Jaguar B99 by Bertone 2011

A historic brand in cars. A historic signature in design. Put the two together and you get an explosive new concept car called the Jaguar B 99 (B stands for Bertone), which 99 year old Bertone, one of the most ancient design brand in the world, will present in its world premiere at the Geneva Motor Show (March 3-13).

The B 99 projects Jaguar's classic style into the future with refined Bertone elegance, exploring a fascinating new form language with sleek lines and smooth volumes. The result is a compact, four-door sedan (4.5 m long, 1.35 m tall, and 1.95 m wide) that fits perfectly into the D segment. Starting with a classic three-volume architecture, Bertone designers have shaped a taut, muscular body with strong character, entirely constructed with handmade aluminum panels in true Italian "coachbuilder" tradition. The unique personality of the luxury sports sedan is emphasized by the sophisticated minimalism outside and in, with the exclusive use of prestigious materials inside the cockpit such as soft Italian leather, brushed aluminum and high-gloss African wood.

Bertone will present not only the luxury sedan in Geneva but also a full GT2 race version, maintaining the exceptional "double soul" tradition of the Jaguar brand, adding high speed aero appendages and aggressive graphics to the jet set wafting car.

In terms of technological innovation, the B 99 uses a full hybrid long range power system tuned by Bertone Energy (the newest Bertone division dedicated to renewable energy research). Bertone has been studying alternative powertrains for the past twenty years, with many examples including full electric "extreme" concept cars like the 1992 Blitz or 1994 Zer record car, which was the first full electric car to break the 300 km/h speed barrier in the world.

With the 2011 Jaguar B99 concept car, Bertone establishes a new record in its 99 year history as the only Italian designer to have created five different Jaguars. The previous models are the 1957 XK 150, produced in a limited edition of four copies, the 1966 Jaguar FT concept car, the [URL="https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49742"]1967 Jaguar Pirana[/URL], and 1977Jaguar Ascot.

Lower the beltline or the whole car and they might be onto something. For now, it is far too slabsided, but has promise.

Such a massive amount of want it can't even be put into words.

I like it....its more Jag looking than the XF....

[quote=f6fhellcat13;960139]Lower the beltline or the whole car and they might be onto something. For now, it is far too slabsided, but has promise.[/quote]

I think it looks slab-sided because it looks like it'd be the same size as an XJ. Considering it's only 75% that size, I think it's fantastic.

I'm with f6f... the past decade, car designers have pushed beltlines up higher than a Century Villager's plaid shuffleboard britches.
Side-curtain airbags should make it possible to design proportional, airy greenhouses without compromising safety.

I do appreciate the slight creases that define the beltline and XJ6 references, though. The doors too.

[quote=RacingManiac;960142]I like it....its more Jag looking than the XF....[/quote]

Agreed. It looks like a throwback to the older XJ's (the ones made around 2000, don't remember the exact model years), albeit way modernized.

While I was about to say this should have been the design for the new XJ, the profile of the new XJ, if you look closely, actually bears resemblance to some of the old Daimlers (the side profile, for example), so it's still got just as much heritage as the concept. ;)

Is this based off the current Xj underneath?

let's see what Jaguar will do (if anything) with the GT2 version, their (sort of) own car could hardly be called successful.

It reminds me a lot of the ford 427 concept from a while back in terms of proportion, window line, minimal detailing, etc.

It's fantastic to view but it's conciously retro, and I don't think thats what Jag is about any more. Gorgeous and if it had been released 3 years ago, who knows.

Just like Aston Martin....no matter where they go with their designs they always end up in the same place....a dead end.

[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;960184]It reminds me a lot of the ford 427 concept from a while back in terms of proportion, window line, minimal detailing, etc.

It's fantastic to view but it's conciously retro, and I don't think thats what Jag is about any more. Gorgeous and if it had been released 3 years ago, who knows.[/quote]
I don't think it should be considered retro at all. It feels like the classic Jag style put up to date and modernised. Which if you ask me is what they should've done in the first place.

This makes the XF look vulgar and commonplace.

[quote=Dino Scuderia;960187]Just like Aston Martin....no matter where they go with their designs they always end up in the same place....a dead end.[/quote]

A little harsh there, eh? :o

[quote=Ferrer;960189]I don't think it should be considered retro at all. It feels like the classic Jag style put up to date and modernised. Which if you ask me is what they should've done in the first place.

This makes the XF look vulgar and commonplace.[/quote]
Agreed. Had Bertone gone retro, traditional facia and lights front and rear would have been obvious. I don't see anything retro, just crisp modern lines that recall Jaguar's classic '70s XJ sedan/coupe with the door arrangement, particularly if there's no B pillar.
It's been awhile since a hardtop went without, but the effect is very pleasing to the eye.

[quote=LHamilton_w;960252]A little harsh there, eh? :o[/quote]
I was gonna say... dead end? How so, Dino? :confused:

[quote=Ferrer;960189]I don't think it should be considered retro at all. It feels like the classic Jag style put up to date and modernised. Which if you ask me is what they should've done in the first place.

