re: European pedestrian safety regulations

I'm probably being oversensitive, but in the course of my cyber travels I've seen an increasing number of self-appointed experts on web forums, generally American, dismissively blaming any slightly ugly nose on a new car as the direct result of compliance with the European pedestrian safety regulations.

Bollocks. The Peugeot 407 does have a big nose, but the Mini doesn't; both are compliant. Look at the Seat Exeo: a reskinned old-gen Audi A4 - see how few changes were necessary to make it compliant. The legislation's been in place long enough, and there are enough euro-compliant designs in production that aren't in dire need of a remedial rhinoplasty that it can be argued if there is a failing, it is now with the engineering depts of the offenders who've yet to get a handle on it.

So the arrival of the facelifted Acura TL truly warmed the cockles of my heart. Not only has it's nose been pulped by the ugly stick, the Acura brand is not sold in Europe – it started as, and remains primarily, a North American brand.

This one's all on you.

Paris 2008

Part 2
C3 Picasso
The new C3 Picasso is the newest addition to what is already a pretty comprehensive MPV line up, fitting somewhere in amongst the Berlingo, Xsara Picasso (which will remain on sale), C4 Picasso & Grande Picasso and is possibly my favourite thing at Paris this year. It's kind of a funky & functional rather than utilitarian, friendly without being retro - could this be the first MPV you might actually want to buy? The overall effect is boxy with large radiussed corners, functional but not spartan, and quite distinct from most other MPVs. It looks set for the urban jungle too, although it's friendly rather than threatening the chunky rubstrips and bumper (rear especially) give it a rugged feel without resorting to pseudo off-roader clichés: Citroën seem to have judged it perfectly.

The slim, blacked out pre-A pillar gives better visibility and helps reinforce the boxy theme. I'm a little surprised that the elements of the front corner aren't tied together in unifying graphic like that hinted at in the C-Buggy & C-Airplay, but thus far only seen in production on the C4 Picasso's. Otherwise the front works quite well, though the edge surrounding the headlight is a bit unnecessary. However there is a certain honesty about the front graphics: the inlets are mounted where they're needed (low down) and the central elements are fully functioning, i.e. they don't have significant portions blanked off as is so common these days.

The vertical back end works well; the planform at the corners, curve at the top in profile and chunky rear bumper soften what could have otherwise looked van like. There is some nice detailing even if, in reality, the secondary lights in the bumper are probably vulnerable to damage when loading. It sits nicely on it's wheelbase and has a planted stance and though the lip around the wheelarches is quite thick, the wheelarch form itself isn't too exaggerated and smoothly integrated into the flanks.

In fact my major problem is not with the C3 Picasso, but the Berlingo: why, in the name of all that is holy, did they launch this when they have the capability of producing cars of the C3 Picasso's quality? Citroën must hope that the average Berlingo buyer really needs the space (it's bigger than the C3 Picasso.) One assumes that no C3 Grand Picasso is planned, otherwise it's really screwed...

GTbyCitroën
One of the undoubted show stars, the Citroën GT is a pure concept but it doesn't quite do it for me. However, given the pretty universally good reception given elsewhere I am starting to question my own judgement. It's not that I didn't like it, I just wasn't fussed; like so much stuff these days, it works well from a couple of specific viewpoints but poorly everywhere inbetween. The front elevation has the aspect of a crab with it's legs tucked up: the dull central form – a smooth soap bar with a nondescript grille – being the carapace and the wheelarch / side intakes the claws/legs. The press release explanation of the overhanging tail sets a new standard for marketing bollocks: it was 'made exaggeratedly long in order to create an effect of retinal persistence'. Rather than a single, integrated whole, it looks like central ovoid body onto which various appendages have been grafted. As with the odd shaped C-Metisse, I found the interior of the GT far more interesting. Admittedly, I don't see polished copper IPs catching on anytime soon (however cool they look) – but if one of the roles for such concept cars is to inspire then it succeeds on that basis; and car interiors are in need of inspiration.

Maybe it takes more than a pure concept to get me excited – but I loved the Mazda Furai, despite all that guff about it being shaped by the wind (if so, why don't LMP cars look like this already?) In terms of pure theatre, it's not a patch on Batmans Tumbler (but nothing from the 'proper' car designers is either). Sculpturally, the soon to be replaced current F1 generation have got some many things going on, even if the overall effect is dramatic rather than beautiful.

The C-GT is the latest and cleverest in a series of GT tie-ins. TVRs appearance in a videogame, in combination with it's unavailability (as opposed to unobtainability) in many markets made it beyond cool to generation of gamers. Unfortunately, this culminated in the Tuscan Speed Six's appearance in Swordfish – so, swings and roundabouts then... As an ambassador for the brand it's great and making it available in the game is a good move.

As a Citroëniste, I think it's supreme irrelevance is possibly why it left me cold. With the exception of the SM, Citroën has never made a sports car in the past, and even before the current difficulties they were unlikely to in the future. I'm struggling to see anything that relates to their current or future design language – take the badges off and it could be anything. It's primary drive is novelty, and as consumers become ever more design literate, there needs to be a little more substance.

Golf VI
Timeless. Classic. Mature. As far as the new Golf VI is concerned, these are euphemisms for what it actually is: boring. And who thought that this staid effort was best showcased in mid-tone, mediocre metallic blue? (Odd that the new Ka was launched in a similar colour – is this the new black?) It looks much better in silver and it needs all the help it can get. The Golf V was hailed as a return to form in a number of regards, and styling was one of them. To these eyes, the Golf VI seems to be stuck halfway between the IV & V. With Touareg taillights - only they're not: if costs are such an issue why not use the rather tidy Golf Plus units? They're so rare hardly anyone would notice...

According to VW themselves they wanted to 're-establish the unadorned look' of the Golf IV but they've not been very successful. The key to this look in the Golf IV was it's clean graphics (such as headlamp shape) simple surfaces, and elegant shutlines; the Golf V was more complex, but there remained a coherence lacking in this new iteration. The headlights are a complex shape, as are the upper & lower grilles. This is the first horizontally oriented grille on Walter de Silva's watch and it's..... really quite anonymous. Which is presumably why they made the VW badge so big (by Golf X it could be a threat to pedestrian NCAP ratings). Scaling is an issue - the thin chrome trim on the upper grille vanes (which call to mind the speaker grille of a mono Decca radio cassette player I had in the 70s) contrast poorly with the oversize detailing of the badge itself. The trim around the lower grille does work; it's at a remove from the badge forms a neat virtual lightline tracing the shape of the intake, but why isn't the line carried up through the lights and bonnet more cleanly – it gets lost in the upper grille / headlight area.

The unadorned aspect may refer to the body sides: from the front ¾ the only features of the body side are the shoulder line and the door handle - as is the fashion these days rubstrips have been abandoned, and the effect is quite pleasing. It's a similar story from the rear ¾ but unlike the IV, the taillights are sort of rectangular but actually a complex shape and interrupt the strong, clean shutline that defines the C-pillar graphic which has not only been a cornerstone of the Golf identity of late, but added tension to the rear ¾ – giving a planted look – to even a 1.4CL on steel rims. While more complex, the rear end does improve on the Golf V: the crisp detailing adds a focus previously lacking.

