Critique: logo design for an engineering company that makes machinery

Question

I'm designing a logo for a new company that will build plastic manufacturing machinery - a fairly small-sized low-tech industry where stability, solid engineering, and even country of manufacturer is of elevated importance.

The logo will go on a range of sizes: from small scale, like business cards, to logos imprinted on the machinery, to digital, to a sign on a building.

Features in order of importance:

1. Giving a feeling of solid and well-engineered product
2. Modern - yes, but not new, hip and startupy
3. Canadian (red/white) but not in-your-face-Canadian. Not a deal breaker

Variations

This would go on business cards, official company correspondence:

This would go on signs, machinery:

This would be a standalone logo where otherwise the name of the company is known or implied by the context:

Questions:

1) Is the first square logo too "busy"? How can it be improved?

2) Does the wide logo read "RONOPLAST" and the first T is ignored? How can this be improved with hopefully retaining the red/white combination?

EDIT: I used an additional method to answer question (2) using 5-second-test on usabilityhub: 9/10 got the T; the 1 didn't remember the entire name at all.

EDIT 2 - Final output

Thank you, everyone, for very useful suggestions. I wish I could mark more than 1 accepted answer. I implemented the following:

1. Kerning
2. Font change to Futura Bold (this is much better and it fixed the ugly R of Arial)
3. Made minor changes to letter T and L
4. Placed T vertically centered to make it more symmetrical with the square.
5. Made the rest of the letters slightly smaller than T to make T stand out.
6. Changed black to 95% gray.

Some features of T were purposefully left slightly off symmetry/pattern - it makes it stand out.

The outcome:

And the spacing:

Answer 1

I think the square in the first use is a little busy -- I'd at least try how it looks without the cutout in the bottom right, or without the small square on the bottom right, or with neither, even if just to be sure that you prefer what you already have. (For consistency, you'll have to change them all, of course.)

About the type, I think that bears more attention. I strongly recommend against Arial in all contexts, partly because it's not a great font, partly because everyone has seen it everywhere, it makes things look generic. In this context I think you want something "solider" -- Arial has more variation in stroke widths than you want, and particularly that diagonal on the R is not the look you want. I don't have samples in front of me, but you might want to look at Futura bold (a little retro, but Futura is a gem), Gothic or Trade Gothic (probably not Franklin Gothic, too much weight variation in the strokes) or anything along those lines.

The weight variation in the capital T really shows up in the big square. Even if you choose a font which has that variation, I'd look into hand-tuning the T in the square so the horizontal and vertical of the T are the same width, and the same width as the space above the T.

Have you though about what happens if there's an application where you need a black and white version?

All that said, it's a lovely strong look. You may already be there, and if not you're very close.

Answer 2

I'm not personally a fan of the "R". It really just looks like a bastardized P to me. But I realize that is probably simply the font you've chosen. Actually reworking the R would go a long way in my eyes.

As for the first square: I don't think it's too busy. But I would adjust kerning for the "Plast" section if possible. The P & L, and S & T create space on that side and open things up a bit. This makes the right side feel "loose" where none of the other sides do.

As for the horizontal: Yes. The T is lost. To counteract that you might think about reducing the black type and centering it vertically with the T. If the T and it's square is larger, it will provide more visual balance with the heavier, black, type.

Answer 3

I like it, fwiw! Comments:

1) Is the first square logo too "busy"? How can it be improved?

Not too busy for my tastes, but the mismatch between the lower-right "cut-out" and the red band over the T crossbar catches my eye. I find myself wanting some symmetry here:

(1) shows the "problem" with the blue boxes; (2) is the current "standalone" logo. In (3), the full-stop/cut-out and the top red band have the same vertical height, and the left side of the block is also extended to maintain the square (which otherwise is of arbitrary dimensions?). (4) gives the resulting "standalone" logo. But now the precarious hovering of the red rectangle at the right of the T seems more pronounced. So (5) came to mind: bringing in the "full-stop/cut-out" into the lower right corner butresses the tippy rectangle (aiming at "solidity"), and perhaps also gives more cohesion with the full "named" version.

2) Does the wide logo read "RONOPLAST" and the first T is ignored? How can this be improved with hopefully retaining the red/white combination?

Others have commented on kerning. For me, the stark black is too ... stark. What about knocking it back to 90% or 80%? The full black seems to stand apart too sharply from the red, to my eye.

On the whole, though, very strong logo. Hope these comments provide some useful stimulus.

Answer 4

I like the design and branding a lot.

1) Is the first square logo too "busy"? How can it be improved?

I don't think it's too busy.

2) Does the wide logo read "RONOPLAST" and the first T is ignored? How can this be improved with hopefully retaining the red/white combination?

I didn't even notice this until you asked but yes to some degree it is ignored, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference though. You could repeat the T as the symbol and in the text which is how you approached it in the square logo (image 1). But then some may see it is TTRONOPLAST so neither solution is ideal, it's a matter of which is better. I'm inclined to think it is fine as is.