This makes the XF look vulgar and commonplace.[/quote]

I respectfully disagree. The XF has a unique modern prescence and truly represents new, modern luxury. By being different to what has gone before. The detailing is well thought out, and the proportions exceptionally modern.

This seems self-referential and while I'll agree the lighting seems to be fairly up to date, the upright pillars, suicide doors and large overhangs scream retro-futurism. The pillarless style is a definite link and while I acknowledge a link does not represent a retro styling cue (See Hoffmeister Kink) I still get an overwhelming sense of familiarity seeing this.

The problem with the XF is that while it clearly steered away from Jaguar's, let's say classic, designs from the early noughties it did so by becoming a completely mainstream four door saloon. It does look good, but from the outside it doesn't feel any different to a Lexus or an Audi, which a Jag should.

This on the other hand blends modernity with tradition. The proportions are pure classic Jaguar, long overhangs, low roof amongst other. But the detailing is pure 21st century. As such it can't be called retro in my opinion, just tradition put up to date.

And this feels and looks like a proper Jaguar, and like nothing else in the market.

While I agree this would have a point of difference, not calling this retro is like not referring to the Mini as a retro design because it has a wheel at each corner - not quite the truth.

the XF might look somewhat generic because it's smooth and aerodynamic - a common criticism, and frankly a little boring. The detailing of the interior especially, but also the tail lights, proportions, glass house etc are unique and rather lovely.

I agree the proportions are quite Jag with this model - as you would expect for something designed for a 99 year anniversary. However I don't think they've got the proportions quite right, the rear overhang is too short and the glasshouse too upright and tall.

It's difficult to grasp the feel - it's the textures and surfacing that will make this exceptional - but I agree, it's lovely. It's just a vehicle that harks too much back to the past and as such is the antithesis of what Jaguar wants to be seen as in the current light - a modern company not resting on it's history.

[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;960263]This seems self-referential and while I'll agree the lighting seems to be fairly up to date, the upright pillars, suicide doors and large overhangs scream retro-futurism. The pillarless style is a definite link and while I acknowledge a link does not represent a retro styling cue (See Hoffmeister Kink) I still get an overwhelming sense of familiarity seeing this.[/quote]
With the windshield laid back about 45 degrees and rear perhaps 30, it's kinda hard to see upright pillars. ;) Retro-futurism is as amorphous a concept as post-modernism in design whether automotive, industrial, fashion or architecture. That sense of "familiarity" means Bertone's draughtsmen got the undefinable just right, a rare thing anymore. The new Mini, Mustang, Challenger, et. al, do so overtly, slavish to their generational iconography but then, that's what those products are aimed at. This does so very subtly. As to proportionality, were the beltline lower allowing for more proportional relationships between deck heights, wheel openings and greenhouse, IMHO it would be a
modern classic. Perhaps someone with some chop skills could make a few changes as suggested, just for a look see? :cool:

[quote=csl177;960276]With the windshield laid back about 45 degrees and rear perhaps 30, it's kinda hard to see upright pillars. ;) Retro-futurism is as amorphous a concept as post-modernism in design whether automotive, industrial, fashion or architecture. That sense of "familiarity" means Bertone's draughtsmen got the undefinable just right, a rare thing anymore.[/quote]

You're right, of course. these 'styles' are more guidelines than anything else.

Familiarity might very well be breeding contempt for me, but this is just against what Jaguar have wanted to do - be modern without referencing the past heavily. It's a lovely design in isolation, and it has a nice weight of history, but the weight is something that Jaguar have rightly tried to shift. Where can you go with this type of design?

[quote] The new Mini, Mustang, Challenger, et. al, do so overtly, slavish to their generational iconography but then, that's what those products are aimed at. This does so very subtly. As to proportionality, were the beltline lower allowing for more proportional relationships between deck heights, wheel openings and greenhouse, IMHO it would be a modern classic.[/quote]

I don't disagree - this handles it's retro chic much better than the one's you've mentioned by getting those relationships relatively ok, but it's still an old-fashioned way of designing. And it's a mark of a Design house that perhaps hasn't quite embraced the three-dimensionality of modern design. This to me looks like a drawing board special - excellent in profile and front view, but the transitions aren't great.

[quote]Perhaps someone with some chop skills could make a few changes as suggested, just for a look see? :cool:[/quote]

I second this motion.

[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;960284]Familiarity might very well be breeding contempt for me, but this is just against what Jaguar have wanted to do - be modern without referencing the past heavily. It's a lovely design in isolation, and it has a nice weight of history, but the weight is something that Jaguar have rightly tried to shift. Where can you go with this type of design?[/quote]
This, however, is very different to the previous generation XJ or the S-Type. Those cars were shamelessly pillaging from Jaguar's design heritage in such a way, in the S-Type and X-Type especially, it was pathetic - this doesn't. What this tries to do in my view is takes Jaguar's traditional values into the 21st and does it quite successfully.

