Metro Buddy: A Modern Citicar?

[MazdaMatt]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Considering the number of cars on the road that look like the Metro Buddy, i'd say most beholders don't find the boxwedge to be beautiful. Practical, maybe, but since when did practicality and efficiency sway the general public?

[dcb]

This is my point Matt, you come out openly against a practical vehicle based on appearances only, then say the general public doesn't go for practical. You are at some level looking for validation of your position here. All them little cars from europe and asia had a health dose efficiency and practicality in them, but now it seems fashionable for folks like clarkson to make fun of practicality and hence usher in an era of stupidity on a global scale.

You label your baser response to the vehicles appearance as uniquely human, where a human may be uniquely suited to seeing beauty beyond appearances.

Say what you want, but at least understand what purpose it serves when you say it, intentional or not.

[MazdaMatt]

I am not wholey against the vehicle. I am only against its appearance. I personally find it ugly, but that's not even the point... the point is, 99.9% of the worlds population will find it ugly and its benefits will not outweigh that glaring issue in the minds of 99.9% of those people that find it ugly. Other than its looks, I am not against this car at all (though I worry about its safety... but that's not something you can judge by looking at it). I just wish that a company producing such a practical car would have made it look like something that people will actually buy (in mass market millions of units, i mean. Not a couple ecogeeks).

[metroschultz]

EcoGeek here,
count me in the .01%
I'd buy one
If it comes here
and if I have the cash. (still dealing with this downturn economy, don'tcha know)

[MazdaMatt]

That's good. I'm glad that some people will be all over this thing. Call it "early adoption", just like people that used cell phones (big *ugly* ones) in 1990. Eventually they got better and more esthetically pleasing - but they wouldn't have if nobody got on board at the start. I'll wait for the Nokia Buddy

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

That's good. I'm glad that some people will be all over this thing. Call it "early adoption", just like people that used cell phones (big *ugly* ones) in 1990. Eventually they got better and more esthetically pleasing - but they wouldn't have if nobody got on board at the start. I'll wait for the Nokia Buddy

It may be worth noting that this vehicle was sold more or less under the Kewett Buddy namesake for what 19 years?

Somebody was buying them.

And I would as well, after all I drive the great grandfather to the "Buddy"

[Peter7307]

I have to agree with MazdaMatt regarding the aesthetics.
Functional it may be but attractive it ain't and people buy mostly on how a car looks.
Simply because no one wants to drive around in an ugly vehicle.

Ask Renault. The back end of the Megane was one of the ugliest ever stuck on a mainstream production car and the sales results mirrored what most lookers (as opposed to buyers) thought.
No real surprise when Renault announced a major redesign to "bring the vehicle more inline with market expectation and enhance sales opportunities".
Built what people want to be seen in , in other words.

One reason the Tesla garners so much publicity is because most onlookers regard it as an attractive shape and one they might like to own.

Kind of pointless to have the most efficient vehicle ever built if you don't sell any isn't it?

By the way you can package an efficient design within an attractive shape.
Citroen managed it with the CX and the GS series and the smaller Saxo and variants.

One question is why does the Norwegian car have a fabric roof ?
It rains a lot in Norway !

Pete.

[Frank Lee]

How did I miss all this fun?

There are many things that come into play regarding aesthetics.

Budget is one, skill of the designer is another, directives given the designer and the constraints they must stay within is another yet.

It is called "METRO Buddy" for a reason. Maybe it does top out at 50, but it is certain they didn't plan on 50 being the normal operating condition; they planned on it seeing mostly METRO stop'n'go. There are tricks to making a cube like this more aero but they evidently decided it wasn't the highest priority. I wouldn't try to make a rig that probably has a trip average speed of 20mph look like the Mach V either.

Looks like the budget dictated the use of flat glass. That in large part drove the rest of the styling. It would probably look silly to attempt to stick flat windows on to a curvaceous body. "Edgy" is an acceptable design aesthetic too.

They had a formula they decided to adhere to. Looks like all mgmt asked for was an evolutionary update to the Kewet design; not a revolutionary breakaway from it. Looks like most of the old parts were carried over.

I think the trunk lid was enlarged a bit. The mirrors are bigger, slightly repositioned, and better looking. Perhaps the track was widened as it now sports fender flares. Door handles and lighting have an updated look. Evidently the canvas roof was an option, even on the Kewet versions.

I can see a few things I would have done differently; that said, I don't find it repulsive.