I love this. I know only a bit about graphic design, but this new logo just looks...cheap. My first thought was a high school student made it with whatever free software he could find while he was bored during class, and gave up after 30 minutes because class was over.
I'm not a big fan of the new flat VW logo either, although it's much better than this.
https://www.motor1.com/news/369756/volkswagen-new-logo-unvei...
The lack of both on the new version makes the letters look like they've been crammed into a tiny space at the top of a big empty ring.
This might have worked with new lettering with different proportions. But it's literally just a flat copy of the original letter shapes, without any of the original context.
The 3D effect on the original print/blueprint/engineering marker/quadrant feels dynamic. The impression changes as you move your eye over it. It conveys movement and substance. It works with the black to suggest a car tire, but also a sophisticated (black...) crafted object.
The new version looks like a printer reference mark. It's just... there. It doesn't do anything.
The grey is meaningless and neutral. Again, it's just there. It fills a space, and that's all. The transparent version doesn't even do that. There's literally nothing there.
Removing the 3D creates a uniform space inside the ring, which is why the letters now look as if they're squashed up at the top for no reason. There's poor alignment, and no metaphorical or literal highlight.
Overall it suggests that management don't care about engineering or about appearances.
To me, it looks like the mark on a crash test dummy.
I believe the logo was originally intended to represent a propeller.
The fact that you said "makes the letters pop" would send shivers down any designer's spine.
See here: https://i.imgur.com/uW4TGX2.png
Anyway as someone who's spent the requisite sleepless nights I've been granted the power of justifying my taste. It's not the same as "why" because the understanding comes from a felt sense, and then I just make up some bullshit to explain it.
In this case the design isn't well composed because the removal of the background has left the logo un-grounded. The outer ring is now dominated by the letters B M W, making the design top heavy. Also worth noting is that the letters themselves are no longer balanced. The M and W are no longer the full cap-height in the center, which further unbalances the design by making it lighter to the right. The "simplicity" reduces legibility. The design is now dependent on the color of the background rather than working anywhere. Though I can't imagine a color upon which this logo would work better than the previous one. There's also an unpleasant visual ringing that occurs at hard edged transitions like the center of the checkerboard which was previously mitigated by the dividing lines.
The white letters without background are perceived to be placed in space – you don't see the ring so you assume it is empty. The bavarian checkers in the middle seem to float in midair with letters crammed in above it. And this combination of floating and cramming makes it look bad.
With a dark ring this works much better, because the floating part is removed and the letters are on the ring instead of in it.
1. Lack of depth...yes, depth can be introduced in any 2D/flat design utilizing color and space illusions
2. The curve/arch that the letters follow is not fully concentric to the center circle
3. The letters appear to be transformed vertically to make their height such that it fits between the outer circle and the inner circle...this in-turn throws of the original aspect ratio of each letter of the given font
Minor inconsistencies as such are aggravating for graphic designers who generally tend to be OCD. I hope this helps.
Without the black, the text and the circle are just hanging out at the top of the outer circle, unbalanced against a large empty space at the bottom of the outer circle.
EDIT: Another way of putting it is that it looks like the text and inner circle could just bounce around inside the outer circle—they are "loose", and, as I said above, ungrounded.
What a poor result.
If you are learning it from that basic level you cannot unsee badly unbalanced design. You cannot just remove a black background with a white one and keep everything unchanged (which is why dark themes sometimes suck as they don't get the extra love they need.
This thing looks like it has been made by the CEOs daugther in Powerpoint.