118 replies to this topic

[campaj1]

to be honest this argument is completely pointless!

I have owned both, the classic mini is a design classic, small, fun to drive (if not the most practical in a Scottish winter)

the new MINI (I had the r53) is small (by current standards) and fun to drive - they have some nod's to the past design wise but effectively they are a small modern hatchback - imo the only reason people have an issue with them is that the makers changed to bmw (although do the same people say that rover mini's aren't real minis too, they changed the engines and interiors...)

I currently have a mk1 vw caddy - this is a million miles away from a current model vw caddy but no one says "that's a real caddy not like these modern ones", probably because the maker has been the same all the way through...

I agree that the newer minis are getting further and further away from the original but ALL cars do that, it's called development - if you don't like it then that's fine but some of the comments on this thread and the forum in general are quite embarrassing

 

owning a mini should put a smile on your face - just enjoy it and the heritage that goes with it, and remember that some people just drive cars because they have to get around, my mum had a classic mini because it was the cheapest car she could get at the time (and it wasn't a classic back then!) she wasn't particularly bothered about the history of it, much the same as people today who are just looking for a decent looking (imo) hatch

I'm sorry to drag this out but I'm not so sure...

Couldn't give a damn about the makers... I respect BMW for without them my Mini wouldn't exist. They also build some superb cars of their own, I struggle to think of a better all-rounder than a 320d Efficient Dynamics for example.

The new Mini is unequivocally badly packaged, which is just too ironic as the car it takes its name from was so celebrated for its packaging. Look at the Up! and Panda for examples of how modern small cars can still have small dimensions. 

It is fun to drive, but not for the same reasons a Mini was. For example, Moulton's rubber suspension was a masterpiece in simplicity, while the new cars rely on incredibly expensive multi-link setups to make up for their inherent portliness.

There are examples of modern cars that are considered acceptable with reference to their lineage irrespective of owners: the Jag F type for example. There are also other examples of where manufacturers ape iconic cars and get it wrong: the Conti GT, the L405 Range Rover etc. 

Cars can develop mechanically and remain faithful to the original concept e.g. the L322 Range Rover, Porsche 911 etc.

Sure, Mini is all about fun. But a cynical branding exercise such as this simply doesn't procure a smile from me. 

I also accept that people need cars as a pure tool, in which case no rational person would plump for a MINI, as there are better, more affordable options out there now. 

 

Fin. lol

[the_r_sole]

The new Mini is unequivocally badly packaged, which is just too ironic as the car it takes its name from was so celebrated for its packaging.

 

look at the sales figures, the car buying public would disagree with you (that's the same car buying public that gave the original it's status too)

Edited by the_r_sole, 25 November 2013 - 03:28 PM.

[campaj1]

 

The new Mini is unequivocally badly packaged, which is just too ironic as the car it takes its name from was so celebrated for its packaging.

 

look at the sales figures, the car buying public would disagree with you (that's the same car buying public that gave the original it's status too)

 

The fact that it has enjoyed sales success has nothing to do with the packaging... 

The Countryman for example has the same wheelbase as a Range Rover Classic and is within a hair's breadth of the width of a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow... 

anyway, http://www.thisismon...am-reverse.html

[the_r_sole]

if the car wasn't well packaged do you think it would have sold?

I just don't see any point in the ridiculous hate comments for a car brand because in someone's opinion it's not the same as the original, there is no mass market car that is currently produced that has the same spec as a 1959 car, if you like the original and don't like the new that's fine but why the need for constant childish comments on here

Imagine if bmw started producing original spec minis again, some people's heads would explode

Edited by the_r_sole, 25 November 2013 - 03:46 PM.

[campaj1]

It's not even a question as to whether the car is badly packaged or not: it's just a statement of fact!

(I refer to packaging of course in the strict sense of the successful creation and employment of interior space.)

Numerous rivals make better use of the space available within the cabin.

For example I use again the example of the VW Up!, which is far closer in concept to the original Mini. 

These aren't hate posts, rather expressions of despair that such a potentially powerful brand is being mis-used to create these stylistically self-conscious retro knockoffs.

Childish how? I'm just expressing my belief that BMW could do better than this. 

I'm not calling for a return to production of the original car (it would be unfeasible anyway in light of recent legislation).

Even if that were to be a possibility, the Issigonis Mini, as much as we all love it, had faults of its own. 

What I would be interested in seeing is a well sorted, modern, small car that utilises the key concepts that made the original such a brilliant car, for then it could, and indeed should, prove to be a world-beater. 

