78
07-02-2013, 07:02 AM
The front end is horribly busy, so many design languages going on and they are all clashing with each other. The fact that they added a "Power Bulge" to the hood is pretty pointless; I mean it was necessary on American muscle cars when they upgraded to larger carbs and intake but here its just a tacky feature. We all know that the scoop was useless on the R56 but it was part of the design lineage so it worked.
The worst is the gaping maw of a grill/bumper. WTF were you thinking?! Who would willingly design the car to look so frightened
And I don't know if you guys are seeing this too but the bottom grill section looks like it is actually protruding from the front bumper all around the perimeter of the awkward shape that it is, if that's the case that's a terrible design detail. Why would you want to take the smooth curves of the car and then extrude this weird lower grill/brake duct inlet?
This front end is so mismatched; its trying to retain the classic retro Mini design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward in the brand which was a huge miss.
There is way too much design influence from the blundertwin Countryman - Paceman duo; I mean it looks like they lifted the giant tail lights straight from the countryman!
I really do not see this car being any better in person, I only see it being a confirmation of how bad it really is.
I've done a bit of a Photoshop to reflect the lower portion of the bumper something more akin to the R56 generation; removing the Rocketman chrome grill surround and visible bumper beam. Its a little rounder than what we have now and the smaller top grill is a nod back to the much loved R50 design but you get the idea.
I think something like this would have been a much better step forward with the evolution of the design. Much smoother, much cleaner, much simpler; IMO it tones down how crazy the Halo DRLs look, without all of the busy design details on the front bumper they can make a leap forward on the headlights.
Not to mention but where will all of our giant FMIC's go now!?
The worst is the gaping maw of a grill/bumper. WTF were you thinking?! Who would willingly design the car to look so frightened
And I don't know if you guys are seeing this too but the bottom grill section looks like it is actually protruding from the front bumper all around the perimeter of the awkward shape that it is, if that's the case that's a terrible design detail. Why would you want to take the smooth curves of the car and then extrude this weird lower grill/brake duct inlet?
This front end is so mismatched; its trying to retain the classic retro Mini design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward in the brand which was a huge miss.
There is way too much design influence from the blundertwin Countryman - Paceman duo; I mean it looks like they lifted the giant tail lights straight from the countryman!
I really do not see this car being any better in person, I only see it being a confirmation of how bad it really is.
I've done a bit of a Photoshop to reflect the lower portion of the bumper something more akin to the R56 generation; removing the Rocketman chrome grill surround and visible bumper beam. Its a little rounder than what we have now and the smaller top grill is a nod back to the much loved R50 design but you get the idea.
I think something like this would have been a much better step forward with the evolution of the design. Much smoother, much cleaner, much simpler; IMO it tones down how crazy the Halo DRLs look, without all of the busy design details on the front bumper they can make a leap forward on the headlights.
Not to mention but where will all of our giant FMIC's go now!?
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
#79
07-02-2013, 07:12 AM
#80
07-02-2013, 07:29 AM
To play devil's advocate:
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
1) Angel Eyes - makes lights look smaller
2) black bumper - makes it uniform with the body
3) oversized & non-uniformed shape of the lower grill - makes it flow with the upper grill better
Those elements aid in the scared guppy look, more than just the camera angle.
That aside, the head-on shot at the track really makes the front of the car seem very tall. Although close in length/width to the R53, this just seems to be much in all other aspects; hood height, belt line, fender height - and all that makes the MINI seem Massive.
Boo to you EU and your car design hating regulations
#81
07-02-2013, 07:32 AM
To play devil's advocate:
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
#82
07-02-2013, 07:50 AM
To play devil's advocate:
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
Design languages? Can you elaborate? This 'power bulge' cannot be deemed useless until you see the actual engine in person no?
The top side side angle view of the F56 combined with the lens distortion may not be the most flattering angle. But I have to disagree with everyone on this thread in saying it looks 'scared' or surprised. If you look at this car from a proper angle (the one you look at 90% of the time), the face doesn't depict scared or surprised. As seen in the spy shots here: http://www.gmotors.co.uk/news/2014-m...ni-cooper-s-8/
Granted it's camouflaged, but it's not hard to fill in the colors yourself.
Every classic car brand is striving to retain the classic retro design while mixing that with future concept car all while trying to be an evolutionary step forward INCLUDING following modern day guidelines/laws of pedestrian impact safety. This is a complex equation and not everyone will get it right. I'm looking at you 2012 Honda Civic. But with your 'photoshop' rendition, MINI is taking NO steps forward. If people wanted a classic, buy a classic. R50? Buy a R50. The R56 was bashed upon when it first came out but people grew to love it.
On the Rocketman the center section of the grill was much smaller, overall the whole front end was a much cleaner and simpler looking. It lacked the protruding lower intake/brake ducts which, on the F56, look so out of place.
Design languages I was refering to would have been the LCI R56 lower intake/brake duct mixed with the Rocketman grill. It just doesn't work IMO and seemingly others too. There's too much going on on the front bumper, (let alone the whole front) everything's fighting for attention.
If you look at the spy shot of the hood up you can see nothing comes up past the gasket around the engine bay. Its just empty space between the engine and the hood which again was probably because of pedestrian crash regulations.
Instead of raising the whole hood up they probably figured out the minimum amount of surface area required to clear the minimum distance from the top of the engine to the highest point on the hood and decided to turn it into a design detail; ie Power bulge.
From what I've seen it looks like the hood is much flatter and higher from the ground than previous models.
Your right though, The R56 was a bit of a departure from the first gen cars but its design was at least cohesive with its proportions and people did grow to like it. This on the other hand is quite a radical leap forward which is rather jarring as we can tell from most of the responses around the internet.
#83
07-02-2013, 07:56 AM
I think the rear is the most un-charismatic side of the R56 as it looks too flat. They were successful on solving this with the F56, using those "oversized" lights.
The front I don't really find that different to the R56, other than the integration of the number plate within the grill. Perhaps it will look better with the actual plates on, as it will conceal much of the matt black part.
Overall less of a change over the R56, than the R56 over the R50.
The front I don't really find that different to the R56, other than the integration of the number plate within the grill. Perhaps it will look better with the actual plates on, as it will conceal much of the matt black part.
Overall less of a change over the R56, than the R56 over the R50.
#84
07-02-2013, 08:45 AM
#85
07-02-2013, 09:15 AM
4th Gear
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Westminster, CO
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#86
07-02-2013, 10:42 AM
6th Gear
As I mentioned in the other thread that linked to the Automobile mag article, I think a lot of the problems with what we see are actually distortions caused by the lens used to take the pics. The perspective in most of these shots just doesn't "read" correctly! I'm betting that the real car will look a whole lot better than these pics make it out to be.
I'm not sure I'll like it, but it won't look this ungainly.
I'm not sure I'll like it, but it won't look this ungainly.
#88
07-02-2013, 10:50 AM
Guaranteed this will happen to the best of us, guys... 
http://changingminds.org/explanation...e_exposure.htm
http://changingminds.org/explanation...e_exposure.htm
#91
07-02-2013, 11:13 AM
#93
07-02-2013, 01:16 PM
2nd Gear
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guaranteed this will happen to the best of us, guys...
http://changingminds.org/explanation...e_exposure.htm
http://changingminds.org/explanation...e_exposure.htm
#94
07-02-2013, 01:37 PM
#97
07-02-2013, 08:40 PM
#99
07-03-2013, 03:13 AM
I'm so glad I got the 2013 JCW HT
Last edited by SuperGreg; 07-03-2013 at 05:01 AM.