Let me put it this way, is the 911 retro? I would say it isn't, in the same way this isn't either. Of course the XF and new XJ make this car a bit redundant, and out of place but if only it had been released before them... in any case if Jaguar goes mad and decides to make it, I certainly want one.
[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;960284]I don't disagree - this handles it's retro chic much better than the one's you've mentioned by getting those relationships relatively ok, but it's still an old-fashioned way of designing. And it's a mark of a Design house that perhaps hasn't quite embraced the three-dimensionality of modern design. This to me looks like a drawing board special - excellent in profile and front view, but the transitions aren't great.[/quote]
It isn't old-fashioned! No, ok, you are right it is. But is that such a bad thing? If it's a formula that works why not use it?

[quote=Ferrer;960290]This, however, is very different to the previous generation XJ or the S-Type. Those cars were shamelessly pillaging from Jaguar's design heritage in such a way, in the S-Type and X-Type especially, it was pathetic - this doesn't. What this tries to do in my view is takes Jaguar's traditional values into the 21st and does it quite successfully.[/quote]

Those cars were retro in a way that was dishonest to the brand's illustrious heritage. Round headlights do not a historical reference make.

I understand your point of view here, I am just of the opinion that simply rehashing old shapes and designs doesn't advance design's cause - no matter how effective they might have been.

[quote]Let me put it this way, is the 911 retro? I would say it isn't, in the same way this isn't either. Of course the XF and new XJ make this car a bit redundant, and out of place but if only it had been released before them... in any case if Jaguar goes mad and decides to make it, I certainly want one. [/quote]

A 911 is retro in the sense that it has stuck to the basic formula for 40 or so years now. However the incremental advances made to the shape mean that while the lineage is obvious, the transformation between 964 and 997 for instance is fairly linear, the shapes are familiar, but the details are sharper. Sweeping the windscreen back is an excellent example.

I get this point as well - but Jaguar have made a concious leap away from their past design cues, Porsche haven't.


[quote]It isn't old-fashioned! No, ok, you are right it is. But is that such a bad thing? If it's a formula that works why not use it?[/quote]

Typewriters were effective means of communication, still are.

Horses are effective transportation methods, still are.

Repeating yourself leads only to circular thinking - pushing the envelope, now thats where the interest lies.

One thing to take into consideration - this is a 3 series competitor, and as such has to be a little more compact than recent Jags which explains the short overhangs. Also, they'll want it to be a volume seller, which traditionally means that the designs will sway towards the conservative. Obviously this is a concept and therefore can be as out there as you like, but for it to be taken seriously as a possible pointer to production it has to have some realism to it. I think if you look at it from that point of view, it's an indication that there could be some truely handsome beasts roaming our streets soon.

As for whether it's retro or not, I'd sway towards the 'modern classic' than 'retro'. There's scant difference between the two but considering this doesn't [I]directly[/I] ape an existing model in any exact fashion I think we can give it the benefit of the doubt. It's not exactly what you think of when you hear about Jag wanting to be modern, but I don't feel that this isn't a modern design. I like that it's a distinctive take on what is a conservative segment of the market, without being so flashy as to never sell anything. I'd like to see some nicer pictures with more of a sense of scale though - perhaps a lovely lady draped over it will provide such.

[quote=LHamilton_w;960252]A little harsh there, eh? :o[/quote]


It's so traditionally Jag it puts me into a coma.

I really like this. I wish Jag would stop teasing us with awesome concept cars and start putting them into production!!

[quote=Ferrer;960141]Such a massive amount of want it can't even be put into words.[/quote]

For once, I can whole heartedly agree with you :p. This thing looks spectacular :).

[URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/07/report-jaguar-passes-on-bertones-b99-concept/"]Officially not happening[/URL] - this was a Bertone concept, Jag had nothing to do with it.

[quote=pimento;961443][URL="http://www.autoblog.com/2011/03/07/report-jaguar-passes-on-bertones-b99-concept/"]Officially not happening[/URL] - this was a Bertone concept, Jag had nothing to do with it.[/quote]

Haha, and you guys got so excited too! :p

From the beginning I wasn't much a fan, so that's okay I guess.

I don't like the greenhouse to car ratio- every car these days is having less and less glass.

I also don't like the rear, it looks like it can't decide which way is facing the front. I do see the clear connection to Jaguar in the front clip, the only part I kind of like.

I am still excited.

And Jaguar has made a bad decision. But each to his own.

Good Call.

They have an in-house design team for a reason.

[quote=IBrake4Rainbows;961472]Good Call.

They have an in-house design team for a reason.[/quote]
I don't think having an in-house design team and asking external studios to submit proposals contradict each other.

This was unsolicited. But I see your point.

Jaguar B99 by Bertone #2

Bertone Jaguar B99 GT4 2011

Wings and spoilers ruin the beautiful, uncluttered lines.

Also, is it just me or the back looks suspiciously similar to recently released F-Type?

Unlike a lot of what Jag has been doing...at least this LOOKS like a Jag. Not a big fan of the headlights, but otherwise a really clean, classy design...

I don't think that race car is real, it looks like a render.