[the_r_sole]

interested if you could outline the original design concept of the mini interior, the MINI interior and the UP! interior, definitely sounds like opinion masquerading as fact... especially given the difference in technology/knowledge since the first mini was designed, do you think the later "improvements" that were made to the classic detracted from the mini package?

wasn't citing you in particular for childish comments, but if you look at any thread that has been posted about a new mini lately, you will find a lot of "it's not a real mini" etc - the mods have even taken to moving post from mini chat into general chat

[Tanya]

Personally, I'm not sure if BMW could have done better than they have done with MINI.  

 

People buy the model of car they want, and there is plenty of choice.  Quite clearly the masses want to buy MINI or it wouldn't have sold as well as it has done, and much better than initially expected.  For one reason or another, clearly the masses like MINI.  

 

Looking at sales figures, I would say BMW have nailed it with MINI and what they have managed to do over the past 12+ years is very good and worthy of celebration.  Also, I think that 80% of MINIs built for export is very positive.  

 

 

[campaj1]

interested if you could outline the original design concept of the mini interior, the MINI interior and the UP! interior, definitely sounds like opinion masquerading as fact... especially given the difference in technology/knowledge since the first mini was designed, do you think the later "improvements" that were made to the classic detracted from the mini package?

wasn't citing you in particular for childish comments, but if you look at any thread that has been posted about a new mini lately, you will find a lot of "it's not a real mini" etc - the mods have even taken to moving post from mini chat into general chat

Okk... 

Original Mini Interior (59): Was brilliant because it made such a lot of use out of little space. Upright shape of cabin ensured that everyone had headroom. Curious, upright yet hunched driving position made it possible for more space to be squeezed for passengers. Cab-forward design ensured that every inch of wheelbase could be used for interior space. Hollowed out dash/door bin recesses allowed for storage in otherwise wasted space. Skinny seats gained space for passengers.

 

Mini 'improvements': Didn't necessarily improve on the original concept. For example the thick seats on my MPI, while comfortable, restrict space for rear passengers. Also, the wooden dashboard looks smart but takes away more storage. Thinner door pockets ditto. Thick steering wheel looks modern but encroaches on my knees, also making slow speed manoeuvres more difficult as it has a narrower diameter than the original 'bus' wheel! Rear door bins lined with plastic, limiting storage a bit. Change from 'wand' gearchange renders space between driver and passenger useless. etc etc

 

MINI Interior: A coffin of soft touch plastic. Designed to look premium or retro rather than be functional. Unnecessarily large central binnacle eats up dash space. 'Curvy' dashboard is far less practical. Laid-back driving position similar to X308 Jag XJ in that you sit low, with legs extended, which devours space for passengers. Unnecessarily long prow of a bonnet takes up a lot of space. Sloping roofline eats headroom. Pushed back passenger seats as a result of aforementioned driving position kills boot space. etc etc. Issig

 

Up! Interior: Similar upright, cab forward to 59 design instantly aids interior space. Likewise upright driving position, albeit not in quite such a back killing way! See the hollowed centre console and doorbins. Likewise the Two-Box shape. The seats are thin, like the original Mini and yet supportive. Issigonis would pick this over a MINI, of this I am certain!

 

Ok re childishness, that's fair enough then, but that just shows that nothing much has changed for us Mini fans 

Have to agree with some comments re: the mellowing of the R50. Certainly the most attractive of the new breed. 

[the_r_sole]

sorry, but that's just your opinion of the interiors, not the designers concepts - and the "sloping roofline" of the MINI? sorry but one thing that was good was the headroom in all the seats!

the binnacle is large, but that's what people expect in a mini, it was an attempt to reference the old one, which people clearly like as it's still part of the car - also the prow of the bonnet?! the bonnet on my mini was shorter than any other hatch I've had and the driving position combined with the short bonnet makes it feel as if the car is very small (you don't see the front of the car while driving)

 

however, these are all just opinions and not fact like you are claiming, i'm not sure if you've ever driven the r50/r53 at all but it sounds a bit like the opinion is based on pictures/reviews rather than driving one

[campaj1]

oh gosh here we go...

the roofline is lower than most equivalent hatches to make it look squat and sporting, but it does thieve interior space. In describing it as 'sloping' I was referring more to the Paceman.

The binnacle is totally oversized. It was central in the original car for reasons of simplification of production rather than as a dubious style statement. 

