Steppin' Out

It's the season to give. So in the true spirit of these times I have given myself the gift of the adventure package on my new Defender 110. Behold the beauty of the decked-out terrain vehicle, people!. I am ready to take her far away from these cityscapes to where the tall trees grow unhindered by concrete. I want to feel the moss under my feet, in all its greenness, as I climb out of my roof top tent and drop on to the naked ground. The rays of the morning sun break right through making my world glisten with diamonds ready for the picking. I feel like I'm walking on water. Can this be real? Well, it clearly isn't. I don't perform any tricks with water or bread but I'm glad to have a healthy stock of both. You see, I've covered some heavy mudlanes to get here and she has taken all of it in her stride. I do have the winch  - well, it's hidden, so you can't see - but with all the terrain response gadgetry there has been no need whatsoever to resort to old school tugging. I do have some extra gasoline on the roof as you see. I am far away from insanity - geographically speaking - and inspite of a sincere weight loss program she's been through, it's comforting to know I will make it back...

 

Happy Holidays everyone and all the best for the New Year!

Sideview 3

Sidewinder

It's been a while since I posted something. Been sidetracked by other stuff. Anyway I've been working on a few different variations, but here are two sideviews that are probably worth posting. I will let the images do the talking for now and continue to work on some more. This is just the start. Let me know what you guys think.



Sideview 1



Sideview 2

Full Frontal

One thing I realized when I started on the front was how good the DC 100 front end looked - from front. If not for the Skoda Yeti rake on the frontal plane, it is quite a decent result. Having said that I do not think that it is a suitable design for the Defender as there is nothing there that is reminiscent of Defender (other than round lights - which by themselves do not save this design). So the idea here again is to come up with something that is different to the current Defender front but is immediately recognizable as Defender.

 

Sketch 1: While this is not a bad front end as such, it is somewhat in the same category as DC 100 in that it does not do the Defender trick. Besides that, it looks more former generation Range Rover (L322) and Range Rover Sport (L320). It probably could be tweaked and saved to a certain extent, but, in the end it did not insprire me enough to want to improve on this variation any further. I do like the way the front screen ends at the bottom, as if floating on the bonnet buldge. Although not very apparent, I meant the windscreen to have a high rake (i.e not as vertical as current Defender) - I don't think that works too well.

1

 

Sketch 2: Low rake windscreen but not completely flat across its full breadth. I introduced angled edges that wraps around slightly towards the A-pillar. Overall, this take is more angular and in its silhouette, I think, is rather acceptable. Filling in that silhouette is what has proven to be slightly more challenging since that grille looks like Meg Ryan's Botox overdosed upper lip. Bumper is reminiscent of Disco 3. The Disco 3 grille might have actually worked better on this.

2

Sketch 3: In my opinion, a slight improvement on Sketch 2, more " Defender"-like stance, but the grille still is not working for me. I do like the way the light cluster is shaping up. I probably need to leave an unslatted edge separating light cluster and grille (see sketch 4 below)

3

Sketch 4: Essentially a continuation on Sketch 3, but I have let go of the round lights. The idea was to have something more like the new RR's rear lights. I am not too sure that this works. Neither does the idea of leaving a space on either side of the grille. It is, however, a more cleaned up iteration.

4

A lot more to do to get this anywhere near to being half acceptable..... Let me know what you guys think.

 



Bad Ass (reprise)

I thought I had to explore the idea of the integrated wheel carrier some more and could not move on to sketching the front until I had done so. So here are three more variations from where I had left.

Sketch G: Very close to Sketch F (see previous post) and I do not know whether this is necessarily an improvement on Sketch F but what has been worked on here is the shape of the wheel carrier which is more round than on F. I actually prefer the octagonal shape of F better than this more rounded version since it looks a lot cleaner. What I would have liked on F - to give it a more rugged character - is for the tire to be exposed at the top. I am starting to get used to the centrally placed number plate. 





G

Sketch I: Still integrated wheel carrier  - more taditional and completely round - but there are changes to the waist line and windows. Sculpturing is more angular and this feels a lot more 'modern' than G. Could work with H's wheel carrier. I don't think the proportions are right. Looks too vertically elongated.

