Frank Stephensen is a man of many opinions. The longtime car designer, known for penning the McLaren P1, the Ferrari F430, and the Maserati MC12, has been sharing his thoughts on automobiles via YouTube since the pandemic, bringing his ideas to an entirely new audience. Since the world went back to normal, Stephenson hasn’t been posting as much. But every once in a while, he’ll take the time to shit on a design.
Stephensen’s latest target is the Jaguar Type 00, an all-electric concept heralded as the automaker’s savior as it rebrands itself and moves upmarket. The car has drawn countless opinions from automotive professionals thanks to its monolithic fascia and blocky profile, but Stephensen’s criticism stands out as especially judgmental and borders on insulting.
Here’s what he wrote about the car for Top Gear:
The Jaguar Type 00 feels like a concept that wasn’t fully thought through before it went to prototype. Visually, it presents a number of bold ideas, but none seem fully resolved. The car looks promising at a distance, but disappointing up close. The overall design lacks cohesion and seems unfinished. That’s a recurring theme—unfinished surfaces. Many panels appear flat and unrefined, like early-stage clay work.
In Jaguar’s defence, the Type 00 is, in fact, a prototype. The production version, which will start at around $130,000, will be a sedan, not a coupe. And anyone who knows cars knows that anything can change when a vehicle goes from concept to production. So it’s unclear just how much of the Type 00’s design will actually make it to the road. Judging by Stephensen’s thoughts, he’d likely be happy with some changes.
There’s no sense of surface entertainment – nothing sculptural or dynamic to catch the light or hold visual interest. It’s hard to find a single point of interest across the body, making the car forgettable from nearly every angle.
The proportions feel forced. The plus-sized wheels are attention-seeking, albeit in a toylike manner. The car severely misses the Jaguar villainy. The enormous wheels also distract from the front end and reinforce the impression that this is a design where individual elements were created in isolation and stitched together later.
He’s not alone in the critique. The Bishop took a swing at modifying the Jaguar to make it a little more palatable.
While it’s certain some elements of the design will change, Jaguar promises the production Type 00 will look a lot like the car seen here—at least that’s what Jaguar USA boss Brandon Baldassari told me at The Quail during Monterey Car Week. His new boss, JLR CEO Adrian Mardell, also told reporters earlier this month the brand is getting an “exciting response” from customers on the car. Spy shots of test mules seen on public roads suggest similarly long-nosed proportions, though considering how much camouflage and extra body cladding shield the actual design, it’s tough to come to any conclusion right now.
One thing that certainly won’t change is the powertrain. Despite slowing demand for high-end EVs and tax incentives disappearing nationwide, the production Type 00 will remain an all-electric affair. Jaguar’s already promised a range north of 400 miles, which should satiate buyers held back by range anxiety. Basically, Jaguar’s plan is to get people in the door with a polarizing design, and then sell them on the range and tech.
Whether that plan will work remains a mystery. JLR expects volume to drop significantly and average transaction prices to double once the Type 00 launches next year, so comparing year-over-year sales will prove fruitless. So long as Jaguar survives to see another day, I’ll be happy.
Top photo: Jaguar/Newspress
I don’t know a single person who thinks Jaguar matters. It’s old news and they put two in its head with this bullshit. It’s dead forever, regardless of where it goes from here.
They’ve always made unreliable shit, so I’m not sure if anyone ACTUALLY cares, despite internet boohooing.
This is 100% true.
Having been filtered through BMH, British-Leyland, Ford, and Tata it isn’t like there has been a “real” Jag in 60 years. The only new Jag most people reading this have ever known has been a branding exercise slapped onto a collection of outdated hardware collected from various parts bins.
That doesn’t mean they were all junk, just that Jag, as a brand, has only been a superficial marketing device for a long time.