 

The crux of the problem can be described thus:

The original car was clearly arranged as substance over style, the MINI, vice versa.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you have a better way to quantify packaging? Nobody would describe the modern Minis as particularly capacious inside considering the exterior dimensions. 

I could look up the measurements of the bonnet if you like, however this seems to be getting trivial.

Fact is the bonnet is longer than that seen on rivals on the new model... look at it in profile below...

Yes, have driven both current gens of car (a Cooper r50/3 and a First 2nd Gen).

Feel free to dispute further, you haven't addressed many of my other examples given, rather choosing to cherrypick.

What about the low slung driving position/boot space?

Up works better as a package being far less design-led, and clearly inspired in its packaging by the 59 Mini (check out the red/white seating on some models!)

Oh, and half the price too... 

The MINI has become the last vestige of a school of retro design rooted in the late nineties, with others e.g. the Rover 75 and New Beetle. What's frustrating is that BMW developed two of the best modern interpretations of an iconic car to date in the Rolls Phantom and L322 Range Rover. These each captured the essence of the cars they were trying to emulate without resorting to trinketry.

Anyway, IMO they have missed out on an opportunity to make a properly sorted small car with the current range, that is all.

It will sell, but I'm certain that it could have been even more successful with some more concessions to packaging, overall size and modernity, rather than sticking to a (now rather tired) design mantra.

[campaj1]

Personally, I'm not sure if BMW could have done better than they have done with MINI.  

 

People buy the model of car they want, and there is plenty of choice.  Quite clearly the masses want to buy MINI or it wouldn't have sold as well as it has done, and much better than initially expected.  For one reason or another, clearly the masses like MINI.  

 

Looking at sales figures, I would say BMW have nailed it with MINI and what they have managed to do over the past 12+ years is very good and worthy of celebration.  Also, I think that 80% of MINIs built for export is very positive.  

 

 

Yes, it's good that the BINI has sold, but I think they could have done better. 'The masses' as you put it are easily influenced by branding. I'm just aware that the success of the car has lain in being a temporary fashion statement, rather than a true successor to the Mini. I have far more applause for other brands in the UK e.g. JLR who are daring to be different, rather than sticking with a safe, retro theme. 

[the_r_sole]

if you read my post you will notice that what i said was that I was giving opinions and you were giving opinions but describing them as facts - you need to learn the difference - I am still waiting for any actual fact to relate to the design briefs of the cars you are comparing

 

I can give you my opinions on the issues you are talking about, but I thought you wanted to discuss the facts - if you have a look at the image you posted of a MINI can you explain where the "slope" of the roof is? looks almost perfectly level to me

 

it's pointless getting into this discussion with someone that is unwilling/unable to distinguish facts and opinion

Edited by the_r_sole, 25 November 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[mab01uk]

A few random points to also consider........

 

The MINI created a new class of car in 2001 the 'premium sporting supermini' which was a big risk for BMW, who hoped to sell 100,000 per annum despite some who said it was not profitable to build small cars in UK anymore...they sold 200,000 and today it is around 300,000 per year.......other manufacturers started copying after 10 years with varying success, such as the Alfa Mito, Audi A1, Citroen DS3 and to some degree the Fiat 500.

Ford marketing ran a survey when the rather dull Fiesta Mk6 was current asking what car their buyers would have preferred if they had the choice again or could change their practical requirements or budget......the answer from most was a MINI (the R50/53 were current at the time) mainly for reasons of a fun and sporting drive with a quality prestige image and class leading residuals......this is the reason the current Mk7 Fiesta is a much more stylish design with a more sporting drive and fun image......ie. it is not the usual boring but practical shaped hatch. Also take a look at any 2001 era supermini hatch like the Fiesta,Corsa, Yaris, Clio, etc and compare how dated they look to a 2001 R50 MINI......not to mention the better residual price of the MINI after 10 years or so.

 

Developing and producing 'cheap tiny' cars need greater annual volumes to be profitable to gain economy of scale and a low wage economy workforce for the factory.....it was always part of the reason BL/Rover could never replace the Mini and why Nissan have recently moved Micra production to India and the Peugeot 107/Citroën C1/Toyota Aygo are made in eastern europe. Even the MINI (which created the new premium small car sector to make it possible to build a small car in UK) needs more volumes than 300,000 world sales per year, hence why the new F56 platform will be also built in Netherlands and also underpin other small BMW fwd models.......500,000 per annum is the long term planned target.
BMW will build a Mini MINI (Rocketman) only when it is profitable to do so and sadly probably somewhere like China or India will be necessary.