Even though there was quite a lot of form in the rear bumper of the Golf V, one was always left with the impression of a saggy arse because the eye had nothing to latch onto – the whole tail was a slippery slope, heightened by the fact that overall form widened towards the base and the bodycolour / grey plastic border was at the widest point. Here the edge in the lower lip of the tailgate is stronger, the tighter upper radius of the bumper itself, and the character line just above the rear reflectors which adds a highlight work together to give a more defined look; extending the painted area all the way down also helps.

The Golf V GTi in white on the optional Monza alloys (retained on the new model) was a tour de force. Not normally the best colour for a car, this showed off the excellent graphics to their best advantage, the simple surfaces and lower mouldings towards the rear emphasised the stance, and the now traditional red trim was the perfect counterpoint to set the whole thing off. The new GTi's lights are nicer than the standard models, but this is hardly enough to make a difference – the new model is fussier and lacks the impact of it's predecessor. The new lower grille with it's vertical driving lights does indeed make it look wider, but also a little simple minded. On a cleaner looking car, such as the Golf IV, the parallel red trim might have worked well. Here it looks a little boring - maybe they should have removed one of the upper pieces of red trim and put it around the lower intake?

I'm sure none of this will unduly impact the Golf's success, but if this is the new VW look things are going to be a little duller in the showrooms.

Renault Ondelios
Historically Renault have usually struck a good balance between the three major elements of concept car design – theatre, research & preview – than most; but the Ondelios is their most pointless & irrelevant concept since 1993's Racoon. It lacks anything obviously relevant to Renault's design language. It's a type of vehicle that Renault don't have much expertise in: the Koleos (their first off-roader) was a late entry into the softroader market – and none the better for it, being a pretty dismal effort.

The basic form is a distorted soap bar shape whose ends have been truncated with cheese wire. The gaping, lamprey-like mouth doesn't seem to offer many possibilities for front end graphics. What fine detail there is has not been particularly well integrated. The strakes around the front badge are OK but the opening as a whole is awkward and both the shape of running lights that extend into the bonnet and the detail within don't really relate to anything else on the car. The rear view cameras look like Shreks ears. Only smaller. At the back, the rear light / vent area is far too fussy – they need to take a closer look at current Mazda concepts to see how it should be done.

The interior has a few nice details, such as the glovebox surface which looks like the skin of a whale, but most of it is standard issue concept car. The strange dividing panels between the seats call to mind those new fangled business class airline seats; something desirable when you're sharing a confined space with strangers for some hours, but surely a little antisocial in a car?

Citroën Hypnos
Given that SUVs are a type of vehicle until recently largely ignored by the French manufacturers, it seems bizarre synchronicity that both Renault & Citroën choose an off road theme for their concepts. The front end is a less extreme evolution of the C-Metisse than the GT; the headlights are a jumble of scoops and curves lacking any unifying theme or direction – as a result they don't communicate / express the excitement they were surely meant to convey. Underneath all the swoopy sharp edged nonsense, the bland central form & grille is pretty similar to the GT. Let us hope that this is not an indication of the future of the Citroën corporate look: they've only just got their mojo back and this is not an improvement.

The surface features in the flanks seems like something gouged into the underlying form rather than an expression of some muscular or dynamic form, and the chrome 'rubstrip' is just odd. The rear badge cum exhaust surround is one of those pointless features that will never see production and adds little interest here. The rear lights are almost as fussy as the front; here the intended aim is more apparent, but falls even further short of achievement. Form that suggests speed or movement can be surprisingly complex when studied closely: if it does it's job well this it's not necessarily apparent to the casual observer – any one of the recent Mazda concepts illustrates this neatly. The Hypnos (despite what the name suggests) achieves the opposite – a jumble of swoops and curves that doesn't gel as a whole.

Peugeot RC HyMotion4
In contrast to Renault, Peugeot's concepts are typically irrelevant, often juvenile, flights of fancy that not only have little to with design direction but are vehicles of a type that Peugeot doesn't currently - and isn't likely to – produce. The recent exception to this was the 308 RC Z – which also seemed to indicate that the PSA design teams had rediscovered such things as proportion, planform and stance; unfortunately the RC HyMotion4 (snappy name guys) suggests that this may have been a false dawn.

In fairness, the RC HyMotion4 isn't as excruciating as the 907 or the 908 RC. The odd proportions of the 908 RC are back but there is at least planform this time. At the front the combination of planform, headlight graphic and large grille area (mostly blanked off) have more than a little of the Audi R8 about them – aided and abetted by a rear door graphic which is not dissimilar to the R8's sail panel; and their definition of brand identity seems to be making the badge larger.

Some form of curving character line spanning the length of the car has become a staple of many a marques surface language but Peugeot don't quite seem to have got the hang of it. This starts from the front side intake through the wheelarch into the bonnet / wing shutline and through into the doors and on to the taillights. Not entirely unlike a similar feature line on the Passat CC but unfortunately lacking it's sophistication: it's progress through the flanks is uneven, and fades out halfway through the rear door for reasons not immediately apparent. Surely a feature could have been made of the intake for the mid-mounted engine, siting it between the two character lines rather than this apologetic affair.

Better than recent efforts but something halfway between this and the Prologue HyMotion4 that contained some indication of possibilities for the Peugeot direction would have hit the spot nicely. Let's hope that this was the last gasp of the old guard and not produced entirely under the new design director.

Kia Soul
At bloody last. The Soul has had such a protracted gestation that the production item almost didn't warrant a second glance - which would have been a pity as it's an excellent job. In fact right it could be argued that this is the looker of both Kia & Hyundai's ranges. Yes, this does include the outgoing Hyundai Coupe, which needs an assisted suicide: the last few facelifts have just prolonged the cruelty. In many ways an improvement on the concept first shown (one wonders at the design chronology), the Soul is very much at the street end of the CUV market; more a tall hatchback than a small offroader: no bad thing. On a macro level it could be argued that the Soul shares much with Saab's 9-3X concept of '02, but there's little chance of confusing them: the Soul is more upright and sits more evenly on it's wheelbase so lacks that bobtail feel. If anything, it looks like a old school basketball boot or maybe a friendly Doc Marten - either way, the tie up with Vans in the US is inspired.

Almost every car shown thus far has a slightly different combination of trim finish & detail and it's not clear whether this is intentional, but the red vehicle on stand at Paris is one of the better combinations. The pinched Kia grille, black moulding under the headlights and around the wheelarches and bodycolour rubstrip should be rolled out across the range. One thing that must be especially praised is the absence of the pseudo-alloy plastic finishes currently so fashionable. Unusually, the gloss black finish a) works better than the matt finish and b) is just that, gloss; not the too-shiny 'piano' black finish as per the new Focus RS, whose bits of trim look like they've been left in the oven for a fraction too long.

The simple bold surfaces work nicely with the restrained detailing. OK, so it has a fake sidevent / repeater mount but these things seem to be mandatory these days, but elsewhere maximum value has been extracted from what detail there is. The waistline and shoulder/feature line carry forward to define the upper and lower boundaries of the headlight; the upper line flows around the light unit and then underscores the grille in a squared off 'U' shape. This shape is mirrored in the lower detail of the bumper which is a neat re-interpretation of the now clichéd sumpguard graphic, and well executed.

