That's pretty hot.
Yea, I like the second one. But I don't know or it's a logo to use for MOE...
Yeh the second one looks awesome man! 
. Good stuff. I dont think im going to make a new logo or update my latest one. This guy above has a better logo and im assuming that would be the new logo.
. Good stuff. I dont think im going to make a new logo or update my latest one. This guy above has a better logo and im assuming that would be the new logo.I wouldn't assume anything just yet. I'm still a big fan of this one, and there are several very nice entries that haven't been posted in this thread.
Great stuff 
You deserve a S2 licence as your prize
You deserve a S2 licence as your prize
Its so realistic that we all suck at the start...
I shudder to think how poor my first laps were
Reckon that colour way is really appropriate: reminiscent of the LFS colours but also this, a classic endurance racer.
Thats a fantastic one, great work
So i see you guys all love glossy effects, unreadable fonts, and icons which don't mean anything. Nobody is trying to do about the concept "endurance". When you see contrast colors or glossy-shiny images with shadow effects and things you love them. But you forget that's not making logos.Even if you don't use something conceptual just at least please use readable fonts. And the logos all you do are in pixel formats...none of those logos would be cut out from folios which is not a good thing if made for real-life companies...
A logotype is not just an image which looks nice.It must mean something.(i'm talking bout good ones) It must tell something even if you don't read it.plus, it must be readable and clean and neat as well. And by the way, if you choose a font it must be a reason why to chose it. It shouldn't be selected just because it looks weird and sci-fi or unreadable. Most of the professional fonts have their own stories. None of the good designers select their font by just looking at if it looks nice.They should make research about them...
please keep these in mind when trying to make logos.
A logotype is not just an image which looks nice.It must mean something.(i'm talking bout good ones) It must tell something even if you don't read it.plus, it must be readable and clean and neat as well. And by the way, if you choose a font it must be a reason why to chose it. It shouldn't be selected just because it looks weird and sci-fi or unreadable. Most of the professional fonts have their own stories. None of the good designers select their font by just looking at if it looks nice.They should make research about them...
please keep these in mind when trying to make logos.
Huh? Have you even looked at Quicksilver's entry? There is meaning there, as was there with the original logo. The only logo I recall seeing in this thread with a shine is this last one. I have not seen one single logo with an unreadable font.
I suggest seeing an eye doctor.
ZORER... design student?
You sound more like a design student than a designer...rattling off theory but failing to put it into practice.
Most of the designs here are ok...not great, but OK...but not for specific reasons you mentioned.
Most of what you mentioned applies to print media well, but you fail to recognize the difference between print and web (A common failing with older designers...maybe that's you..and not a student?).
Adam2k8's logo for example, is great. It's very readable, it's unique...I can almost guarantee you that the mechanics of placing the "of" were not a part of the font itself...and was executed very nicely. That logo also lends itself to an outline (black and white) very well...making it very versatile. I would bet that it's either done in illustrator, or in photoshop with all vector elements. It doesn't appear to have anything in it that would force it to be a raster image.
As usual... "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics."
You sound more like a design student than a designer...rattling off theory but failing to put it into practice.
Most of the designs here are ok...not great, but OK...but not for specific reasons you mentioned.
Most of what you mentioned applies to print media well, but you fail to recognize the difference between print and web (A common failing with older designers...maybe that's you..and not a student?).
Adam2k8's logo for example, is great. It's very readable, it's unique...I can almost guarantee you that the mechanics of placing the "of" were not a part of the font itself...and was executed very nicely. That logo also lends itself to an outline (black and white) very well...making it very versatile. I would bet that it's either done in illustrator, or in photoshop with all vector elements. It doesn't appear to have anything in it that would force it to be a raster image.
As usual... "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics."
failing to put it into practice?
that's a matter of time. even if i had enough time i'd not spend more than 10 minutes into a contest which "kids" will decide who wins and who loses. i did my tries, spent some more time to tell my thoughts and hope someone really do something.I know one or two of them are not bad designs but most keep doing the same things. Still that infinite icon is the most popular thing on most of the logos...which is really bad imo.
Hate to break it to you, but 'kids' decide who win and lose in the real world. You tend not to work for experts, you work for people who want your expertise.
No i don't agree. In the real world, you work for idiots (who think they are the only experts and only they can choose the correct one) which you can easily con to make them like your design. But kids are not like that. Different.