I

Sketch J: Again not too very happy about the porportions but it's cleaning up. The spare tire is exposed at the top and could look good but I have immediate associations with the Pajero that has something similar. So I might just tuck it in all the way. I went for a flush window at the back. To hint at the traditional three-piece window I used indents, which at the time was an interesting idea but as I write this, I feel it is a little silly.

J

All, in all there is movement to a cleaner design but still a long way to go before I am satisfied. I think the ideas will gel more easily once I start drawing ISO views which will require me to think in greater detail about sculpturing the rear end. My drawing skills cannot handle that in this view.

It's time to move to the front. Stay tuned...


Bad Ass

 I have finally got to sketching after all that "talk". It has been a more daunting task than I had first imagined and maybe it is the lack of inspiration in the past week that is to blame for what is to follow. I decided to approach the redesign angle by angle and to start with the rear end which I expected to be the most challenging. If I were to go by any of my expectations in this project then there are two more angles waiting to surprise me. I should warn you that these are very rough sketches which are merely meant to get my thoughts in motion. There is no sophistication whatsoever to these sketches. I am no designer in any respect. I am simply interested in cars and I have been drawing them since I could hold a pencil. I remember drawing a lion once. I was six. The sheet of paper was so big that I could not place it on our dining table and had to lay it on the ground. I started drawing from the tail end. I guess some things never change. But I digress.  Now that I have built in sufficient caveats, let me guide you through these sketches and my thought process.




A

Sketch A: the starting point here was to make the rear door a lot wider than it is now, following the discussions that ensued the "Keepers" post. In none of the following designs have I explored the split tail gate option. These are all sideways opening doors. However with less prominence given to the three windows at the rear and a wide door, this looks more like a Pajero or Disco 2. It is not recognizable as a Defender and for that reason this is a fail (I am sure you could come up with more reasons...). I do not like the light cluster. However the tapered rear cross member is starting to take shape. I had to put the mud flaps in, but even they could not save this one.

B

Sketch B: Now this undoubtedly a Defender....and that is exactly the problem. It is nothing more than what could have been a facelift to the current design and that is not our goal here. We need to move it farther than just that. I do like the way the taper on the rear 'cross-member' is taking shape. No longer a true cross-member, but more an integrated bumper (which should take care of at least one safety issue...). The upper light clusters have been reshaped and a lower cluster added. This idea will continue and be defined in the following designs as well. Inspite of the silhoutte of the lamp unit not being round, there is room for a round accent in the unit. At this point I was concetrating more on the window split than anything else. The proportions of the three windows seems OK here but that is probably simply the comfort of recognition. The rear spare wheel continued to be an obstacle I did not know what to do with. All in all, fail #2.

C

Sketch C: Again clearly very Defender. The biggest difference in comparison with sketch B being the rear windows. The idea here was to have one flush screen that hints at a the traditional three piece window by way of the upwards curvature of the door. Also note the side panelling which is more upright like the current Defender and less angled toward the roof as in sketch B. Nothing much else to say here, other than failure # 3. By now I was getting frustrated with myself. Then I decided to let go of the traditional silhouette.... sketch D:



D

Sketch D: As you will notice, this one is the most 'different' so far. I started out by defining the countours to make it edgier instead of continuing to use the soft lines I had stuck to until now. Still recognizable as a Defender, yet more than just a facelift. The door is much wider than with B or C but still retains the recognizable trinity of windows. However there is too much window that makes it look less robust. While the rear spare mounting is interesting, it does remind me of the DC 100. Number plate still to the side, but I don't know what happens to it when you open the door. It could possibly be mounted on to the same piece of plastic bracket that is holding the tire if it were to continue all the way to the left edge mirroring the right side. The spare mounting bracket could act as a swing-away tire carrier. The rear door could be a right hinged or split-gate job. I think that this design leaves some potential for further exploration.

Skecth E: Apologies, this one is really messy. I was starting to toy with the idea of the spare wheel nestled in a pouch integrated into the rear door.This one still shows a bracket across the width of the door holding the spare. The spare is bear at the top and covered by the pouch. Kind of like putting an oversized card into an envelop. I have also accentuated the high waist line to continue through to the back under the fixed windows and along the sides of the door. Also changed the side panelling silhoutte. Note number plate in the center. Still have to get used to that. But overall still recognizable as Defender.

Sketch F: This one continues the edgy design started at sketch D, but with a few more soft touches to it. It looks more robust than D, but retains a relatively wide door opening. The main change here is the introduction of a fully integrated wheel mount. No tire to be seen. Still reasonably Defender, I think. However, I would like to put the number plate off center.

I am interested to see whether any of you would think that any of this is worth commenting on. For now the ass is just bad. I will take more frequent residence at the proverbial drawing board and post a few more soon. Hope fully those will be bad-ass.

Drifting

I was pointed to these designs for possible inspiration. I feel the urge to comment. The Hummer for starters is a vehicle I have had the hardest time to understand. The original H1 war machine probably made sense as a...war machine. As a civilian vehicle it answered the needs of the genitally challenged and did very little more. While the H2 and H3 were down-sized to fit snugly into two parking spaces in front of your downtown nightclub, by no means did they make any more sense than the H1. The H4 ( I probably don't have the correct photo here, but even if I did all of this would apply mutatis mutandis) will no doubt continue this tradition of senselessness, but their appear to be enough people with poor taste and too much cash for whoever who owns this mark to continue developing it. On a positive note, I do like the tires.

Hummer H4

The BAIC 500 Concept is an interesting one. I actually think that this looks great for what I suspect it to be: a hommage to the Beijing BJ212? If so, I think BAIC have done a splendid job in bringing the BJ 212 into the 21st century with a design that pays tribute and stands tall by itself without simply being a recreation of the original. It does need a little more character to call its own, if you ask me. The blue is a little too Toyota FJ (I know it's only a colour and can be changed, but the asssociation is made the sooner with a choice like this), just as that front plastic fender moulding. The side sculpture is reminiscent of the current generation KIA Sorento and it has other bits and pieces of other brands which I cannot pin-point. All in all, as concept, this is right on. With a little tweaking, it seems ready to go. Inspirational? Likely.



BAIC 500 Concept

The DongFeng. Sounds like a dish I ordered at the local Chinese take-away the other day. It tasted like all the other dishes I had and at the same time like nothing at all. But all joking aside, the DongFeng 31 is China's newest road-mobile, solid fuel (which greatly reduces launch preparation time (15-30 minutes!)) intercontinental ballistic missile (and very well disguised, if I may add to that) developed by the Academy of Rocket Motor Technology (one bad-ass engine). Sources say that it has a range of  8000 + km (after which it self-destructs or less dramatically and very expectedly falls apart) and can carry a single 1000kt warhead (or tow any Airstream trailer). " Approximately 30 DongFeng 31s are estimated to be in service" (so this is not just a prop); "it is possible that this number may have increased since then (really?). Twelve were displayed at the 2009 military parade commemorating the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China". I can almost hear you ask: "which counter to make a down-payment?". It's the one that says" New Hummer, but a lot cheaper".

 

DongFeng

Overall, the Troller TR- X is actually not a bad looking design. I think it has a prety decent silhouette and stance. However, just as the BAIC 500, it is a mash up of a number of other creations. I see Jeep, FJ Cruiser and a front end that looks like a hippo in mid-yawn. It's got a lot of plastic which will of course fall off when driven in ernest and then you're left with the light-weight convertible version. So truly a dual purpose vehicle. Troller is a Brazilian brand that is owned by Ford and is Ford's answer to the Jeep Wrangler. Well done Ford if all you want to do is copy others. I'd move the plant to China.



Troller TR-X Concept

Keepers

Identifying what we want to keep is not the hard part. Letting go is. However we can’t keep it all lest we recreate and fall victim to the retro trap (see post  “Just Gas”). To give us some room to change our minds I am going to introduce a middle category of features that we would like to see in the new car but wouldn’t mind letting go – for something better. These features we list as keepers will have to be defining design elements of Defender. A Defender without these keepers shall not be Defender. So here goes:

Keepers


High waist line

Angled roofline between A and B pillar

Externally mounted spare tire



Bonnet "over" front fender wings

 

Off-center rear license plate placement

 