The weakest point of the nose is more a production engineering related issue than a styling one: in every Soul I've seen thus far there has been some issue with the bonnet and bumper alignment. Not the panel gap per se but the tongues in the bonnet either side of the grille seem to either be a little proud of the bumper or even flaring out at a slightly different angle. A small detail, but on such a simple front end hard to ignore once noticed; hopefully something that can be rectified.

From the rear it still resembles a Daihatsu Sirion, but given how rare these are it's not that big a problem. It's a pity the deeper sectioned tailgate wasn't retained for production (could have been neat storage cubby for toolkit) and even more that the 'floating' tailgate of the concept didn't make it, most likely due to cost. One of the few weaknesses is the glasshouse / roof area – it just seems a little too boxy in relation to the rest of the vehicle. Most of the time it gets hidden in the overall DLO graphic, but a little curvature in the windscreen might make it look less blocky from the front three-quarter. The contrast between the gloss black of the A pillar and matt finish of the window frames doesn't help, and the form in the side mirror mount lacks sophistication especially in relation to the sidevent just below; but this is really nitpicking.

Producing such a design-led model was a brave move for Kia (but necessary for the brand to progress), and the quality of it's execution makes it a good one. And if the awfully named 'Koup' concept is anything to go by, the Soul wasn't a fluke (but let's hope it's development is a little quicker.) Now they just need to be as brave with the next gen C'eed...

Mini Cross
Audi seem to have seen the light of using the name metro (though it could simply be that A1 is far more logical); one can only hope Mini stick with some variant of Crossover rather than Maxi, which was mooted at some point. Whilst Maxi does have a certain logic about it, to anyone even vaguely familiar with the original bearer of that name it does not have positive associations.

The Crossover concept was.... well, more of the same really. Underneath all of that beautiful detailing, BMW still don't seem to have a handle on the Mini design language – if they want to make this into a fully fledged marque this bridge will have to be crossed at some point. That is not to say that this is an easy or enviable task - far from it: of all the iconic peoples cars the original Mini had the lowest actual styling content.

So what we have is essentially a jacked up Mini with bigger wheelarches. In a proper four seater the whole asymmetry thing is getting a little contrived. The surface features are so subtle that they could be missed – the form in the lower door hardly screams at you but this is bold, even daring compared to the surface form in the nose and tail. At the front it looks like they wanted to create a highlight under the grille and then just let the form fade out into... nothing really. The surface change in the lower tailgate has the unfortunate effect of highlighting how bluff & featureless the rest of the tail is, which has a rather dour demeanour generally.

It's not even clear which of the details will make it through to any production reality. The Crossover is not as different from the Concept Tokyo / Detroit / Geneva as it should have been, and when the elements of the concept that didn't make it into the Clubman are removed we're left with even less. The seamline sidevents are a neat detail but we've been seeing them for nearly three years now and there's nothing to indicate they're any more likely to appear on the production Cross. The Mini Concept's the headlight and grille shape also didn't influence the production Clubman, which was a pity; the Crossover is a further evolution of that theme – will it make it this time?

If the previous Mini concepts are an indication, the production tailgate will follow the same basic configuration but with a less elaborate (& expensive) hinge arrangement; it remains to be seen if the asymmetry is retained. The rear light silhouette will probably be retained for production (woo and indeed, hoo.) The DLO graphic is similar to Honda Element and Toyota FJ, no bad thing in this case but overall the glasshouse is a little small – this is especially apparent from the rear where it makes the tail look overly tall; some variation on this should be retained if only to differentiate it from the floating roof of the Mini & Clubman.

I'm not a fan of the 'look at me!' over-designed interiors of the reborn Mini; the revised Mini & Clubman were steps in the right direction and the Crossover interior builds on the existing Mini themes. The use of wood here warrants special mention: like the current Range Rover, it looks like a structural part of the interior rather than simply trim and works all the better for it. Unfortunately it's not credible that the production interior will remain so elegantly sparse – particularly the centre console.

BMW X1
It's quite amusing watching the current BMW design team wrestle with the wretched Bangle flame surfacing legacy: here they seem to have thrown everything at the wall and kept what sticks – it's all over the place. Whatever one may think of the original X5 as a vehicle, it raised the bar for SUV styling - there was a lot of clever stuff going on; the X1 is far less sophisticated and seems to have abandoned many of the features associated with the X models.

The grille and the lights follow on from the new 7, but this rendition of the kidney grille is worse (too amorphous) and seems a fraction too large; proportionately it's certainly a lot larger than not only the other X models, but everything else. The light graphic is another weak point – the overall silhouette lacks tension, the light units themselves seem arbitrarily positioned within the unit and the eyebrow first seen on the CS seems a mandatory component of the new look, even though it doesn't relate to anything else here. It just seems like they didn't give it much thought. The surfacing around the headlights is all over the place and the junction between the bonnet, wing, headlight and bumper is just messy. The new BMW nose is bluffer than before, and the dark grey insert does a reasonable job of disguising that & the height of nose, but the odd siting of the driving lights detracts from this.

The crease in the lower flanks first seen on the CS and then the new 7 – a nice surfacing feature – has been used here, but it's oddly sized and positioned, skewed and ties into (albeit with a fade out) the rear quarter light; weird. Had this been moved forward slightly it might have helped tie things together – it's axle-to-dash ratio shares more with the 7 than the other X models, and the nose feels too long when viewed in profile. The squared off wheelarches are in themselves OK but the front wheelarch looks a little awkward and intrusive in relation to the front corner and headlights.

Although the rear light graphic is good, the relationship with the tailgate is odd – why is the surface break aligned to a surface feature within the light rather than the upper edge of the light itself? (as in other X models.) The chrome insert at the bottom of the main unit is odd – it seems almost accidental and it interferes with the unity of the two parts of the light unit. Bar the front grille surround, it's also about the only piece of chrome on the whole car, never mind the tailgate; yes it's a small detail – but there aren't that many such details on the X1 and these things do matter. The surfacing around the numberplate surround is poor – instead of perpetuating the myth that this has been milled out of the solid surface of the tailgate this looks like a solid plane set into a softer inflated form.

Overall then, a rather mixed affair: the X1 isn't sure whether it's a 'proper' X model or a jacked up 3 Touring. The real test of the van Hooydonk BMWs will be the new 5, and based on what we've seen thus far the omens aren't good.

Kangoo Be Bop / ZE concept
Unfortunately for Renault, Postman Pat has just taken delivery of a new van (really) – otherwise the Be Bop have been perfect.

The new Kangoo has grown somewhat, and this makes space for the Be Bop. On the one hand, they have been incredibly successful in making a vehicle of it's size and proportions not look overbodied on it's 16” rims, but on the other it looks like it could do a rolling stoppie if you braked too hard. The scaling of the features seems to be the issue – certain details seem to have been intended for a much larger vehicle. The crisp surface break between the hooped wheelarches and the bodyside emphasises the size of the wheelarch in relation to the rest of the body. The semi-circular graphic at the back of the rear window – as opposed to a more squared off form of big brother is so simple and so big (or crude) as to appear toylike. Even the rubstrip seems deep for it's length.