I agree with you Zorer. I dont particularly think there is any skill in using fonts as your logo. I don't think that my "fontish" logo is any good, it's just that's what the admins want to see. I much more prefer my my flag kinda logo , bacause it took more time, and it can be perceived in more than 1 way
E: You can see all of my entries here
E: You can see all of my entries here
Honestly, I don't think it matters whether the logo is AddSpeedy font-oriented or if it has meaningful elements bound into it, like the infinity symbol etc. The most important consideration is whether or not it's identifiable. Adam's proposal is very identifiable. It's simple and strong, and a good candidate for the role of MoE logo, IMO.
As for the argument about designers knowing stuff and customers not, please go take a look at the London Olympics logo attrocity to gain some perspective. Designers love it and "the people" loathe it. Who should win? You decide. Only a small percentage of the people attending the Olympics will be brand developers. I'm erring on the side of the masses who are stunned and disgusted by the £1m+ design.
As for the argument about designers knowing stuff and customers not, please go take a look at the London Olympics logo attrocity to gain some perspective. Designers love it and "the people" loathe it. Who should win? You decide. Only a small percentage of the people attending the Olympics will be brand developers. I'm erring on the side of the masses who are stunned and disgusted by the £1m+ design.
Sam, you made me look up the Olympics logo. Now I'm mentally scarred for the rest of my life, thanks 
I like Adam's logo a lot actually. Nice and simple, and the tyre mark detail is great
I like Adam's logo a lot actually. Nice and simple, and the tyre mark detail is great
Overall, nothing has really stood out of me, but I wouldn't rank my design as among the best. (Trying again without the clock dial after mucking around with it some more.)
So far this is my favorite though. (Besides the random radial gradiant in the bottom left.)
So far this is my favorite though. (Besides the random radial gradiant in the bottom left.)
Yeah, this one is a strong design too. Have to agree about the radial gradient too, though. It doesn't contribute to the design. IMO.
I think there have been some very strong designs and a lot of thought has very obviously been put in. The original design is a hard act to follow but I think there are some very worthy contenders.
Actually you will find that most graphic designers hate it even more than the people, because they can see the number of things they got wrong with it. That logo is the product of a committee, like almost everything these days they don't leave the experts to do their own thing and then pick something at the end. Instead some PR expert will say it needs to be cutting edge and different, and it must look like Lisa Simpson giving someone a blowjob. It takes a few minutes to even work out that the pink mess is meant to say 2012, and you can barely see the Olympic rings.
I was going to add a few more lines about different areas of business having similar logos, but I have really bad tooth ache and I am going in search of some painkillers.
I see some people like my entry for the Logo, i really dont like mine that much, i see about literally 10+ things wrong with it.
And Ive also read that the odd gradient on the left should not be there. Like ive said in previous posts, if i win, im happy to change anything anywhere.
Also, research and meanings are important to certain designs (to the extent where a racing site needs to look like a racing site not a barbie doll site.), but i think that looks are very important. Design is all about looks, true or false? If it looks bad, then its bad, if it looks good, then its good.. right? If that made sense, as long as it looks good, thats it.. to a certain point.
Whats so sony about this logo?
I see no blue teeth....!
I dont see the resemblance to the word Logitech here.
Whats penguins have to do with it? Eh i guess it could have something to do with the owner.. But i dont know.....
Now...Look at all these Logos that have not much meaning to the company/name, then look at my logo for MoE. My logo probably has more meaning to MoE then the logos in this post have to their companies and tell me whos looks logo better?
Not mine, thats for sure.
Whats so sony about this logo?
I see no blue teeth....!
I dont see the resemblance to the word Logitech here.
Whats penguins have to do with it? Eh i guess it could have something to do with the owner.. But i dont know.....
Now...Look at all these Logos that have not much meaning to the company/name, then look at my logo for MoE. My logo probably has more meaning to MoE then the logos in this post have to their companies and tell me whos looks logo better?
Not mine, thats for sure.
I really couldn't believe it when i saw it.
....I'm sure!
This looks more like it was left to the very last minute before the deadline and all the designer had to use was MS Paint! Honestly plain text would of looked better than that atrocity!
Back OT. I like Adam2k8's logo and how he has got it to resemble the LFS logo but my first choice is still aoun's.
Masters of Endurance Logo Design Contest!
(207 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG