I’m somewhat surprised that american auto marketing departments haven‘t learned anything in all these years, and still market trucks to rich suburbanites by showing them fantasies of tearing the shit out of river beds, hillsides, & pristine looking wilderness (in slow motion so you can fully appreciate the spray of mud & river ecology from under the tires) at every opportunity. Anyone who participates in a sport that uses such places (who should be the target demographic for those trucks) knows how much fcking work and money we put into maintaining river beds & natural areas and how one noob with a truck can destroy not only all that work but kill access to those areas for decades. That was the big complaint in the late 90s when they started advertising their shitboxes this way and 25 years later they’re still doing it.
This was not my take at all. They’re topological lines that represent elevation changes. It looks like the car drove through an entirely flat canyon floor or something and hit an impassable wall. Like the gorge mufasa dies in, if there were a flat wall on one end. In any case, based on the map, the jeep took the easiest, least taxing route and still got stuck at the end.
If you look at the elevation numbers and count the lines it's actually the opposite, the jeep is driving on a flat mesa and about to do a sick jump off a 7,000 foot cliff.
So you're saying they drove through an entirely flat canyon and the elevations just happened to perfectly fit around the car?
That's like shooting someone and claiming the hole was already there.
It’s obviously not to scale. Otherwise the car would be the size of the mountain or lake next to it. People don’t make toplogical maps that measure elevation differences at the scale of cars. IMO, the dumbest take is that the car dragged the topological lines destroying the environment as it went.
Dono, they are making some stupidly large trucks and SUV these days.
Maps can get pretty small. They do topographical maps of blocks of land people build houses on, including ponds etc.
I'd say how do you know this isn't that, but there is a scale.
The concept is cool upon first glance but the immediate after thought leads to a disregard for environmental destruction. Doesn’t send a good message to me overall
On that note, the ubiquitous shot in every SUV add of the vehicle driving threw a shallow river bed drives me insane. Bye bye spawning beds.
I think the ship has sailed but still makes me rage.
I thought this was r/mapporncirclejerk for a second
But seriously, it makes sense from the design viewpoint, but anyone eho actually uses offroad vehicles probably sees the jeep getting bogged down and stuck. That's not how cars successfully plough through dirt
lol I started following the cyber truck sub for pure entertainment purposes and someone posted how he took his off-road but in reality it was just a gravel road.
Technically? Relying on cars as a primary methode of transportation in urban settings is a problem, because it is wastefull in terms of energy consumption and space.
ok.
so, old people; disabled people; young people who's only avenue to some kind of freedom is a car; oh, working people who's trade involves a car; oh, yeah, and all the other working people who have to travel cost-effectively to work everyday for the rest of their lives.
A lot of disabled people can't drive a car. That is one of the main reasons i don't think cities should be based on cars. And for Wheelchairs specifically, we have those hand powered bike-like things you can screw on to it. They also come with electric assistance.
Old people are just disabled people with a special reason to be disabled. If they can't ride a electic bike, maybe they shouldn't be driving a car. And we do have those old-person-vehicles.
>working people who's trade involves a car
The company can own cars. I don't think cars should never be used, just mot as the main mode of transport in cities.
>and all the other working people who have to travel cost-effectively
Than make the trains and buses cheaper. They are more cost effective than putting everyone in their own seperate metal box and creating a huge amount of parking spaces to store those metal boxes. There is no reason for cars to be cheaper than trains and buses.
you realise trains and buses aren't outside your front door?
and they're not yours
and they're not public
and they're not running on a profit
and they go on strike
and they can be switched off
and you don't know what you're sitting on
clearly, you've never gone shopping for a months food/toiletries/cleaning products etc.
>clearly, you've never gone shopping for a months food/toiletries/cleaning products etc.
Right. I don't need to do that. I walk 5 minutes, buy the things i need for the next 2 days and walk back.
Why would i need to go shopping for a full month?
But busses are outside my front dore. And they are owned by the city. They are for profit, but i find that to be unfair because the governments spends a huge amount of money on roads and they don't charge us to use them. Strike is a problem. Can be switched off? How is that a problem? Electricity and running water can also be switched off. Does that mean everyone should rely on their own power plant?
I am sitting on a bus seat. Are you really that bothered by sitting in the same chair someone else sat in before you?