Along with many others, Renault has adopted the silver finish on the plastic that is meant to look like alloy, but just looks – even from a distance – like a cheap plastic finish. Aside from aesthetic considerations, I can't see how this will age / weather terribly well. So as not be outdone by the new Berlingo, Renault have used even more of this stuff: the bumpers, the bonnet, the tailgate – nothing is safe.

The ZE concept is as near as dammit the same size as the Be Bop, and it's as though they represent the grown up and the novelty versions of the same vehicle. Yes, the door and window graphics are willfully convoluted, but the headlight silhouette is nicer than the Be Bops, ditto the front and rear bumper inserts. The smoother surfacing with better integrated wheelarches and bone line just above the rubstrip (which stops things getting too amorphous) is much better than the Be Bop's. Like the Nissan Cube (only symmetrical) the ZE carries the side window graphic through into the tailgate – but some simplified variation is production feasible. Of course mundane essential items like doorhandles, wing mirrors and wipers along with shutlines would lessen it's impact, but we would still be left with a French equivalent of the Cube – only with a certain je ne sais quoi.

Megane III
The quality of design in the Renault range is very uneven. Three years on, I still can't help photographing the latest Clio Sport variant at a show: it's stance is perfect and the surfacing of the front bumper / air dam exquisite. It's hard to believe these are the same people that have recently given the world the dreary Koleos. The current Laguna is ungainly - especially the saloon's taillights (they don't look like they belong), but the coupe looks like a junior Aston. Whilst I have huge admiration for Mr Le Quement, Renault seem to have been through a rough patch of late; the Avantime, Vel Satis, & Megane II (standard bearers of 'booty' era) have been - to varying degrees - failures in the showroom. So a retreat to the middle ground is entirely understandable, especially for bread and butter models. Although the concept in Geneva was more than a straight preview concept, it closely presaged what was to come; unfortunately more has been lost in the translation to production than seems strictly necessary.

The front graphic – a stylised gullwing form that takes in a low mounted intake through into the front lights – first seen on the Fluence concept in '04, and hinted at a few times since has finally reached production but the execution is flawed. The flow is now disjointed: the headlight unit desperately needs an orange sidereflector / indicator vane that continues the arc of the front wing to link it to the front graphic – not only has the edge in the headlight that perfomed this task in the concept been softened, it's utterly overwhelmed in the clutter of a shiny, busy production light unit. Similarly, the bumper / wing shutline is poorly sited – it overrides the form in the front wing, and the eye falls off the edge following it. Keeping the shutline basically the same but moving it forward 2-4” (similar to the taillights) would have allowed the curved form to dominate. In the front elevation, the 'wings' the gullwing rise at a steeper angle on the production version than the concept; there no good reason for this as the outermost few inches of the main intake is blank plastic and relaxing the angle would make the front look more sleek and flow better. All of which might sound like nitpicking, but the cumulative effect would make a significant difference.

The leading edge of the bonnet probably couldn't be extended much further without compromising crash repair regs, but it should have either been extended to fully enclose the badge or moved back, much like the current Clio. The way the badge straddles the shutline and the surrounding cutline are awkward and would have been far more elegant if mounted wholly within either panel. Unfortunately the issue is compounded by the relatively large panel gap – thrown into sharp contrast by the excellent, tight shutlines all around: again, moving the shutline would make a tighter tolerance more feasible.

At the rear the taillights seem to big for the rest of the vehicle, making the rear end look oversize. This impression is reinforced by the fact that most of the other features of the tail have been executed on the same scale – such as the surface change in the lower tailgate. It's a pity the tail of the 3 door didn't follow the concept more closely, at the moment it can look like it has a huge arse from certain angles; there's too much going on in the upper half. It's tailgate seems to be about 4” higher than the 5 door's, which doesn't help. The grey plastic strip is an awkward shape that doesn't relate well to the rubstrip on the sides, the silver plastic rectangular exhaust pipe is cheap looking and the surfacing around the foglights terrible. Two elements from the concept should have been used more fully: 1) the rubstrip at the base of the door starts about a third of the way back and is carried through into the wheelarch and tail, 2) the 'eyebrows' over the taillights, positioned right about where the colour border currently is, would mean the lights themselves could be be sited lower and added interest.

Overall it's far less radical than the Megane II and will doubtless do the better in the marketplace for it, but it's a shame that it falls down on the details.

Mercedes Concept Fascination
After the grotesque that was last years F700, we get a much stronger hint about the the new E-Class from the handsome conceptFASCINATION, so what can we learn about the new E? We can be pretty certain that the front light graphics are similar as we've been told about the new theme enough times. These are the most successful examples yet, but unfortunately from the spyshots recently published the production version is less elegant: the main unit interrupts the bonnet shutline in both elevations, making it not only uglier but surely more expensive to engineer; a lose-lose.

The form in the rear wheelarch works well at disguising the visual mass resultant from the high waistline, assisted by the steeply rising rubstrip over the rear wheels. In fact, with the exception of a little fussiness under the rear taillights the surfacing is much cleaner and more elegant than a lot of overdetailed Mercedes of late – the recent GLK being the worst offender. Even so, isn't it going to be a bit claustrophobic in the back? Given that the E-Class estate is a true load lugger, could this be a hint that a next-gen CLS might be joined by a sportswagen sister? A niche too far – maybe...

Octavia facelift
What is it about facelifts – are they given to the B-team or the office juniors? Changing certain elements of an existing design and successfully integrating them is a tricky task, but all too often the results are poor because the job is done with little skill, or sympathy with the original.

Although the Octavia's facelift is not disastrous, it's hardly a good example of the art either. At the back the changes seem confined to the lights and bumper, so not much to get wrong here. The new light is basically the old one with the central block of red now rendered in silver and a new simple, elegant bumper. So far, so good. The problem is at the front where the bumper, lights, front wings, grille & possibly bonnet have been changed.

Though understated, the Skoda Superb is handsome and this is surely the direction in which Skoda wanted to Octavia to move. At the front, one of the key features is the headlight. Although this graphic is not unique (see certain Honda and Mitsi models) it is crisply executed here and, as with the fat almond shape is shared by the Fabia and Roomster, I expected the Octavia to sport some variation on the the Superb's theme.

Whilst the lower airdam & driving light do mimic the Superb, the only aspect of the headlights copied is the chrome strip embossed with the model name (but here is seems slightly askew.) Not only does the anonymous, amorphous (sort of a squashed Corsa shape) silhouette share nothing with any other Skoda, it simply does not fit in with the rest of the car in terms of either graphics or surfacing. This is a design fault: the scope of the changes at the front did not constrain the solution so as dictate such a result.

Maybe I'm being a pedant – it's only a headlight after all; but given the manhours and money spent on changing just this one item, a little more thought and effort at the design stage would have yielded a much better result for something that will be seen in showrooms all over the world for the next four years.