It’s another zombie company. Like an unfortunate many companies today, their old cars are rose-tinted well-regarded, but the new ones are lost in today’s market through either half-baked product or because what set them apart has fallen from favor, been eclipsed, or adopted by everyone else. Nobody with the access seems to know how to fix them, but the names are too well known to be discarded. See, also: the question the other day about Maserati, FIAT, and Alfa Romeo. Honestly, as dumb as this rebranding thing is, I think I respect their hail Mary attempt more than the slow death of churning out underwhelming nostalgia bait as sales spiral like a helicopter with a failed tail rotor.
Jaguar is a zombie brand worldwide so why not go for broke. At this stage they have nothing else to lose.
But FIAT and Alfa Romeo still have a huge base in Europe and specifically Italy and their customers aren’t all octogenarians they will survive for a lot longer yet.
Yeah, that’s my exact feeling on Jaguar. The move hasn’t impressed me, but I wasn’t going to buy a Jag before, either, and at least they’re doing something and maybe it will work on a different demographic.
I think the best hope for the Italians is to be separated in the way Rolls-Royce and Bentley were, though I don’t know who’d want them. I like to think Alfa is savable, but requires someone competent to own them. Maserati? I don’t know. A new owner could probably do something with it, but their glory days are far, far back, their image becoming more of a joke, the product is lackluster, and the market they’re in is not very large, but with formidable opponents.
The article states that the world “went back to normal,” but I’m not seeing much evidence of that.
Abnormal is the new normal.
The ending statement in the article is a great bit of perspective. I got caught up in all of the “OMG who thought any of this was a good idea” last year, but really what I care about is their survival.
Jag has a long, storied history and I’d hate to see it fade out (or get bought for the brand name).
This past weekend, I saw a late 2000s XJ sedan on the road and was struck by how good and (this is key) timeless the design looked. I can’t see the production verison of this thing being able to say that. Or the 2010s XJ for that matter; its already forgotten it seems.
Funny you should say that, I had an X308 XJR in my mind as I wrote that post!
In any case, I can’t disagree with you. A lot of what they’ve done in the past 15 years is forgettable.
That already happened, years ago.
God this thing again. It’s like someone saw Batman the Animated Series, took one look at the Batmobile, and thought to themselves “How can I make that, but way less interesting?”
So you’re admitting that the proportions are badass…
I guess I didn’t think that comment through all the way.
I’ll admit I was put off by how cringy and weirdly try-hard the debut was, and that’s colored my opinion of it. Who knows, maybe they’ll sell a ton of these things to people who worship at the alter of high fashion. I can’t imagine the demographic is all that large though.
Personally, I just want an XF Sportbrake S.
They’re both those things separately.
Speaking as someone who has just gotten back into using Inventor after a nearly decade-long hiatus…this looks like someone has been poking around in a 3D modeling program. I’m seeing little bits of potential here and there, but it’s largely a very obvious combination of basic shapes, the sort of thing you’re encouraged to make when you’re learning how your program works.
I’m still very puzzled as to why it’s nearly the exact color my parents selected for a chair they had reupholstered in the mid-90’s to complement our redesigned living room after Mom discovered that the now-defunct This End Up furniture store sold their fabric by the yard.
I’ve heard that the younger generations are having less sex than their elders did at their age and starting later. Perhaps that explains this car: it looks like it was designed by or for someone who has no idea what sex is. What a drag you are.
I used to joke that when the designer of the Jaguar E-type first showed the sketch to his secretary, she slapped him…
Reminds me of the William Towns Railton concepts from 1989
It feels like they’re trying to sneak into Hyundai’s Ioniq design language, but the front end in particular seems more Cybertruck-y and that’s not a point in its favor at all. It’s just too flat. I guess we’re on the extreme of the Boxy vs. Bulbous pendulum swing. Changing it to sedan would probably screw up the lines even more.
I will say this: I like that color a lot more than I thought I did at first glance. Of course, that’s absolutely the most likely thing to change to taste, but I like it.
Now do the Cybertruck
No no, I think that thing deserves to look as bad as it does. Let time judge it as-is.
