all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

Let's hope they remember (other than their colleagues at VW) that a major core premise of the classic cars they are now trying to revive, was not only their distinct design, but also their affordability...

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    They are aiming for sub 15K. Quite affordable!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago

    Hope that price tag sticks and is more than a marketing price for a hypothetical base model lacking things like a radio, without having to also order something like the "advanced comfort package" for an additional 5000€, or something like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    I guess that's what passes for affordable nowadays

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago

    An original 1948 base model at launch was about 9,000 in 2026 money. Considering how bare bones the original is compared to modern minimum requirements, I'd say 15K is pretty good!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    This is both butt ugly and cute as fuck at the same time

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I like it! Design has gotten really homogeneous and I'm enjoying that we're starting to see some things shaking things up a little

    I do think them cropping the top of the headlights feels a tad out of place though- the overall shape is too cutesy to me for the way it makes the "face" of the car look to me. But probably they were aiming to temper the cutesy styling so its not overwhelming to folks that doesnt click with

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    It needs to be light, cheap, fun, and not packed with features that no one needs

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    and with suspension that make it lean ridiculously on corners.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Citroen already make a quadricycle called the Ami which is, on my opinion, an absolute slam dunk: cute, absolutely bare bones, super easy to maintain, shockingly practical for it's size and so much fun to drive. If this is built the same way but sold as an actual car rather than a quad it'll be amazing. Fingers crossed.

    The Ami, for reference:

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    I feel like it's a missed trick if they don't call this the "2EV".

    I'm not wild about the exposed bumpers but kinda like the rest of the design, and it looks like fun.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Ah that explains why I have been hearing the screams of Clarkson, May and Hammond in the wind.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    Following Renault in reviving classic designs. I dig this trend

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    Pretty cool. I didn't expect them to lean so far into the classic design, especially with how their other EVs look.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Not a fan of the massive emblem but everything else is a YES

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Pull it back and watch it go vroooooooom

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Nice to see them finally have to compete and make what most people actually want, affordable options.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    I feel like this is like the Rivian, the look grows on you. I wish I could get one in the states :(

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago
    [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The cynic in me predicts that this will not have hydropneumatic suspension (Because us poors can't have nice things).
    I do hope I'm wrong though, would be nice at that ~€15,000 range they're aiming for.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The original one is peak-ugly. Anything you do to it is an improvement.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    New beetlish

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (4 children)

    Well that interior for certain won't survive contact with reality. Those seats have zero head and neck support. Won't pass minimum safety features list. Those seats are way too low back and no head restraint/support. Plus even if it was legal, 0 stars from Euro-NCAP, when they rear end that car in crash test and the test dummy neck snaps back.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    This is a concept car, even if it is supposedly already the basis for a production car, those unrealistic aspects are definitely going to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I just find it personally highly irritating designers make concepts, that has no basis on reality. Why bother putting in the seat belts, but not the head supports. Since concept car needs no seat belts either. Specially 3 point ones. Like did the designer just like what a 3 point belt line hanging down the B pillar looks like?

    So they signal "we know safety is a thing, that exists and must be a concern", but then half ass it.

    In practical, overly fancy, with way too much design flair than general public will tolerate I can get. Those are matters of taste mostly. Showing artistic license and maybe looking at feed back of... hey maybe one of our crazy concepts is so popular we make it to production.

    But "not at all workable in the first place in reality" is another thing. It tells public nothing of the future and nor is it a good design study, since everyone knows "this whole interior is a whole redo, since it's center pieces, the seats people sit in are just a full no-go".

    Those front headlights are a "well thats concept cars being concept cars, those get simplified. It would be way too much engineering and production cost to make those work. One could, but they won't".

    That interior is "this is not even a concept of a passenger vehicle, since those seats can not carry road traffic passengers in". It is a vaguely passenger vehicle shaped nostalgic kinetic sculpture.

    Oh and all this specially since, I would like to see what their actual take is on how to make a modern working front passenger bench seat. How they marry the old 2CV bench with modern safety design requirements. Atleast on concept. At this stage it doesn't need to be mechanically engineered to actually pass whiplash track without snapping in half. However I would like to see a concept of a design how to make it work on ergonomic and base interior volume packaging level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago*

    I can see your point. I do prefer concepts closer to reality as well. I will refrain from judging though until I see how much of the design was retained (or could be retained) while of course complying with all safety regulations. A design is still much about marketing, it often just gets serious with the prototype. I'd also prefer it another way.

    That said, the Renault Twingo did keep its funky headlights, although with a bit more financial headroom at 20k EUR instead of 15k.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children)

    I like the idea but why do they have to make these cars look so weird all the time, instead of literally just the same?

    It is kinda matte, lower details, no ornaments etc.

    Also with the bumper, window frames, lights and rims it looks like a damn toy. Ugly af

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 1 comment in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago*

    It lacks the charm of the old design:

    2CV

  • source