Ssangyong C200
Ssangyong in (fairly) good looking car shock! Thus far Ssangyong have been purveyors of almost wilfully ugly cars, but the C200 reverses this. From the front it has the aspect of a Grand Vitara, (no bad thing) and, dare I say it, a hint of LRX – but that could just be the paintjob. It remains to be seen how and when the headlights / grille get translated into production, but hopefully the overall graphic will survive.

By the same token, let's hope that the rear is revised. The surface feature over the haunches is not necessary and poorly executed: it droops rather than swooshes and forces the rear doorhandle higher than it wants to be. The matching window line is also unnecessary and the rear door shutline needs more definition.

The rear light graphic is crude, contrived and doesn't really relate to anything other than the aforementioned swoosh and the odd underlining swage line. Simpler, cleaner light units would work better. They've gone for faux sump guards on all four sides but just get away with it by not being too overstated.

However, let's get this in perspective: this is a design from the people who've given the world the Rodius, Kyron, & Actyon. Even if the C200 were put in production unchanged it's a clean, modern design light years ahead of anything seen from them previously.

Paris 2008

Part 1
Lamborghini Estoque
These days super saloons are like buses – you wait ages for one and three come along in short succession: the Panamera was a surprise no-show at Paris, the Rapide will probably debut in Detroit. The Estoque was a bit of a surprise and I should like it, but for some reason it doesn't quite hit the spot – not that this will unduly concern Lamborghini ;-) One of the undoubted stars of the show, it's an accomplished piece of styling using current Lambo cues while having a distinct identity of it's own. Thankfully the Espada references seem to be limited to the sidevents in the front wing, and the horizontal headlights and form in the bonnet call to mind the 350GT. Perhaps most intriguingly, here is a saloon that is not ashamed of looking like a saloon: the beltline is pretty horizontal and there isn't much difference between the scuttle and rear deck height. I hope the lights make it through to production largely unchanged – the rear lights in particular are the most successful interpretation yet of the new Lambo graphic. I'm not sure one could call it restrained, but in the brand context this is a mature offering (in a good way). Without wanting to sound even more of a pedant, where exactly is the front number plate to be mounted? Even the tiny Italian plates will pose a problem. The front end shown in the teaser sketches was better looking, more practical & looked equally production feasible.

Despite the excellence of the design department, I am slightly more concerned about the brand management: a diesel lump was mentioned as a possibility. Petrol? Of course. Petrol hybrid, fuel cell or battery? Yes – but diesel?? Never; that's an end of it. I'm not against diesel per se, but in a low volume £200k supersaloon? Nay, nay and thrice nay. Can you really see owners dropping a gear and opening her up as they tear through Alpine tunnels so they can revel in the banshee wail of that high performance, thoroughbred.... diesel. Me neither. Do they think they'll win custom from the Aston because the Rapide doesn't do a oil burner? And if that doesn't work maybe it's iPod compatibility, split rear seats and extra 60 litres of boot space will do it (not.) This is a saloon only in the sense of it's configuration, if practicalities were a genuine concern no-one would buy one. Desirability is the issue and who's ever lusted after an oil burner?

Nissan Pixo & Suzuki Alto
In these straitened times sales of small cars are not suprisingly on the up: people are looking at the vehicles that meet their needs if not their desires. Of late though that latter is also being catered for, the 500 being the pre-eminent example of this. So into this increasingly crowded and competitive segment come the Suzuki Alto and Nissan Pixo: the ugly sisters.

The ForTwo has shown us city cars can be revolutionary, the Aygo that they can be funky and clever, & the 500 that they can be style icons. The Pixo-Alto sisters are none of these, and given how long some of the competition has been around there really isn't a good reason why this is so. Yes, yes, the new Alto is a big step on from the previous generation – the problem is that the market has also moved on, and they should have been benchmarked against the best of the competition.

The amount of commonality on shared projects such as this varies and that can obviously make the task of differentiation harder. The external differences here seem to be confined to the front & rear bumpers, front lights and bonnet (though the bonnets look similar but not quite the same – if you're going to have distinct panels, why not go to town?) The problem is neither really works and with a joint CV that features the Swift, Micra and Splash it's not as if they lack small car expertise. Admittedly there are more differences between the B-Zero sisters, but the C1, 107 & Aygo are all better than either one of these. It's as though they're punishing you for buying a cheap car, and it's doubtful they will be significantly cheaper than the competition (which at this end of the market means hundreds, not thousands anyway).

The Pixo apes the look of big bruv Note..... just as it's been facelifted with a new look. Nice work on the product planning, guys. The Alto has lost far more in the translation from concept than the Splash did: the headlights look like the facelifted Picanto, the surfacing either side of grille makes it look like it's bottom lip is sticking out in a sulk, and the body-coloured vanes within the grille opening underline that this is a cheap, one-piece front end – blacked out vanes and maybe a chromed grille surround are an investment that would have paid themselves back in perceived quality. They share the odd window line in the rear doors.

If four doors were a necessity, I choose the Aygo, Panda, 107 & C1 over this. If you really must buy something this cheaplooking, I'd go for the Hyundai i10 or Picanto – as well as being funkier, they have winding rear windows (wow). If you really must buy a Suzuki, then get a used Swift or Splash; Nissan? Then a Micra, as long as you're secure enough in your masculinity. If emissions are a concern, I'm sure the competition will be introducing ever more efficient powerplants – or you could just DRIVE LESS.

Chevrolet Volt
The significance and achievement of the Volt have been overshadowed by a frankly overblown 'controversy' over - of all things - its looks. Although this is all down to an ill-judged comment from Mr. Lutz that the production item would stay faithful to the concept, as Autoblog pointed out: where were all these guys when the Volt concept debuted to a deafening silence?

Anyway, even if you are a fully paid up petrolhead this car – and anything like it – is no more likely to be at the top of your shopping list than a Hummer, so why get all worked up? It will be bought by a) Hollywood liberals and other do gooders who want to be seen to be doing the right thing, and b) people for whom a car is nothing more than an appliance for getting from A to B and believe this is cheap way to do it. Hell, when we see the realworld numbers they may even be right.

Indeed, some of the least satisfactory aspects of the styling are as a result of trying to incorporate details from the concept: the base of the A-pillar is too fussy, and the slim horizontal rear lights serve only to emphasise it's considerable rump. It's certainly more distinct from the Prius than the Insight II, but I question the usefulness of the lower element of the rear screen in the Volts case and this is a feature common to all three. Currently it's just on the right side of stocky but if the showroom examples have wheels any smaller than the 18” shown it will look overbodied.

Honda Insight II
Whilst Honda's styling direction isn't quite the disarray that Subaru's is, the brand clearly lacks focus. As Chevy dodges slings and arrows for a car that didn't hold true to the original concept, the Insight II – truly a Prius clone – has debuted largely without comment. Even so, I was bemused when the OSM was mooted as the basis of a new design language, largely because there was so little substance on which to hang this statement. In the short term, aerodynamics offer the fastest return in the quest for efficiency (hence the similarity to the Prius) but the Insight's front grille / headlight graphic (an evolution of the FCX Clarity treatment) would seem to offer a strong basis for a new corporate nose. The proportions could be altered and the material / finish of the infill panel varied as required; indeed, this graphic has just appeared on the new Odyssey.

Peugeot Prologue HYmotion4
Saying what you will be is basically an admission of what you're currently not (how long was Callum going on about modern Jags before it started to happen?) So I was amused by the statements in the press about Peugeot's new design direction (the plan is to make good looking cars within their sectors and ditch the current nose - hurrah!) on the eve of Paris where they showed the latest RC and the Prologue HYmotion 4.

Oh dear, this monstrosity looks suspiciously production ready and in the wake of the Koleos confirms that the French just don't seem to get SUV's. When it hits the showrooms it'll be a surprise if the most interesting bit – the hybrid drive – is available at launch or anytime soon after. Overall, the word that comes to mind is 'lumpen'. The feature line around the front wheelarch is terrible, and the one at the back only slightly better because it faces the right way and there are more distractions. Lighting graphics have historically been a Peugeot strength, but here the headlight / front fog seems to have been fitted at a drunken angle by mistake, and the rear light shape seems completely contrived in a vain attempt to add interest. Regarding the interior, the only thing that catches the eye is that they seem to have mistakenly fitted some sort of iDrive arrangement in the drivers cupholder. In the coming recession (that's right, I'm not afraid of the 'R' word) I question the appeal of anything SUV-ish, and even within that context who would choose this uninspired, stodgy lump over it's competitors in this sector?

Audi A1
Even though it's only a year since we saw the metroproject, the baby Audi does seem to have been a long time coming. Of late Audi don't seem to be doing pure fantasy concept cars – all the recent stuff has telegraphed key elements of the production item. On that basis, what can be gleaned from the A1, especially when compared to the Metroproject? First off is the evolution of the grille from four sides to six: the upper part or the sides now turn in, this is echoed by the inner edge of headlight (although this headlight graphic has appeared on the Metroproject and Cross Coupe), This is first time this particular permutation of the Audi grille has been seen and in recent past, such as the TT Shooting Brake, the main graphical elements have been pretty strong indicators of the production reality

The character line that underpins the shoulderline starts from the grille, forms the upper edge of the headlight and the lower edge of the clamshell bonnet then circumnavigates the body through the rear lights is a lovely detail, and the form in shoulderline over the wheelarches achieves the same impression of power as the wonky shoulderline of the A5 in a more elegant manner. Unfortunately the inner edge of this feature, which formed a ring around the Metroproject has been dropped in favour of more conventional form in the bonnet, presumably more redolent of power and speed. If it is the next evolution of the Audi look it's a neat solution here, but presupposes a clamshell bonnet (a more expensive solution that may be necessary for pedestrian safety in this case) and might be harder to integrate on some of the larger models.

Having only just rolled out a new look for the headlights, we'll see how literally the showcars lights are translated into production. As with the Metroproject, there doesn't seem to be a front wing / bumper shutline – not something usually omitted on Audi concepts, not least of all because they use their shutlines well. The way the rearmost pillar flows into the edge of the rear light unit is a feature I first recall seeing on the Q7 but is on it's way to becoming a cliché, having since appeared on the Toyota Venza, Insignia Sports Tourer and new Renault Megane. The crease line trailing from the rear light is very similar to that first seen on the current Astra and a number of other vehicles since, most recently on the new Ibiza which uses it in almost eaxctly the same way as the A1.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the interior: the fresh air vents are gorgeous, but I can't see how they will translate into production, but the binnacles and gearlever seem pretty workaday items with an expensive finish. Odd.

Seat Exeo
Presumably due to budgetary constraints, the external differences between the Exeo and the old A4 are pretty minimal: bootlid, bumper and lights at the rear and bonnet, wings, bumper & lights at the front – and the changes to the front seem largely driven pedestrian safety regs. Although it would be churlish to criticise the styling too harshly under those circumstances, they didn't make the best of the opportunity. The bespoke rear lights are clumsy – the silhouette clearly looks like these were originally intended to match the Altea XL units and they then spent, ohh, a whole afternoon shoehorning the badly clashing new style Seat light graphics into this outline. The rear three-quarter panel is carried over; the bumper is new yet doesn't carry any vestige of the corner surface break trailing from the light unit first seen (in Seat) on the Altea XL units and feature on the new Ibiza. The front is bland and a little fussy – the fine detail around the lower side intakes at odds with the rest of the surfacing. Given that the front wings are new anyway, why wasn't the distinctive Audi 'S' shaped bumper shutline changed? A more cohesive nose could have been achieved.

However the real problem here is the catastrophic brand management. Inter-brand associations can be a double-edged sword at the best of times, but what amazes here is how clumsily this has been executed when in the past VAG has been adept at this. Skoda being a case in point: although VW made it's association known, it played a supporting role to lend credibility rather than make it a bargain basement dumping ground for yesterday's VW products. It let Skoda develop it's own products whilst making VW's formidable resources available. The Octavia was launched with bespoke styling sitting on a contemporary VAG platform – in fact it got use of it before it's Golf IV sister. OK, the first Superb was more obviously related to the Passat (hard to disguise that roofline / DLO) but it still got it's own skin.

Convergence has been a problem for Seat of late – but this was a failing of the designers, not the design language: the outgoing Seat look still had potential, and 'same design, different sizes' stuff like the Altea & Toledo is just laziness or incompetence. But whatever else you want to say, Seats were easily identifiable as such. The Exeo seems a panicked response to the new Toledo (which was a mistake) but topping and tailing a 10 year old Audi is not the answer: it's stretching a brands credibility too far, too quickly and diluting it's identity. How is this in any way beneficial?

The Chrysler 300 was criticised for being based on a previous-gen E-Class (a little harsh given the alternatives) but it was at least redeemed by offering good value for money. The Exeo doesn't. If the pricing information reported is correct (£15-23k), this puts it in direct competition with the brand-new-from-the-ground-up Insignia, the brand-new-from-the-ground-up-last-year Mondeo (which has as rep as a drivers car). Hell, it even puts it in competition with a current A4 – what an earth were they thinking? If the Exeo had to be based on a platform this old, it might have been forgiveable if it had least been the contemporary A6.

Even the timing stinks – a cornerstone of the overrated Ibiza's campaign has been that it's the dawn of a new age of Seat design.... and the very next model launched is then a barely warmed over Audi hand-me-down. Hhhmmm. One can't help but feel the momentum to the next major Seat launch would have been better maintained if the Exeo had been launched first.

Press releases sometimes contain moments of unintentional humour, especially when PR guys are playing that doublebluff that marketing types seem to enjoy (like calling a dreary Mitsi saloon a 'Carisma'.) In the Exeo press release there's a heading 'distinctive personality' – no arguments there, just unfortunate that it happens to be that of old-gen Audi A4. Strictly speaking, the words 'magnolia' and 'interesting' were used in adjacent sentences, not the same one – as in 'The interior colour scheme of the show car is particularly interesting. Entitled 'magnolia'....' aside from making a case for magnolia being exciting, the implication that this may be for the show car only – because the world's just not ready for magnolia, rather than the fact it would wear terribly and driving after dark would be impossible with the internal reflections, raises a smile.

Auto emoción? Unfortunately, the emoción is incredulity.

