Purely out of curiosity, is there a preference in any of these three R56 renditions?

 

I prefer the middle one for its lower stance than the one on the left and less squished look than the one on the right.

dean.

 

Hmmm....personally I like the first one best. The second one looks lowered a bit and that's nice, too, especially if one wanted to portray something modified of more aggressive. The third ond looks too distorted. Cool....but too distorted.

 

From left to right:
Stock
Tuned (sportier stance looks best, but would ride like a rock)
Rice

 

What I want to know is where do these cool drawings come from?

 

The one on the right looks channeled. I like the one on the middle b/c lower is cooler. =o) The one on the right, although stock-looking, is nice, too.

Zip

 

#2.

Now can you do a stripe-free Dark Silver/White one with web spokes for me?

(Too soon for a new Cars series?)

 

No, no, no do it in Dark Silver/BLACK for me!

 

Ummm... except for the hood scoop, right? Cooperation - the man himself. Incredibly talented, and very generous with those talents to the MINI community.

 

 

Ah, yes (I should have been more specific) that's not a worry since Coopers have no scoop issues and I only have interest in R56 Coopers.

C4...interesting pics! One can see hints at R56 in all of those.

 

HEY, NOW!

If he does one in WHITE... you can allways use Paint ot Photoshop to fill in the white with black. It's much harder to go the opposite way changing black to white! (That's my story, and I'm sticking too it ).

 

Funny looking at the Mini concepts C4 posted - it once again makes me wonder why they can't make the headlights rounder and more upright. Other cars and trucks manage the blunt face, and these guys even made a car that recalls the orginal Mini face even better

 

I guess if you're referring to the pics you posted... "better" is a subjective term and a matter of taste... and (no offense, but) those two look like ***! Lights and all.

 

sorry if I wasn't clear, when I said 'made a car that recalls the orginal Mini face even better', in context I meant better as is did a better job of looking like this:


Like it or not, the vertical face with round lights is what the Mini looked like, and, personally, I'll take those cues over the trend towards the ever more reclining sideways facing headlights we are seeing.

 

I like the first most. BTW, the images look great as always!!

 

Gotch'ya.

But I think the picks of the Daihatsu Trevis you've posted aren't necessarily accurate... and from this angle of the production car:



...you can see the lights are rotated out to meet those awful pedestrian safety statndards for visibility. Just the way things are gonna be for a while for any manufacturers selling in Europe.

 

Its still 'better'ie more vertical and akin, looks wise in several ways, to the classic Mini.

Ped standards notwithstanding there are vehicles out there not sloping the face of the vehicle and prostrating the lights or making them face the sides, even British ones :

 

Yes, I see. Looks like the Range Rover get by this with the lit orange strip on the outside edge, while the RR gets the strange, out of place side marker.

Definately different solutions are availible.

 

The R56 front end...in it's overall effect...reads like a MINI (and even a good bit like a Mini) in my opinion and the slant of the headlights is not a big deal...certainly not worth fretting over. It is a well-motivated design evolution. Certainly it should come as no surprise at all given the Traveller headlights. R56s headlights are still big, round, googly-eyed features...they is much more right about them than wrong.

It is possible to extract individual details of R56 and scrutinize them endlessly, but the same could be (and has been) done with R50. In the end, back away from the car...look at it as a complete package...and everything looks right. That's my view (and experience) anyway.

As for the Trevis...I really like it, but I do not see it being all that dissimilar to R56 especially in the headlight department. Sadly, if the Trevis were to go on sale here in the US, it would no doubt undergo so many changes so as to bring a tear to one's eye.

 

dean.

 

I hear you, and truly I'm not having to scrutinize and dissect when it comes to this, the design of the headlights is something that really stands out to me and bugs me about the look of the car.

Perhaps I'll get used to it (although in the past when a design does not appeal to me it doesn't necessarily change to my eyes just from exposure and make me a fan; take the 5 series, I still think its ugly) but in any case I was just posting it after seeing C4s posts of concepts, the subject made me consider it again and wonder why other cars can have a more vertical blunt front end a la the classic Mini as well.

 

It's true...some things grow on you and some don't. I've had pet peeves about the R53 MCS that I just never got over and still don't like. I do keep these "well-reasoned and insightful" opinions to myself though as a good number of my friends and fellow MINIacs drive and love MCSs.

As for R56, I myself have stood there in awe gazing at the massive R56 booty, not sure what to think. Stepping back helps me...overall I love the car and everything looks right. Up close...yeah, I'm puzzled. Right now I'm working through the funky R56 boot latch...not to worry, l'll adapt. Understanding the technical reeasoning behind the design change helps too...if a change is properly motivated I'm more okay w/ it.

Fortunately for me I fell in love with the first renderings of the R56 Cooper and I think that's helped me see things differently as more and more information came out. I'm still not a fan of the MCS (I have my reasons) but it is not my place to rain on someone else's enthusiasm.

So, just as vladimir might need to see himself as a connoisseur of fine R50s and/or R53s, I have to define myself as a connoiesseur of fine Coopers and call it even. Besides...many times the real issue is not that I don't like something and therefore it's "wrong"...it's more that I don't understand it and/or relate to it. The former projects issues on the object (and onto it's owners?)...the latter makes it my "problem", and in the end that's fine with me.

 

What bothers me the most about this car is the "fish eye"headlights, the nearly flat bonnet, the taller waistline, the huge butt, the higher (stock) ground clearance and the thick wheel arches.

Looking at the concepts I can't help but think if MINI should either a) Have never change the Frank Stephenson design and just accomodate the new powertrain and do added ajustments to comply with new legislation or simply b) instead of altering the original design, go with a clean sheet of paper and start fresh from the get go.

It seems to me that Frank Stephenson's design is so damn well executed, tight and made in such a way that altering in any way or shape would render it useless.

 

Like I said in Motoringfile some weeks ago, I think the new design is going to work much better on the Clubman because of the squared off (Opposed to bulbous) rear end and the taller roof line will better compensate the higher waistline.

I just don't understand why MINI could not have given us the better front end treatment of the Traveller concept from last year?