Would be nice to keep/ but willing to let go


Dome shaped fuel filler recess

Flat front windscreen

Pronounced B, C, and D pillars

Round lights

Tapered rear cross member

The rest, we let go…..veeeeery gently….we let go……

Just Gas

It’s time to put my money where my mouth is and start sketching. I’ve thought about how far the new Defender will have to leap from its ancestors to avoid the trap of (retro) recreation and be a true evolution of the original design. I’ve tried to come up with real world examples (other than the Land Rover) where this has worked: The Porsche 911 is probably a prime candidate– funny enough, its ancestor, the VW Beetle, did in my opinion eventually fall into the retro crap trap with the New Beetle. Yes, it was commercially successful, but that’s beside the point. Artistically it is not much more than a modern regurgitation of the original. Was that thing not designed in California? Which brings me to my next assault: When Detroit -you know who I mean- had lost all creativity and hit a brick wall, they took the easy way out and came up with a ‘greatest hits’ album – offering nothing more than the original release. Result: shamelessly uninspired, insipid copies of iconic designs: Thunderbird, GT40, Mustang, Challenger, Camaro. Prowler, Chevy SSR and should I even mention the biggest failure of all retrocities, the P/T Cruiser (I could never figure out what “P/T” stood for; part time? That wouldn’t make sense, well, the whole car makes NO sense, so it could very well stand for ‘part time’ as in ‘part time inspiration’ – OK, I’ll let it go). I don’t mean to say that whatever came out of the Big Three in the wave of retro creations was all phart and no shit. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Viper make (made) a good case for inspired creativity. These designs blended the look and feel of a bygone era into a great package that made a mark in its own day and age and one that will serve as a reference point for future designs by their own right.

So what we need to aspire to is (r)evolution and not recreation. Recreation is not the road I want to see the new Defender go down, as this will end up being a very disappointing ride. An icon such as the Defender deserves the longevity that evolution brings, just as a legend like the Porsche 911 has been treated to since the introduction of the 356 A. However even Porsche did not remain unscathed along the way by the status that the 911 had garnered. When it tried to bring the 911 to a new era by attempting to replace it with the 928, it failed royally. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the 928 is a great car – even to this day, a mighty GT - but it simply was no match, let alone replacement, for the 911. The point here is that the 928 was too big a design leap to be the next iteration of the 911. It did away with too many, if not all, the design features that had given the 911 its iconic status. All that remained were swooping lines (post A pillar), however these were not the lines of 911. The crowd just did not like it for what it was supposed to be. Porsche realized this and got back on track. Today’s 911 is probably the most beautiful iteration of the original design…and the badge on the engine lid still says ‘911’.

What we learn from all of this is that evolution needs to take small steps so that we – mere mortals – can keep up with our heroes.

Land Rover has thus far taken its time in its process of evolution and remained relevant to all of us who are so passionate about the vehicle. There’s no need to change that. The evolution must continue and the car should remain relevant to us and its ‘day’.

So which design features of the Defender do we need to keep, which would we preferably have and which are we ready to let go?...stay tuned folks.

Dog Parts

While surfing the web for some inspiration, which I did not find – good, this blog might actually have a longer life span than just two posts – I stumbled upon an interesting interview given by Gerry McGovern - JLR’s Design Director - to a small group of Australian media¹ in April this year. While this interview is six months earlier than the Edwards interview quoted in post 1, it was held after JLR had decided to can the DC 100 and gives some interesting insights into the reasons behind that wise decision and more importantly into the new Defender.

For starters, he emphasized that the new Defender will look nothing like the DC 100. Well, that’s settled then. He said “we’ve moved it on and I think that we’ve got something now that is even more relevant and even more desirable and even the traditionalists will love me for it”. McGovern continued “ we did a survey of the response to [DC 100]. We got 250.000 respondents on the internet. 90% of them loved it – pretty good – 8% were indifferent [why take part if you have no opinion? - TD] and 2% wanted to kill me”. Only 2 %? Worldwide? Sorry, I digress. McGovern went on to say that the DC 100 was just one of many different directions JLR was thinking in: “ I’m very pleased we did those concepts because it made very clear to me that… we needed something that was maybe not more elemental but something that was even more appropriate” . If as McGovern states, DC 100 was one of the many directions he was considering, why did JLR not show us a few of the other ‘directions’ after DC 100 was killed? I know, I would have had to find something else to kill my time with than this blog if it appeared that one of the other directions was more digestible, but I would have been ready for that sacrifice.