“There’s no sense of surface entertainment”
Yeah, that’s why I like it. I’ve always liked late 80s to late 90s cars because they were CLEAN SURFACES with crisp character lines, not tortured complex surfaces like newer cars with creases and bends and dips and scallops all over the place. Oh, and BTW, they are doing that because newer cars have horrid proportions; most of them have absolutely chonky amount of sheet metal under the C pillar, it really looks awful if you ignore all the reflections.
The Jag concept needs some refinement on the front and rear end details, but the side profile is rad, and the overall aesthetic is SUPER FRESH. I guarantee if he was in charge of this project it would have been an attractive, but expected design that would not have received this much attention.
I’m rooting for Jaguar big time; the brand has been kind of lost for a while.
Totally agree. Just one example of many: Mercedes Benz. Tailored and elegant but now goofy lumps. R.I.P. Bruno Sacco.
This thing, however, lacks the proportions to pull it off. Maybe JLR will spare our eyes and slap a whole bunch of black plastic cladding on it.
Beyond any opinion of the Jaguar, Frank Stephensen is the type of designer that could be replaced by AI, and nobody would notice. His supercars are incredibly derivative and provide not an ounce of anything new or interesting.
That quote by Stephensen highlights his lack of creativity. He is judging the design based on the tired framework that causes all of his designs to look the same. If it doesn’t look like one of the interchangeable McLarens he stamped out, he isn’t going to like it. Stephesen isn’t the designer you hire when you want to replicate rather than do anything interesting.
That isn’t a critique or defense of the Jag. But whether the design works or not is dependent on criteria Stephensen has never needed to deal with.
I dunno man, I like the MC12. And while I don’t love the P1, I’m not sure I would call the design “derivative” especially considering that he also designed the other McLarens it most shared a design with.
Do I love his designs? No; some are good, some are great, some are blah. I can’t think of any I’d call bad though.
The MC12 is a reskinned Enzo, which was designed by somebody else. All the McLarens look like generic “supercars” from a video game. That is the thing about being a designer who never takes any risk, nothing interesting, and nothing bad. But supercars should be interesting, and none of his are.
What is it you think designers do, exactly? You’re complaint about the MC12 sounds like it should be directed at engineers, not at the designer.
Well, with 30+ years of product development and design experience, I have a reasonably good idea of what designers do. There are lots of ways a resken can be viewed, and the MC12 wasn’t much of a departure from the original. It was also less interesting than the Enzo on which it was based, and primarily was just the addition of a nose that used well-established Maserati design language. That doesn’t mean it was a bad design. It just doesn’t indicate that Stephenson has much creativity. Stephenson is a competent, basic designer, but anything that isn’t primarily a retread is outside his skill set.
Thank God someone else said it. I struggle to distinguish most of the McLarens from each other.
I also think there’s an interesting phenomenon where these experts in a niche field that gain popularity amongst mainstream audiences by making videos on YouTube and the like tend to be the ones who are a caricature of practitioners. They peddle the most milquetoast takes that derive from flattened and dated viewpoints on the direction of the field. Especially in creative fields, it exacerbates the Dunning-Kruger tendency of the general population because they can say, “See? this expert (who is incentivized to validate my uninformed opinions to get views) agrees with me”
Also I’m pretty sure Eric Gallina from formtrends (which is an actually good commentator on the automotive design industry) wrote an article which showed proof that Stephenson did not in fact work on the Ferrari 430:
“Another example is Frank Stephenson being solely credited for the design of the 2008 Fiat 500. Roberto Giolito designed that car while Stephenson was director. The same goes for the Ferrari F430, a design somehow attributed to Stephenson even though Pininfarina was designing all Ferraris at that time. Ferrari didn’t formally open its design studio until 2010, long after Stephenson’s tenure as design director had expired.”
https://www.formtrends.com/design-directors-who-did-what/
Yeah, Stephenson is well-known for taking credit for things whether he did them or not, while never acknowledging the collaborative process of design. He is the stereotypical pretentious designer, more focused on his own image than on creating anything interesting.