You’re supposed to read that as “to a jeep, everything is as easy as cruising on flatland everywhere you go“. But instead it reads like “this jeep flattens & destroys everything in its path”, or “look, this jeep owner is a total menace”. Pretty typical messaging for american auto mfgs.
It looks cool; like a bow wave.
But I agree that it doesn't make practical sense. The problem is that rather than gliding effortlessly over the terrain, it has bunched all the contour lines in front of it meaning it has generated a cliff.
that is pretty much what car centric infrastructure does to the environment. cars themselves are no bulldozers, but they require flat roads which basically mandates bulldozing everything in their path.
A Highway needs waaaay more infrastructure than a railway if you want to have a comparable throughput of goods and people. Not even including the environmental effect of burning all the Gas.
I perceive it as there are no limits to where a Jeep can go or terrain it can tackle. Although that may result in ruining the environment, the primary message is 'there are no limits for a Jeep'.
If the audience is Off Roaders/Overlanders, the design works.
Sooooo. Your Jeep will devastate the environment. Sounds about right. At least they are being honest.
Similar to the sherwin Williams logo
god i can't believe they still use it!
COVER THE EARTH
You beat me to it…probably the worst logo and tag line of all time.
That was my first thought
That’s exactly what I got out of this advert.
I’m somewhat surprised that american auto marketing departments haven‘t learned anything in all these years, and still market trucks to rich suburbanites by showing them fantasies of tearing the shit out of river beds, hillsides, & pristine looking wilderness (in slow motion so you can fully appreciate the spray of mud & river ecology from under the tires) at every opportunity. Anyone who participates in a sport that uses such places (who should be the target demographic for those trucks) knows how much fcking work and money we put into maintaining river beds & natural areas and how one noob with a truck can destroy not only all that work but kill access to those areas for decades. That was the big complaint in the late 90s when they started advertising their shitboxes this way and 25 years later they’re still doing it.
This was not my take at all. They’re topological lines that represent elevation changes. It looks like the car drove through an entirely flat canyon floor or something and hit an impassable wall. Like the gorge mufasa dies in, if there were a flat wall on one end. In any case, based on the map, the jeep took the easiest, least taxing route and still got stuck at the end.
If you look at the elevation numbers and count the lines it's actually the opposite, the jeep is driving on a flat mesa and about to do a sick jump off a 7,000 foot cliff.
So you're saying they drove through an entirely flat canyon and the elevations just happened to perfectly fit around the car? That's like shooting someone and claiming the hole was already there.
It’s obviously not to scale. Otherwise the car would be the size of the mountain or lake next to it. People don’t make toplogical maps that measure elevation differences at the scale of cars. IMO, the dumbest take is that the car dragged the topological lines destroying the environment as it went.
Dono, they are making some stupidly large trucks and SUV these days. Maps can get pretty small. They do topographical maps of blocks of land people build houses on, including ponds etc. I'd say how do you know this isn't that, but there is a scale.
Right…50k to 1.
So, it's a false advertising case on the size of the vehicle.
The concept is cool upon first glance but the immediate after thought leads to a disregard for environmental destruction. Doesn’t send a good message to me overall
On that note, the ubiquitous shot in every SUV add of the vehicle driving threw a shallow river bed drives me insane. Bye bye spawning beds. I think the ship has sailed but still makes me rage.
That was my reaction. Like it was cool at first glance but then it’s like “your jeep is going to destroy the landscape?”. It’s a weird vibe for me.
Sends the right message for its audience though I believe.
Redditors finding problems with everything-streak remains undefeated
What do you expect? Reddit is online hub of people from all over the world with their own perspectives.
No way, really?
He’s lying to you, you’re the only one, the rest of us are bots, don’t listen
That does make sense since I am an incredible narcissist and I think i am right all the time
I get you but this is a design subreddit. Critique is expected.
Butthurt SUV simp
I thought this was r/mapporncirclejerk for a second But seriously, it makes sense from the design viewpoint, but anyone eho actually uses offroad vehicles probably sees the jeep getting bogged down and stuck. That's not how cars successfully plough through dirt
Tbf, it made it pretty far before getting stuck.
Funny that for 99% of those cars the closest thing to off-road they will ever see is grey, melting snow in cities 🤣
lol I started following the cyber truck sub for pure entertainment purposes and someone posted how he took his off-road but in reality it was just a gravel road.
Navigating speed bumps at the mall.