 Anyway, moving on to the new Defender, McGovern said that JLR was working on a number of variations that will make up an expanded Defender family. “There’s an opportunity to spin it in different ways and different version” said McGovern, “ …different types of Defenders, pick-ups and all types of things.” McGovern continued by saying that he does not want to do “a heavy duty, dual-purpose, incredibly durable vehicle [does that mean this thing is only going to be ‘somewhat’ durable? Too bad, thought that JLR might fix that issue this time around – TD] that looks like the dog’s dinner. Why can’t a car that’s incredibly durable and workable look good as well?” Exactly, that’s what 2% of us wondered when we saw the DC 100. “This thing, I can assure you” he said “will be incredibly distinctive. You’ll look at it and say ‘That Is a modern-day Defender’, and there will be nothing else like it.” He eloquently summed it all up by saying: This car will be the bollocks, the absolute dog’s bollocks”. Well OK then.

1.     Quotes taken from www. caradvice.au.com: New Land Rover Defender will be the “dog’s bollocks” : Designer, by Tim Beissmann, 30 March 2013.

Let's Go Beyond

Before I dive into this, I should probably do a very un-Land Rover-like thing and set some boundaries. So by now you will have understood that the question of the day is: what should the new Defender look like? This means that I will be limiting my reflections to what I think the exterior of the new Defender should look like. I will not be going off-piste with reflections on transmission, engines, suspension and all that technical jazz. JLR are well placed in these areas and Defender shall no doubt be an even more awesome beast in the terrain and on tarmac than it already is (well, it is, at least, in the former) thanks to its technical features. However, it is imperative that it should look good while doing all of that.

So this is nothing new. There already are quite a few online forums addressing the issue of the new Defender, in particular spawned by the hideousness that was the DC 100. Consequently, most comments appeared to highlight the missed opportunities and design flaws of the DC 100 but were not particularly helpful in telling JLR what we exactly want to see in the new Defender.  There were obviously voices loud enough to persuade JLR to drop the DC 100 as a Defender replacement, but did they tell them what our four wheeled companion ought to look like?  I am yet to come across a concept out there that is worth being considered a true contender for the next Defender. A quick search on the web revealed these:

 

I think that each one of these misses the point. It' s time to Go Beyond....

 



initial ramblings

Early October (2013) JaguarLandRover (JLR) announced that the last of the Defenders will roll off production lines in December 2015.

With a little over two years to go, no doubt a successor will have already materialized within the confines of JLR's design center and will arguably remain the best kept secret in automotive kingdom until its official unveiling in 2016.

Nevertheless it's fun to muse over what the new Defender (for the ease of reference let's assume that it is going to be called "Defender') should look like and possibly help the folks at JLR rearrange their thoughts. What the new Defender might look like is not a matter I consider worth dwelling on and is as appealing to me as watching water boil. We know that it is going to have to sell in most if not all the 177 countries JLR has a presence in and will have to meet all applicable regulations - the latter being the reason given for having to redesign the current vehicle. Add your 21st century excuses and other boring stuff to the mix and we will have a vehicle that follows a silhoutte which is more akin to its offspring (Evoque/Range Rover Sport/Range Rover) than its own lineage (Series, I, II, III, 90/110). If the DC 100 is anything to go by, then JLR can certainly use some help from those of us who have made this car a part of our lives and, despite its many shortcomings, have learned to love. Moreover, we are not really waiting for a replacement.

In JLR's defence, judging by the words of John Edwards - head of JLR's Individual Products Division, they seem to have come around and would gladly forget the DC 100 embarassment sooner rather than later: ' We are determined that the new Defender will be true to its heritage while meeting the requirements of a changing global market'. Edwards went on to say: "like no other vehicle, Defender inspires affection and loyalty the world over. It inspires people to go beyond, whether they are explorers, ecologists, UN aid workers or Red Cross medics." He said the Defender is "known and loved the world over" and that its replacement would be "instantly recognized" by anyone who knows the current vehicle and "that the core values of dependability [did I just cough and utter an obscenity? - TD] and functionality" would be retained¹. Hear, hear!

So, in the words of one Mr. Robert Plant, let's ramble on. What should the new Defender look like?

 

1. quotes taken from www.dailymail.co.uk. Article by Ray Massey, published 14:52 GMT 8 October 2013, updated 10:11 GMT 9 October 2013.