All chief designers do this to a greater or lesser degree. They may not have done the original sketch, but they would have been responsible for choosing what went forward and the guiding through to production.
The design chief taking credit for the work of others is one of the primary toxic traits of the design industry. Stephenson is problematic because he wants it both ways. He wants to claim credit for the design of the Mini, where he contributed incremental progress, AND for the designs of others working under him. So, did Giolito design the 500, or did his boss design the Mini?
Regardless, the McLarens, which represent what he does when given a dream project, are completely derivative and lack any imagination. They are competent, but are a manifestation of what happens in an industry that rewards self-promotion more than talent. Something to which the design industry is especially susceptible.
I wouldn’t say it’s toxic. It’s just not possible to credit everybody who contributes to the design of a car. It’s just the net result of the way things work in a large company.
if a CEO in any business is successful, that’s not only because of their efforts, but they get the credit and the plaudits. Same as something like film production – a great movie is the result of many people’s creative input – but they rarely get recognised unless you’re a cinema aficionado who sits through the credits at the end.
Having spent 30 years in the design industry, I have no issues calling it toxic. Unimaginative people like Stephenson encourage the worst impulses of designers while crushing the best, most innovative ideas. He prioritizes his own self-promotion over all else.
Film directors like Louis Leterrier don’t present themselves as auteurs on their own YouTube channel while offering shallow criticism of movies far more ambitious than anything they have ever achieved.
Stephenson is a typical mediocre designer who played the game, got lucky, and now believes his own B.S.
That’s probably why Stephenson is no longer employed by a major OEM.
True. The irony is that he is likely a good enough designer to have had a very productive, if unremarkable, career helping to develop hatchbacks and CUVs for the likes of VW or Ford. Unfortunately for McLaren, he was good at taking credit for things and selling himself as an inspired talent. The result of this is McLaren having a brand design language of “generic supercar.”
Why not? If we can have the Grip Best Boy in the credits of a movie, along with like 300 other relatively obscure/unknown positions (and a bunch of known ones) I don’t get why it should be so hard to credit people for their contributions. I’m not saying it would be easy, but it certainly seems possible.
Wait, you mean there’s more than one model of McLaren?
I know Eric and like him, but I think that piece is slightly disingenuous. Junior designers know the score going into the job – or at least they should. i would argue if you are doing it for recognition and fame you’re doing it for the wrong reasons. A design studio is no place for outsize egos because you’re part of a team.
The work is all that counts – making cars that resonate with customers and sell.
I can agree with everything that you’re saying. However that’s a slightly different matter than Frank Stephenson claiming to have “designed” the F430 when it’s a Pininfarina creation and Stephenson’s involvement is unverifiable given that Ferrari didn’t have an official styling department at the time.
Frank claims a lot of things. He had nothing to do with the Escort Cosworth for example. Unfortunately the secrecy of the design process and putting the chief front an centre for media duties enables this behaviour.
I agree that doing it for fame is misguided and destructive. But I would say that expecting recognition isn’t that. Young designers shouldn’t expect to forego honest recognition any more than they should expect to forego honest criticism.
The fact that Frank Stephenson was so successful clearly shows that the work isn’t all that counts. A massive ego can get you a very long way in the design industry despite having mediocre talent. This isn’t unique to the design industry, of course, but because design is swimming in subjective language, ego can play an outsized role.
I have seen far too many ego-driven designers be given a position of authority because they are willing to step on their coworkers, shift blame, and take credit as it suits them. While those individuals might be in the minority of the design population, they make up a disproportionate number of design creative leads, directors, and executives.
Now discuss Stephenson’s designs of the BMW X5 and Mini R50
There is a lot written on the design of the R50, and Stephenson takes far more credit than he ever earned. And that is for a design that is purposely derivative rather than creative. The X5 took the very nice BMW design language at the time and skinned it over an SUV form. While it wasn’t bad, it wasn’t interesting. Stephenson should have stuck to designing lame CUVs; at least he wouldn’t have made a bunch of supercars all look generic.
