A little recent Corvette design history...
05-21-2012, 08:31 PM
#21
Race Director
Thread Starter
The book is:
"Corvette, Sports Car Superstar"
by the auto editors of Consumer Guide.
ISBN: 1-4127-1222-X
I really like the book as it goes through the history, influences, personalities, up to and including the C6 Z06. As you can see, lots of great pics and it is a perfect coffee table book for a Vette fan.
"Corvette, Sports Car Superstar"
by the auto editors of Consumer Guide.
ISBN: 1-4127-1222-X
I really like the book as it goes through the history, influences, personalities, up to and including the C6 Z06. As you can see, lots of great pics and it is a perfect coffee table book for a Vette fan.
05-22-2012, 02:14 AM
#22
Likewise I am hoping the things we see in Jalopnik sketches that are not appealing get refined, omitted & replaced. I could make a number of things I would like to see changed from those sketches but most of us I think agree the back of the C7 per Jalopnik sketches seems unattractive & does not match former Corvette design language all that well.
05-22-2012, 04:16 PM
#23
Melting Slicks
Likewise I am hoping the things we see in Jalopnik sketches that are not appealing get refined, omitted & replaced. I could make a number of things I would like to see changed from those sketches but most of us I think agree the back of the C7 per Jalopnik sketches seems unattractive & does not match former Corvette design language all that well.
No, but it matches the Camaro design language perfectly!
05-23-2012, 01:29 AM
#25
Melting Slicks
05-23-2012, 02:08 PM
#26
Race Director
The book is:
"Corvette, Sports Car Superstar"
by the auto editors of Consumer Guide.
ISBN: 1-4127-1222-X
I really like the book as it goes through the history, influences, personalities, up to and including the C6 Z06. As you can see, lots of great pics and it is a perfect coffee table book for a Vette fan.
"Corvette, Sports Car Superstar"
by the auto editors of Consumer Guide.
ISBN: 1-4127-1222-X
I really like the book as it goes through the history, influences, personalities, up to and including the C6 Z06. As you can see, lots of great pics and it is a perfect coffee table book for a Vette fan.
05-23-2012, 05:02 PM
#27
Drifting
One reaction I find interesting is when people say, "that looks like (insert other car name here.) When the C5 came out I know several people who said it looked like the then current Mazda RX7. This was caused by the side coves on each car. I'm guilty of the same behavior, not pointing fingers.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
05-23-2012, 06:16 PM
#28
Melting Slicks
One reaction I find interesting is when people say, "that looks like (insert other car name here.) When the C5 came out I know several people who said it looked like the then current Mazda RX7. This was caused by the side coves on each car. I'm guilty of the same behavior, not pointing fingers.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
05-23-2012, 06:19 PM
#29
Safety Car
One reaction I find interesting is when people say, "that looks like (insert other car name here.) When the C5 came out I know several people who said it looked like the then current Mazda RX7. This was caused by the side coves on each car. I'm guilty of the same behavior, not pointing fingers.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
But my point is that I think we all naturally associate the new designs we see with cars we are already familiar with. Why is this. Well, its because cars have 4 wheels, a front, back, sides, mirrors, lights, etc. So the basic fact that a car is a car means it looks like other cars.
So then we look at concept drawings from the past and wonder if any of those old drawings get used again. Well i don't know the correct answer, but even if it is "no" we are bound to find the same ideas, shapes, configurations etc. popping up repeatedly. After all, these guys are starting with the shape and dimensions of the old car and refreshing it.
So when we see the square tail lights from a decade+ old drawing and wonder if GM dug it up for the new car, I tend to think the answer is no. What I think happens is that every year, on every car, at every manufacturer other than Ferrari (always round), the designers try drawings with round, square, round-ish, square-ish, etc. just to see if something sticks.
And if by some chance GM does dig into the past portfolios it would make sense to harvest some value from money already spent. The old drawings could be used both to show what ideas where ferreted out as ugly in the past to avoid doing them again, and to find those gems that where good, but did not make it. Perhaps an idea from the past only needs a fresh set of eyes to tweak it into something ready for production.
05-23-2012, 10:47 PM
#30
Race Director
Thread Starter
This was one of the main complains about the C5...that it was too Pontiac-looking. It is one of the reasons that the C6 front end was changed as much as it was with exposed lights. The other was Corvette Racing Team input. And weight reduction.
Last edited by BlueOx; 05-23-2012 at 10:49 PM.