Citroen C4 facelift

Alive with technology? Quite possibly. Innovation, less so

The revised Citroen C4 now sports this years must have accessory: a gaping trapezoidal lower intake, thus joining Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Ford, Nissan, Seat & Mazda – who all sport variations on this theme. The driving lights could have been taken from a Focus or Mondeo. Whilst a midlife refresh was expected – probably needed – it's a disappointment that the new nose follows the herd rather than C5.


Unfortunately this herdlike mentality seems all too prevalent in todays design studios, but it's particularly mystifying in this case as Citroen seemed to be rediscovering their mojo with the C4 and new C5 – and as far as the latter goes, for me the headline issue was not it's perceived teutonic-ness (is that actually a word?), but the fact Citroen's designers seem to have rediscovered stance, planform, surfacing: the old C5 was truly dreadful and an embarrassment to a marque with such a legacy. One of the most successful elements of the new C5 is how the nose progressed and explanded upon the current Citroen identity; the facelifted C4 is a step backwards. Presumably the budget wasn't there to change the headlights – the inverse curve in the inner bottom corner of the light is becoming a Citroen cue; however, even if the bumper was all that was being changed it does not explain or excuse this.

Overall, the C4 remains a modern, charismatic piece of styling – but the relative competence of the facelift is a cause for concern

Crowning all this is the new advert: the formerly sleek, achingly modern - if slightly sinister - robot of the previous ads has been replaced by a gaudy, self-regarding buffoon with a disco obsession. We can only hope that it does not bear the same relationship to the reborn Transformers as it's forbears did.

First view: Ford Ka II

Icon is an overused word these days and I'm not sure the Ka qualifies, but it is certain that replacing such a strong, successful, long lived design was always going to be a challenge. Unfortunately even if allowance is made for this, the new effort falls some way short. Although the original was nominally the first 'new edge' Ford, the reality is that the Ka stood apart from the Ford design continuum: it was the bold and clean graphics that were a key element to Ka's look - and to it's longevity. Not only was it a strong design in absolute terms, it was all the more impressive given the rather staid, already long in the tooth Fiesta platform from which it sprung.

There's just too much going on with the new car and yet the result is pretty anonymous – it almost looks like the Hyundai i10's little brother. OK, maybe not quite – but it's not as far ahead as it should be. I'm yet to be convinced by the 'kinetic design' look but it was applied skillfully to the new Fiesta – however using it on anything smaller becomes increasingly difficult with it's large frowny mouth, sculpted flanks & dramatically rising beltline. Maybe if the design had been freed from this constraint we might have had a cleaner more distinctive result.

The front end works less well than the Fiesta, and detailing on the trapezoid grille currently being used by Ford (amongst others) could be better – a more defined form would have worked better, and interest around the badge area is needed: currently the nose lacks a focal point. We'll see if this bears out in the flesh, but in some photos the sheer size (mainly in terms of length) of the headlight in relation to both the bonnet and side glazing is odd: it seems too big for the rest of the car (but somehow it doesn't seem big nosed overall.) The interaction between the headlight, bonnet-fender shutline and form in the bonnet is fussy but given the elements involved it's hard to see how it could have been much tidier: ultimately there's too much going on.   From the rear ¾ there is more than a hint of the current Corsa in the rear quarter window and taillights – and given how old the Corsa is, there's no excuse for this. Yes, the quarter circle rear window graphic is common to both, but it is the shape of the rear light and how it leads into the rear fender line that has nothing to do with the Ka and everything to do with the Corsa. Only not as well executed: the light unit itself is amorphous, and the relationship between the fender line and negative surfacing in the flank is awkward. The clean, circular tailgate shutline – a key Ka cue – has been dropped when it could have easily been incorporated, and the uncertain rear screen graphic and fussy handle don't help. We know that this a cheap runaround, but does the rear bumper have to look like it? The licence plate recess is particularly bad.   It's not possible to make a true assessment without sitting in it, but from the photo it doesn't look like the interior will feel as special as it's Fiat 500 sibling, and it lacks that spark of cleverness that marked the original's at launch. The door pulls look quite elegant, but couldn't that white finish been applied to some of the switchgear instead of the regulation black? The air vents are a good variation on the circular theme, but the passenger side dash and glovebox look like they come pre-crumpled.    I cannot conceive that this design will last as long as it's predecessor – it's too generic, too fussy to be that special. I still wouldn't list myself as a fan of retro, but if this is the best 'modern' design can do I'll take it's prettier sister every time.

Analysis: Ferrari California

Does my bum look big in this?

As far as I'm concerned 'it looks better in the flesh' is – like 'I'm not lost', and 'size doesn't matter' – one of the great lies. Experience has taught me that given a decent set of images to work from, any opinion formed will not be significantly challenged by viewing the car concerned in the flesh. In fact, as far as the less aesthetically endowed are concerned, a case for the opposite could be made: a lot of talented photographers are paid piles money to find the one angle from which the latest creation doesn't look like a train wreck of curves and planes. Either way, I have already seen enough of the new Ferrari California to come to a conclusion which I only expect to refine upon beholding it in the flesh.

Of course much has been made of it predecessor's reputation (although most have understandably fixated on the 250 original and forgotten the 365 iteration), but not being either tifosi or a fan of Ferris Bueller, to me the California doesn't figure large in the Ferrari pantheon – it's generic early sixties sportscar. With a shiny side vent. Not only are there many Ferrari's I would choose over it, there are at least three within the 250 family (GTO, Lusso, and Berlinetta) I'd rather have.

However, the PR gods must have been smiling on Ferrari; Chris Evans' purchase of the ex-James Colburn 250 Cali could hardly have come at a better time, but one film star obsessed celebrity with deep pockets does not a classic Ferrari make. For that sum one could start a respectable collection: he could have had a 330 P3, a Lusso (possibly even Steve McQueen's), an F40, Daytona, 288 GTO - with more than enough left over for any (possibly all) of the current range for popping down the shops with. Hell, if you shop around you might even get a 250 GTO for that kind of money; I rest my case.

But I digress. It used to amuse me when an ugly Ferrari (and there have been a few) came out - the coverage simply didn't mention the styling, or skimmed over it with a single adjective: years ago, the strongest statement I can remember finding about the howler that was the F512 M (god knows I was never a fan of the Testarossa, but it didn't deserve that) was 'challenging'.

Thus far, a lot of what little design commentary there is concerns how Pininfarina worked to disguise / de-emphasise it's GIANT ARSE (OK, I'm paraphrasing here) when in fact the sum total of their efforts has had the opposite effect. Of late the tails of Ferraris have all been getting high and bluff: the 430 gets away with it - just - however the 599 has a sizeable rump (what's it's excuse?) The California is just the worst offender: judging by the overhead photos, the widest point (by quite some margin, and pretty localised) is at the rear axle line – so it's heavy around the hips in every direction. I hope there was an engineering reason for this otherwise this is just making a rod for your own back.

At the front things start reasonably well enough – not outstanding, but average for a post-millennial Ferrari. Appropriately for something popularly dubbed the new Dino whilst in development, from above the relationship between the radiator opening and the lights does have a hint of the Dino about it. The headlamp (something Ferrari has been getting right of late) is a somewhat uncertain shape, and setting the main beam so low in the unit looks a little odd. Whilst it's not quite as bad as the Maserati Gran Turismo, there is a slight Pinocchio feel to the front grille. Assuming there is a reason why the nose is quite that long could it not have been integrated a little better? As it is, the slightly odd surfacing (1) seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to reduce this impression. A more rounded grille in planform would have worked better.