He did the original R50 Mini and the Fiat 500, both of which are outstanding pieces of design work.
Frank did the 500, but the Trepiùno concept from 2004 looked like it basically provided the design for the 500 production car. I’m no expert but I think Giolito did that concept, and Fiat Multipla (now that’s a car you can’t say is creative).
Trepiuno was shown in 2004 and the production 500 launched in 2007, so they were started around the same time – or the production version slightly earlier.
Thought the Bishop took a swing at it, not Adrian…
He did, it wasn’t me.
I think the pink is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here in getting it noticed. Can’t disagree with Frank overall – this could have been hewn from a block of wood.
Meh. I did this the day it came out, changed the color, changed the proportions on the front grill, and added taillights. 2 minutes in photoshop. Check it out:
https://imgur.com/gallery/jaguar-concept-fixed-snowflakes-JEJg5Bt
First post, welcome Brian!
Thank you!
Did they get it right for the intended market and reach their needed sales numbers? Time will tell.
It’s too big for most Chinese roads, so it will likely flop.
I completely agree with Frank Stephensen’s assessment. When I saw the Jag Type 00 concept, my thought was that they needed to go back to the drawing board.
To me, it looks like yet another lazy concept that relies on ridiculously oversized wheels with no-sidewall-tires… and cheats by leaving out a lot of details that would be required in a road-worthy vehicle… like having space for some suspension travel, leaving out the rear view mirrors, turn signals and other lighting, door handles, etc.
And sorry… I don’t accept the “styling exercise” explanation. If it’s just a sketch, sure.
But for a fully built concept you’re gonna show to the public? Nah… that’s just being lazy.
Brandon Baldass better start finding a new job, this cheesegrater by Quisinart is not going to really sell well here in the US.
This had to be an “AI” designed car. Because a sentient being could not have come up with something so lifeless…
The blocky planar design worked so well on the CT. I’m sure it will do the same for Jag. At least they aren’t helmed by EM.
Welcome to low-poly car design.
Is radwood/synthwave/cyberpunk the new way to retro style cars?
Eh, more CLEAN SURFACES than low poly. 80s/early 90s cars had crisp edges and clean lines, 90s got a bit more melted, and then the ‘flame surfaced’ BMWs came out and then people went nuts and now every car has crazy complex surfacing to try to hide the fact that the proportions are utter dogshit.
I wonder what he thinks of Chris Bangle’s 7 series BMWs?
Well, he worked for Bangle at BMW at the time the E65 was being designed, so he may well have contributed, though Adrian van Hooydonk is the primary attributed designer of that car.
If I paint my window air conditioner a weird metallic purple-ish color, I won’t need this Jag. I’ll have one in my bedroom.
It’s hard to believe a company that built the gorgeous Mark II and XJ sedans — never mind the E-Type — could have strayed so far from their design heritage.
I’d say they pretty much coasted since William Lyons retired.
“The car severely misses the Jaguar villainy”
I strongly disagree, but only in the sense that it looks like a cartoon baddie’s car.
“Nyeh heh heh, now all shall suffer the chalky taste of Pepto Bismol!”
“Feel the wrath of Doctor Bismuth!”
Same, the sinister face and long hood are made for some sort of Speed Racer side plot
On the flip side the long hood and low height are doing too much work. This design won’t translate well to a compact-to-medium crossover, or it will but the result will look like a utilitarian box and come out looking more downmarket than it is which was the problem across the previous generation of Jag CUVs.
I am all for real colors on cars, but in this case, I don’t think that metallic raspberry does the shape any favors.
Sounds like he scored it an 00 out of 10.
I’ll try to be the first to say it in case the final car is a flop: maybe Jaguar named the car for a losing bet on a roulette wheel.