Fiat CEO gives illustrators a lesson in the automotive industry: «Designing a car is the easy part».»

In recent days, an illustration has been circulating on social networks, as regularly happens in automotive communities. But this one was not insignificant.

Designer Antonino Barone has imagined a modern reinterpretation of the Fiat Ritmo, the iconic compact launched in 1978. At the time, this car marked Fiat's entry into the modern era of compact tractors: bold lines, integrated bumpers and a strong personality. Produced in excess of two million units over ten years, it passed the baton to the Fiat Tipo in 1988, closing an important chapter in the Italian C-segment.

See this post on Instagram

A publication shared by Quattroruote (@quattroruote)

So far, nothing unusual: a nostalgic exercise in style, as the Internet is full of them. But this time, the reaction wasn't from the fans. It came from the CEO of Fiat himself.

«Designing a car - and the general public often doesn't know this - is the easiest part.

Of course, there's good design and not-so-good design. But designing a car “out of nowhere”, as an exercise, is not the real challenge.

The real challenge lies elsewhere: understanding whether this design can really be achieved.

1. On which platform?

Every modern car is born on a shared platform. This is not a creative compromise: it's the basis of the automotive business case. This is as true for us as it is for any other group. A project is only viable if it is sustainable, and today, industrial sustainability means sharing investments.

Haters will say: “Ah, but this will be a shared platform with other Stellantis brands”.
Of course we do. And that's normal.

The real question is: are the proportions we see - width, overhang, habitability - compatible with a real platform?

For example, the Smart Car platform, the one used for the Grande Panda. And let's not forget: this is not “a Citroën”. It was developed together, by four hands. Sharing does not mean copying.

That said, looking at some of the proportions of the rendering, I'm not sure that everything is easily achievable on this technical basis. And that's a concrete question, not an ideological one.

2. Is it saleable today?

The original Ritmo was a five-door compact. Today, the market has shifted enormously towards SUVs and UVs.

There is a huge difference between :
- “I like to watch it, driven by others”
and
- I buy it for me, because it meets my needs“.”

Needs change, segments change, volumes change: even before aesthetic taste, you have to ask yourself whether the idea is commercially viable.

3. With which engines?

The debate is still raging: electric, hybrid, “give us back the Multijet”...
I understand perfectly. I'd like that too.

But it's not a brand choice. And often, it's not even a group choice: it's a regulatory, European choice.

With all-electricity in 2035 and a very demanding route already by 2030, imagining a new project with the engines and transmissions “that we Italians still love” is totally unrealistic today.

There's a gap between what Europe asks of us and what we like. And on this point, we are all “victims”, manufacturers and customers alike.

Conclusion

These are the questions to ask before commenting with “magnificent” or “Fiat is not capable”.

Design is just the beginning. The real car is about industrial feasibility, economic sustainability and regulatory compatibility. Not just a rendering.

Final thoughts. Back to design.

Do I like this new Ritmo?

The answer is simple: yes. I think it's a great success. Bravo to Antonino and Quattroruote for an initiative that keeps the debate alive and stimulates vision.

But when resurrecting a design from the past, there's only one real question to ask: why?

In reality, there can be two answers.

1. Does the design of yesteryear meet today's needs?

Maybe because history is cyclical. Or because some basic needs are universal and never go away.

That's why, for example, I'm convinced that a contemporary interpretation of Giugiaro's Panda, with its original city-car dimensions and proportions, would still be extraordinarily powerful.

Or the “Multipla” exercise: the radical and intelligent search for new space solutions is still totally relevant today.

In this case, we bring back a design because its “why” is still alive. Because it meets a real need.

2. Second possibility - and the two are not mutually exclusive:

We bring back a design because it deeply embodies the brand's DNA.
Because it helps to clarify perception.
Because it defines it.

The most obvious example is the 500. Since 2007, it has redefined the brand's stylistic direction: small, Italian, Dolce Vita. Not just a car, but a manifesto. Light, positive, desirable mobility for the world.

These are the questions to ask before any nostalgia operation.

In the case of the Ritmo, I return the question to you:

Is there a market need today for the solutions it once offered?
Or does it offer a stylistic language capable of opening a new chapter in the brand's design journey?

If the answer is yes, then it's not nostalgia.
It's evolution.

You tell me.»