In the meantime we should be proud of MINI's success and its link to the classic Mini and that most will be built in Oxford.......as an engineer I recommend you take a look round the Oxford factory if you get a chance.
http://moxford.plant...plant-tour.aspx

 

It should also be noted the Mercedes A-Class and the Audi A2 both advanced practical space efficient small cars (similar to the Rover Spritual proposals) and they came out around the same time as the original R50 MINI......the all aluminium A2 was short lived and the A-Class became a development dead end for Mercedes, now replaced by a conventional Golf sized hatchback......such cars often don't sell well or stand the test of time with the public......BMW (with a lot of help from Rover engineers in the early development days on how to build a small fwd car) got it right at the end of the day and hopefully will continue to do so to maintain all the jobs at MINI factories in Cowley-Oxford, Swindon, Hams Hall-Birmingham, Holland and Austria and their component suppliers.

Edited by mab01uk, 25 November 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[mab01uk]

 

They just get worse every time they release a new one. Looks like a gawping fish.

 

I guess it's a challenge to design a MINI that meets the latest pedestrian friendly requirements and at the same time still retains the MINI look.  Still, it could be worse!

 

 

 

Or how about this Mini version below?.....it even has an R50 MINI petrol flap ! 

 

More details about the SRV cars here:
http://www.aronline....s-the-ssv-cars/

 

"SRV4 was based on the Mini Clubman, but featured an extended wheelbase to afford a greater frontal crumple zone. Again, the front of the car was also designed to be pedestrian-friendly, being both softer and smoother than that of the standard car, while other refinements included larger-diameter wheels with run-flat Denovo tyres, strengthened door sills and recessed door handles. The safety of the car’s occupants was catered for with copious padding."

 

Edited by mab01uk, 25 November 2013 - 07:38 PM.

[campaj1]

if you read my post you will notice that what i said was that I was giving opinions and you were giving opinions but describing them as facts - you need to learn the difference - I am still waiting for any actual fact to relate to the design briefs of the cars you are comparing

 

I can give you my opinions on the issues you are talking about, but I thought you wanted to discuss the facts - if you have a look at the image you posted of a MINI can you explain where the "slope" of the roof is? looks almost perfectly level to me

 

it's pointless getting into this discussion with someone that is unwilling/unable to distinguish facts and opinion

There's a fine line between fact and opinion, for example my statement of:  "Laid-back driving position similar to X308 Jag XJ in that you sit low, with legs extended" could be seen as either fact or opinion. Either way I am of the opinion that the MINI is not a well packaged car, and it seems I'm not alone:

 

Clarkson: "the MINI is badly packaged".

 

Autoexpress: "Despite being significantly larger than the original Mini, practicality is not a strong point. The rear bench is cramped for adults and the boot is extremely small. Even with the rear seats folded it can't match the Audi A1 or Citroen DS3 for loading space."

 

Carbuyer: "Even though the MINI is pretty far from living up to its name – or the small dimensions of the original classic car – there's no getting away from the fact that the MINI hatch is not a practical car. Anyone interested in a MINI probably doesn’t or shouldn’t care about that, but it is worth knowing that the boot is only 160 litres in capacity, well below the class average and only enough to fit a few bags of shopping in with any ease – even the weekly shop might spill out when you open the boot at the other end."

 

Autotrader "Space is at a premium, both for passengers and luggage though."

 

For the UP!, Whatcar: "There’s a great feeling of space up front, thanks to the uncluttered cabin and generous shoulder space. The Up is also one of the roomiest city cars in the back, with enough head- and legroom to comfortably seat a brace of adults. The boot is one of the biggest in class, and with the rear bench flipped forward, there’s more cargo space than in some superminis."

 

 

As for facts, there apparently aren't any full diagrams of the MINI's interior dimensions available (possibly not by accident!). I enclose the dimensions of the Mini and VW though for reference.

 

 

However, we can see the poor packaging in a simple test of wheelbase v boot space.

 

MINI (Mk2)
Wheelbase: 2,466 mm

Bootspace: 160l

 

VW UP!

Wheelbase: 2,420 mm

Bootspace: 251 litres

 

Fiat Panda

Wheelbase 2,300 mm

Bootspace: 260l

 

Fiat 500

Wheelbase 2,300 mm

Bootspace: 185l

 

Audi A1 Sportback

Wheelbase 2,469

Bootspace: 270l 

 

Hope you're satisfied with a healthy dose of facts lol