Instead of the graphically anonymous, & somewhat amporphous, radiator opening we have, a shape more explicitly referencing the shape of the original's would have been nice – preferably with the integrated driving lights which, although not unique, is a California cue. The bonnet scoop (2) is a definite California reference but seems to have been dealt with a very workmanlike manner here, an act of duty rather than devotion; as if it were part of some visual cue quota that had to filled. It's not possible from the photos to confirm whether it's actually functional or not, either way why not something more like the scoop (minus the brightwork) from the 612 Kappa? Given that all current Ferraris have quite nice mirrors (ignoring the childish 'F430' relief) mounted at the base of the A-pillar, these ungainly door mounted beasts are a letdown.

Of course, two of the key Cali cues are the chromed sidevent and the subtle horizontal line between the wheelarches; but what they've mutated into here is the most controversial aspect of the reborn California.

Although Ferrari have more claim to sidevent (3) than most, over the last few years this feature has become the worst kind of cliché – appearing on vehicles such as the Opel Antara, Lincoln MKS, US Focus Coupé – so needs careful handling. Unfortunately at a time when it's currency has been devalued, the overly styled form here undermines it's integrity as something both functional (as distinct from a functioning) but decorative. It also leans back, why – to tie into the A-pillar line? (I repeat, why?) Not only does the original lean forward, it would relate better to the wheelarch cutout. As with other contemporary Ferraris, the side repeater positioning seems an afterthought.

The most discussed feature is the 'staggerlingly bad' (to quote RCA prof and McLaren F1 stylist Peter Stevens) character line (4) – hereafter referred to as the gouge. The eye is led from the lowest point of the side vent, through the door and then kicks waaay up over the haunches: from the front ¾, this looks particularly precipitous. I don't even see how it relates to the original as has been stated: the rear fender line of the 250 Cali kicks up (a little) just behind the door, nice – but not unique to any marque, never mind a specific Ferrari. The gouge is an utterly different form: it flows sinuously up the hindquarters, the original line springs up as if escaping under pressure from the form stretching back from the front fender.

The gouge offends not just because it is so obviously nothing more than a purely stylistic device, but because it's crudely executed and poorly integrated. Had it fulfilled it's function it would be part of the design as a whole, instead of something that draws attention to itself. Out in the real world, and it's indirect light, the gouge will probably be a little less obvious than the first studio shots which seem to go out of their way to highlight it, but it is hard edged and from the point where it starts to climb and back it will catch the light. The problem is that eye is led from low in the door, up over the rear wheel to the upper rear corner – and left hanging, making the height of the rear deck obvious.

But the gouge didn't act alone, it had accomplices.... The lower edge of the door and front fender shutline (5) run almost parallel to the lower edge of the gouge (almost literally underlined by the highlight in the form of the sill), so the eye reads the proportion of the door from the long low parallelogram thus formed. However the problem is that at the rear of the door: the gouge kicks up and over the rear wheel, while the lower edge turns down as part of the rear brake cooling duct. The result is that the height difference between the door and rump is emphasised. This effect could have been lessened by making the lower door edge more horizontal (giving the door a subtle wedge form) and the changing the rear wheel inlet to something vertically oriented – similar to the 599's.

I've never liked the current Ferrari doorhandles, they look crude rather than simple, and here siting them so low in the door (6) contributes to the impression of height – this is the kind of mistake Pininfarina & Ferrari should not be making. Simple Aston-like doorhandles mounted above the gouge would help matters greatly.

Bad as things are from the front, it gets much worse from the rear ¾ where a number of factors conspire to emphasise the arse. Primary amongst these is how harshly the main volume of the tail is truncated with a single edge (7) that runs unbroken from the main light unit all the way to the bottom of the stacked exhausts (why are the paired exhausts stacked vertically, not horizontally?) – and takes our eye with it. The shape thus described by this line and the rear fender line is top heavy and inelegant and I really can't understand the reasoning behind this. The shutline (8) reinforces to this impression, a tentpole drawing attention to the tails upper corner. It didn't need underscoring by the adjacent edge; I realise that this is to tie into the rear spoiler but would it not have been better to associate the lip spoiler with the rear fender line?

The choice not to relieve the lower portion of the lower ¾ panel (10) with some horizontal feature seems unusual – even changing the panel distribution so that there was an additional horizontal bumper / rear fender shutline would have been a help (as done with the 430), especially if aligned with the shutline ahead of the rear wheel.

Instead of sandwiching that odd black slam panel, why isn't the lower portion of the tail blacked out? It's a common enough visual device and is used on the 599. Why does the rear quarter panel chop off the end of the upper surface of the venturi panel (9) – not only would integrating the two elements lead the eye across and around (instead of all the way down), one of the key Cali cues is the plain horizontal strip across the rear, albeit between the lower edge of the lights.

The only reason I can see for setting the main rear light units so high is to expose the upper surface, a seemingly mandatory element in current Ferrari design. But here the top of the light is a more inflated ovoid instead of the purer cylindrical form we have seen before – a small detail perhaps but it informs the bloated feel. Why are the secondary lights hidden behind a smoked panel – they could have been used to add interest and divert the eye had features been made of them. I'm aware that a folding hard top imposes engineering constraints, but the rear deck shutline (11) is crude and other CC's have done it better. Overall, from the rear the California has the aspect is that of an angry, wide mouthed frog.

Probably most damning of all is the fact that the California doesn't manage to do the job as well as another coupe convertible, which also made it's public debut in Paris... 8 years ago. The Lexus SC430 is a 2+2 coupe convertible that's a similar size to the California: in fact the Ferrari's length and wheelbase are both about 100mm longer and it runs on bigger wheels – all of which should help it. The SC430's styling is not without it's problems, but a big bum isn't one of them. The Lexus designers strongly emphasised the horizontal lines, but when looked at it in profile it can be seen that there is quite a difference between the overall height of the rear deck and the line of the rear fender.

I can't help but feel the California would be better off without the gouge – the front fender line could have been carried through to the rear fender, which could still have had some shapely form in it, and a little upwards kick to reference the original. The higher part of rear deck could have been inset, and possibly disguised further by a recess in the centre to suggest a double hump, like a Thunderbird or 911 speedster.

The tragedy is that underneath all that fussiness there's a well proportioned, pretty good looking car trying to get out. Unfortunately (ironically?), as it stands the California actually looks best when the roof is up. It's proportions are more apparent, and a fringe benefit of the high rear deck is that the rear pillar doesn't have far to travel vertically, allowing it to have quite a fast rear screen angle thereby avoiding the oddly truncated look of many hard top when erected.

Ultimately none of this really matters: Ferrari as a brand is so strong that as long as it ain't Ssangyong ugly it's going to sell... and maybe even then. But that doesn't mean it's OK to turn out stuff like this. In fact, what may annoy me most about the California is the lack of dissent: the fact is that were this a product of a lesser brand there would have been a considerably more criticism of the styling.