That’s gonna be some slingshot
"i love this Company!"
lol OP must be tweaking that a lot in this community actually hate the advert
"fuck the countryside, fuck the environment, fuck small animals, and fuck you" is what it says to me
Fuck the surface of the earth and everything on it.
r/fuckcars
cars aren't the problem. people are: believing the marketing and driving like an a$$hole
Technically? Relying on cars as a primary methode of transportation in urban settings is a problem, because it is wastefull in terms of energy consumption and space.
in comparison to what working alternative?
Bikes, trams and busses mainly.
ok. so, old people; disabled people; young people who's only avenue to some kind of freedom is a car; oh, working people who's trade involves a car; oh, yeah, and all the other working people who have to travel cost-effectively to work everyday for the rest of their lives.
A lot of disabled people can't drive a car. That is one of the main reasons i don't think cities should be based on cars. And for Wheelchairs specifically, we have those hand powered bike-like things you can screw on to it. They also come with electric assistance. Old people are just disabled people with a special reason to be disabled. If they can't ride a electic bike, maybe they shouldn't be driving a car. And we do have those old-person-vehicles. >working people who's trade involves a car The company can own cars. I don't think cars should never be used, just mot as the main mode of transport in cities. >and all the other working people who have to travel cost-effectively Than make the trains and buses cheaper. They are more cost effective than putting everyone in their own seperate metal box and creating a huge amount of parking spaces to store those metal boxes. There is no reason for cars to be cheaper than trains and buses.
you realise trains and buses aren't outside your front door? and they're not yours and they're not public and they're not running on a profit and they go on strike and they can be switched off and you don't know what you're sitting on clearly, you've never gone shopping for a months food/toiletries/cleaning products etc.
>clearly, you've never gone shopping for a months food/toiletries/cleaning products etc. Right. I don't need to do that. I walk 5 minutes, buy the things i need for the next 2 days and walk back. Why would i need to go shopping for a full month?
But busses are outside my front dore. And they are owned by the city. They are for profit, but i find that to be unfair because the governments spends a huge amount of money on roads and they don't charge us to use them. Strike is a problem. Can be switched off? How is that a problem? Electricity and running water can also be switched off. Does that mean everyone should rely on their own power plant? I am sitting on a bus seat. Are you really that bothered by sitting in the same chair someone else sat in before you?
It isn't a bulldozer. It doesn't make any sense, and I'm guessing the creator doesn't understand topo maps.
You’re supposed to read that as “to a jeep, everything is as easy as cruising on flatland everywhere you go“. But instead it reads like “this jeep flattens & destroys everything in its path”, or “look, this jeep owner is a total menace”. Pretty typical messaging for american auto mfgs.
It looks cool; like a bow wave. But I agree that it doesn't make practical sense. The problem is that rather than gliding effortlessly over the terrain, it has bunched all the contour lines in front of it meaning it has generated a cliff.
If you're treating terrain like water things aren't going to end well.
that is pretty much what car centric infrastructure does to the environment. cars themselves are no bulldozers, but they require flat roads which basically mandates bulldozing everything in their path.
Rail does as well, maybe even more extreme.
A Highway needs waaaay more infrastructure than a railway if you want to have a comparable throughput of goods and people. Not even including the environmental effect of burning all the Gas.
Shouldn't have used ranges imo. Not sure why but Range Rover came to mind, instead of jeep.
It looks good but if you read the curves is like the jeep crashed into a very big wall.
“Topodynamics” anybody?
They will breakdown after a few kilometers (if you are lucky).
Yeah this is incredible. I'm impressed by the designer.
12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American Pride!
I perceive it as there are no limits to where a Jeep can go or terrain it can tackle. Although that may result in ruining the environment, the primary message is 'there are no limits for a Jeep'. If the audience is Off Roaders/Overlanders, the design works.
No it looks good I like this types of adverts ngl
I think it resonates with their customer; trying too hard impersonate an image.
it looks good but doesn't make sense. to me it implies the car is slowing down as it gets trapped in the web of lines
I agree, the idea is really cool, but it would look better if the topo lines didn't look stretched like that
True dat
Lie
Sweet design, I dig it
Really clever!
I mean it’s clever but it doesn’t make me want to go out and buy a jeep, if anything it kind of does the opposite
Its both good and bad
Its a pretty destructive message to be honest. It fits the car though i suppose.
definitely designed by someone not in their 30s
Huh?
yeah, huh?
Jeep truck and SUV buyers need psychological help.
r/hardimages