The A-class is a real and substantial turning point in the design and production philosophy of Mercedes-Benz. And this turnaround came pre-announced, for it was preceded by clear pointers, such as the Vision A prototype, and lengthy and careful promotion work that commenced well before the car’s official launch. But why this car, apparently so different from the Mercedes production image? When and how did the company management comprehend and decide to diversify the Mercedes-Benz product?
Bruno Sacco, director of Mercedes design, responds to these and the other questions that have hallmarked the design and development of the A-class concept.
What Bruno Sacco has represented in the fascinating story of Mercedes style during his lengthy stewardship of one of the most prestigious studios is endorsed by the cars created in the past twenty years.
“This diversification,” emphasises Sacco, “is underpinned by specific intentions. It’s part of a large-scale Mercedes business offensive aimed at rejuvenating the brand image and giving the opportunity of access to our cars to a buyer group that heretofore didn’t find the product that suited them in the range.
Was this A-class the only route available?
“I really do think it was. We’ve stepped in with a new type of product, something that didn’t exist on the market before – the similar vehicles present keep within the norm for technique and technology, but the A-class expresses a different concept on all fronts. Take, for example, the safety aspect. So that a car of such small dimensions could offer the highest safety levels, it couldn’t simply be a scaled down version of other models. It was born after a lengthy gestation of technical and technological research that truly solved the problems of impact and optimal safety. Frontal impact, in particular, was not entirely solved by the sandwich structure, but by designing an engine that, at the moment of impact, shifted from its locating point and ended up beneath the car without making its way inside.
When you started designing the skin, had the package already been defined?
“It was redefined, or redone rather, after the Vision A, whose package provided the starting point. The dimensions are more or less the same. The guiding passive-safety concept was fairly well defined, though. Nevertheless, after the presentation of the A, the entire concept was redesigned, revised and corrected until the nascent A-class was a serious car and not a studio prototype. The car as it is today was designed and developed after Frankfurt 1993, the show where the Vision A was revealed to the public. This is something we would like to stress. ”Deciding on this turnaround and confronting the concept of a car that was revolutionary in terms of traditional company canons, was, we feel, a matter of profound meditation and discussion, above all with regard to the repercussions it might have on the Mercedes image. “No doubt about it. But as it happens in such cases, you either keep on talking without achieving any unanimous decisions or else someone says that’s enough and decides. It was Helmut Werner and Jürgen Hubbert who said enough is enough and let’s get on with it. As for the operation itself, there remain the pros and cons. But we are all of the opinion that the pros outnumber the cons, especially as regards the possibility of broadening access to the marque.
”How did you pass on the A-class concept to your immediate colleagues and your designers?
“In a fairly simple manner. Knowing that my colleagues have a relatively low average age – they’re very young, you know – it wasn’t hard for me to make them understand what we wanted to do with the car. Which, basically, was of direct interest to them because it widened the options between SLK, CLK and the C-class estate. If you like, we were offering them the chance to design the car they wanted.
So, a project that was tackled enthusiastically.
“Yes, it’s absolutely right to talk of enthusiasm. As we usually do, we started out designing very liberally, albeit aware that the technical concept of this car wouldn’t allow for mistaken interpretations or anything that strayed from the theme. The designs produced in the research phase show how attempts were made to outline a one-and-a-half volume shape. We then proceeded with six design proposals in 1:1 scale, all of them with an equal chance of success. Then we finally took the decision: an extreme monovolume interpretation that rendered more clearly the ideas of progressiveness and something new. A pure, uncompromising monovolume where the only concession was a slight undulation of the bonnet so as to introduce the exterior signs of the marque.
Mercedes symbology, then. What were your major concerns during the design phase? To create a genuine new automotive typology countersigned with the marque symbols, or was your first concern the safeguarding of those symbols?
“It was essentially a question of achieving a design concept that expressed our intentions – i.e. the role that this car had to perform within the range – and, more particularly, that the evidence of all-out innovation could be discerned at first sight. ”Now that the A-class has gone into production and been subjected to the scrutiny of the public, do you have any second thoughts? If you had to go back to square one, would you change anything? “No, absolutely not. Apart from the fact that the six design concepts we developed were truly valid – all six had good reason to exist and be developed – the final decision was carefully deliberated and almost unanimously shared. No, for my part there are no second thoughts. The question won’t crop up until we have to redo the A-class, a problem we’ll be forced to face in the future. Perhaps there won’t be the same innovative input any more. But, like James Bond, I’d rather conclude with a never say never.”
The article continues in Auto & Design no. 105
