THE PORTAL HUB - Pinzgauers, Haflingers, Volvo 303s and more!

a 6' bouncing rat

Yeah, but WHAT a rat! .... Even Sylvester couldn't get his head around that animal!

Now if AT - Armor/BAE came up with an "integrated" aesthetic design concept for the Pinzgauer II, somewhat along the design cues / lines of the JCB HMUV would anyone complain?

Peter, the Cadillac Escalade is the proverbial, "teats on boar hog" in my book. A Range Rover at least has some practicality. I'm with Todd, I'd be happy to road and off road test one of the new generation of Pinzgauers if they need some real world feed back.

Peter
Forget the JCB HMUV.... What about the HMRTF?


Aaaag. ... forklift

Dave, you're obsessed. Why don't you just throw some tines on the front of the Pink Cow and be done with it.

I'm with Todd, I'd be happy to road and off road test one of the new generation of Pinzgauers if they need some real world feed back.

Don't get me wrong, a Pinzgauer, is a Pinzgauer is a Pinzgauer, no matter how ugly it's "external styling"! (and I love Pinzgauers)

Spec wise the Pinzgauer II comes up trumps, it's just a real shame that the "new aesthetic design" doesn't match the engineering quality and it's predecessors (particularly the 710-712 range) "honest", functional and clean styling.

Maybe we could get the original Pinzgauer design team out of retirement to give it a "work-over"

Peter, if the original team would come out of retirement and do an update with today's technology they could re-retire as very wealthy individuals in a short while.

I've not seen the TD nor the new ones except in pictures, but for my purposes adding width does nothing positive. My 710M is probably just about the perfect size.

The Border Patrol has a few H-1 Hummers that are mainly for show because in the back country they are just too wide to be functional. The civilian H-2 and H-3s rarely, if ever, get out where the brush can rearrange the paint on the sides. Hard branches along the side of your truck make a noise akin to fingernails on a chalkboard.

Honestly do you think there was any asthetic design on the original? I kind of believe they engineered it for a purpose. Came up with a great mechanical design that just looked the way it does. A great utlitarian "Git 'er done" (Sorry Larry) appearance. Form following function. Problem comes in when modern "designers" think it has to look a certain way. Think they have to change something just for changes sake. Have to modernize...bah.

Of course that's just my opinion, and you know what they say about those.

I have no desire to have my Pinz changed in shape or be more aerodynamic. What would be great is if they could update the moteor and electrical/electronic systems while still keeping it simple to maintain.

It makes zero difference to me, except at the gas pump, that my 710 has the aerodynamics of a brick.

Interesting thread Gents.

Styling changes in the industry tend to follow a norm that originated on these shores post 1945. In it's extreme from 1948 to 1957 the Big Three changed models every two years or so driven by the sales & marketing dept's enforced trend to keep potential customers thirsting for the next latest & greatest on the suburb block.

To illustrate, not much is known of the Hudson Hornet of 1946 to 1954 (double H power fame). With step in & over side chassis rail innovations the structure of the car made it impressive for the year in the stability dept and very safe in side collision impacts. The whole body integrity made it extremely fast, stable, and well advanced for it's year. Unfortunately that same side rail feature made frequent body styling changes difficult to repeat in practice. The body changed little over its seven year emergence. Sadly the American public in general were not drawn to the safety aspect of the car prefering the Ford Fairlane and similar renditions with ever bigger fins. The competiton knowing that Hudson had less abilities to change styling buried it with the continued changes by swapping a new body onto the same platform & seperate chassis.
(one of my favourite cars the Hudson of "Cars" the recent film).

Advance a few years into the 60's and Ford led the way with the 15 year philosophy. Basically you developed a model/vehicle that was to last through three 5 year increments. The first five years following introduction would see minimal changes and the production and sales drives solidified market penetration. The next five years would be the profit years where marketing and sales would realise their forecasts with some attendant styling/spec changes to keep the public interested. The last 5 would be the successor phase where R&D would be busy developing a replacement to the model in current production. To keep public interest going there would be the "special editions" etc to maintain customer loyalty until the emergence of the replacement.
Look back at successful models from every manufacturer (barring takeovers bankruptcy etc) and you will see the adherance to that philosophy. Yes even Steyr has loosely followed that same path with the 710/712 Series until the emergence of the replacement.

These days the 15 year cycle has been truncated by modern production automation but its still there if you look closely at some of the more popular vehicles.
So to sum up, manufacturers rely to a great extent on styling houses in Italy to come up with successful replacements for existing models. Like it or lump it these trends are here to stay.
Dennis

Honestly do you think there was any asthetic design on the original? I kind of believe they engineered it for a purpose. ........ Form following function.

EXACTLY! ..... Form follows function!
It's an honest design form that created iconic automotive products like the original Jeep, the Land Rover and of course the Haflinger / Pinzgauer.
It works; so much so that Companies like GM, Toyota and Land Rover continually harp back to predessor styles to form the basic of modern designs.

I've spent the last five years writing my Masters Thesis on 4WD Design, particularly in regards to past and current trends and it's a fasciniting area but the one thing I have learnt is that ....errr ..... well you'll have to read the 45,000 word Thesis

Profpinz wrote:

....... but the one thing I have learnt is that ....errr ..... well you'll have to read the 45,000 word Thesis

I'll wait for the movie....

It works; so much so that Companies like GM, Toyota and Land Rover continually harp back to predessor styles to form the basic of modern designs.

Kind of come full circle. Design a vehicle (or anything) strickly to "get the job done". What it looks like is, what it looks like. After building a reputation because it works, irregardless of what it looks like, it gets a following. I believe people come to like the appearance because of what it does, e.g. original Jeep, Pinzgauer. Now fast forward a generation or two and the designers try to take advantage of that, and deliberately try to design an asthetically pleasing (to them anyway) appearance reminscent of the original, but "updated" and call it "retro" or something.

Ultimately "form" has followed "form following function". I think I just made myself dizzy.

Ultimately "form" has followed "form following function". I think I just made myself dizzy.

Dizzy or not, I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head!

In design speak, this basing of modern designs on previous iconic shapes, (originally developed for utilitarian use on the "form follows function" principle and also partially because that was the most applicable and easy form to manufacture) is often referred to as: "genetic markers of the past"

Jeep have used this design principle in there new models (that 7 bar grille has been a primary marker since day one) as have LR who have outwardly stated that the D3 was styled the way it is, to be reminiscent of the S1, S2 and S3 range. They incorporated large, flat, vertical planes and bold surfaces that give the vehicle that boxy look of the past.

Perhaps the most successful vehicle that uses the iconic form is Porsche.
In my mind they have modernised and updated year in and year out, a shape that is true to the original Porsche design!

If the designers (read "janitors") at AT were as successful as the Porsche team at their job, then I'm sure the Pinzgauer II would have looked fantastic!

I found another pic on the net of the Pinzgauer II....courtesy of Janes.
(Information and especially pics on the vehicle seem VERY rare.... Mind you, I'd keep it quiet too given it's looks! )

It sort of reminds me of a buck toothed chipmonk with its cheeks full of nuts or corn.