2004 Ssang Yong Rodius design Notes II

Further to comments today, I looked in detail at the ‘flying bridge’. The groove running parallel to the rear door frame is part of the problem but really is a little problem on top of a heap of more fundamental ones. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The last image shows the most basic interpretation of the boxy package with a simple D-pillar. What else could they have done? Much more could have been done with the rear lamps. They could have been vertical, for example.

With that last doodle I only want to show what an unadorned, obviously van-like profile might have looked like. I agree it would have been uninteresting. But the cure was worse than the disease in this case. Another of the sketches shows the car made lower by about 10%. I moved the A-pillar back to align with the axle. It’s a bit of a bodge so don’t look too hard.

I get the general impression that the methods of making an estate-car look less boxy were applied to a van which is how the actual car turned out so wrong. The identified a ‘problem’, applied the wrong solution and did it badly.

Author: richard herriott

I like anchovies. I dislike post-war town planning.

2 thoughts on “2004 Ssang Yong Rodius design Notes II”

  1. Old thread but I think the groove is supposed to integrate the “yacht” inspiration in a way that keeps accent on an arching roof line. Ssangyong must have been considering that a consistent piece of their design language at the time following the shape of the Actyon.

    1. Hello Jowett: thanks for dropping in.
      I can see that the line/groove puts some visual weight into the arc from the mirror to the rear. However, it successfuly interupts or adds noise to the z-shape which is there to hide the van’s vanniness. So, on balance I think they made a wrong choice when prioritising family resemblances (if they were thinking of that) over the looks of the individual model.
      Put another way, if the yacht-theme was important it made not much sense to weaken the impression by adding another element which in this case was a conventional roofline arc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: