When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I thought this was a "forum," not an echo chamber.
My mistake.
The C4 was nice and it improved every year in leaps and bounds. I had 5 of them including the ZR1. The 96 Grand Sport was unbelievable and it took the C5 5 years to equal it. No 96 LT4 dynode at less than 370hp. It was the most indestructible Vette yet and the cheapest car to race and win.
I won't buy a C7 unless they make one as good as my 08 C6Z. The C7 is a futuristic design and terrific proportions, but it fails in detailing. It looks cheap and looks like some Japanese children made a few suggestions to the designers. Here is a case where function was compromised for form a little. The C5 was an uncompromised design. The most important thing was that the C7 is a hit and a commercial success which satisfies the stock holders who are still owed $30 bill. I did an analysis of the C7 chassis and gave it nothing but praise with a strong focus on the stock holder's point of view.
There are many ways to be attracted to a design. My C6 Z weighs 2800lbs with 600hp and many mods to chassis and body including roll cage. The C7 could be nice with the mods below plus the mods on my C6 N/A 427ci engine, chassis and suspension. These mods can even apply to the C8.
And you completely ignore the other quotes, not to mention even Yates felt it blew away the C3?
Let me give you hint. When you are in a 20 foot deep sinkhole, stop digging!
I stand by my proposition IN DETAIL. ALL your cherry picked quotes support my position. "Clean, simple, straightforward, non-phallic, restrained, subtle etc" Code words and strained rationalizations for "boring- as-all-hell and a 180 degree departure from the Mako Shark." And I LOVED that quote predicting the 84 Corvette would lead a design revolution in Europe! What a bunch of bunk that turned out to be.
Dave McClellan himself deeply resents the unending complaints of the 84's "Conservative design."
Well, here's the problem, Dave. It was and is.
Reasonable people can argue all day long about what design they like or don't like. But the proposition that the C4 was anything BUT a very deliberately conservative design is ludicrous on its face.
Last edited by IronV; 03-09-2018 at 08:37 PM.
Reason: grammar
IMO, the C7 was the first car that under 40's went, wow that car is bad ***. The stereotypical old guy, gold chain wearing mid-life crisis vehicle that came with the corvette was dissolved with the C7. Millennials drool over the C7. I always have dreamed of driving Ferrari or some other exotic looking car. The C7 was surely a design that was bold and striking enough to fit into that category for me, especially the wide bodies.
I bough my 2014 at 27 years old. I would have NEVER bought a C6. Although I think it's an attractive car, it looked dated in 2007. Although the C5 surely looks more dated than the C6, it's a better overall design because even when I still see a C5 I think, ya know, that is still a good looking car. I don't do that with a C6.
Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, the C7 really broke through to a whole different category of buyers. When I told people I had a corvette on order, they laughed and said, dude that is such an old man's mid-life crisis car. They hadn't even been aware of the C7 release. When I pulled up in it, they were like "Holy $#!+. I had no idea. This thing is fk'n awesome." I had the same response for an entire year everywhere I went. Some people thought it was a Ferrari until they got up close and could see the badges and nameplate.
So, anyways I think you saying that history won't be kind to the C7, at least from an aesthetic side, is not going to be he case. The track heating issues especially with the Z06 are surely a HUGE disappointment. The Z06 NEVER should have gone to a FI engine IMO. They could have designed a 600 HP NA 7.0L DI engine and pleased everyone with it.
There is this weird assumption that the younger crowd likes the C7. Just not true. I'm in that crowd and don't know anyone that wants one. You are living in a bubble. Try driving a Viper or a 458, you will get a lot more attention.
Last edited by Atari_Prime; 03-09-2018 at 05:15 PM.
I stand by proposition IN DETAIL. ALL your cherry picked quotes support my position. "Clean, simple, straightforward, non-phallic, restrained, subtle etc" Code words and strained rationalizations for "boring- as-all-hell and a 180 degree departure from the Mako Shark." And I LOVED that quote predicting the 84 Corvette would lead a design revolution in Europe! What a bunch of bunk that turned out to be.
Dave McClellan himself deeply resents the unending complaints of the 84's "Conservative design."
Well, here's the problem, Dave. It was and is.
Reasonable people can argue all day long about what design they like or don't like. But the proposition that the C4 was anything BUT a very deliberately conservative design is ludicrous on its face.
I don't care if it gets me in time out. You're an idiot. Please go away.
I think C6 widebodies are the sexiest/sleekest but I'm biased. The C7's rear is the big detractor for me, and it's not just because the taillights aren't round/oval either.
There is this weird assumption that the younger crowd likes the C7. Just not true. I'm in that crowd and don't know anyone that wants one. You are living in a bubble. Try driving a Viper or a 458, you will get a lot more attention.
I'm in that crowd too and most people I know would love to have one. So, it just is true.
hmm....
Actually, with any given car there are lovers and non-lovers of just about every age and walk of life. What I have seen personally is that there are more young people that like the C7 than when the C6 came out, and it hasn't been minimally noticeable. The enthusiasm I have heard in my circles when I have gone to the track, dyno days, drag strips, etc is that many more people have been enthused and drawn to the C7. The evidence is anecdotal, but that's what I have experienced.
The C4 was nice and it improved every year in leaps and bounds. I had 5 of them including the ZR1. The 96 Grand Sport was unbelievable and it took the C5 5 years to equal it. No 96 LT4 dynode at less than 370hp. It was the most indestructible Vette yet and the cheapest car to race and win.
I won't buy a C7 unless they make one as good as my 08 C6Z. The C7 is a futuristic design and terrific proportions, but it fails in detailing. It looks cheap and looks like some Japanese children made a few suggestions to the designers. Here is a case where function was compromised for form a little. The C5 was an uncompromised design. The most important thing was that the C7 is a hit and a commercial success which satisfies the stock holders who are still owed $30 bill. I did an analysis of the C7 chassis and gave it nothing but praise with a strong focus on the stock holder's point of view.
There are many ways to be attracted to a design. My C6 Z weighs 2800lbs with 600hp and many mods to chassis and body including roll cage. The C7 could be nice with the mods below plus the mods on my C6 N/A 427ci engine, chassis and suspension. These mods can even apply to the C8.
Who am I to argue with such a shapely, well-supported statement??!!
Skank, I gotta tell you, I like the C2 lines better than the C3, but brother your taste in women is SUPERB. Another French babe in the that same time (and class) was Genevieve Bujold - a face that could bring a man to do just about anything stupid.
I stand by my proposition IN DETAIL. ALL your cherry picked quotes support my position. "Clean, simple, straightforward, non-phallic, restrained, subtle etc" Code words and strained rationalizations for "boring- as-all-hell and a 180 degree departure from the Mako Shark." And I LOVED that quote predicting the 84 Corvette would lead a design revolution in Europe! What a bunch of bunk that turned out to be.
Dave McClellan himself deeply resents the unending complaints of the 84's "Conservative design."
Well, here's the problem, Dave. It was and is.
Reasonable people can argue all day long about what design they like or don't like. But the proposition that the C4 was anything BUT a very deliberately conservative design is ludicrous on its face.
You keep quoting yourself and thinking that proves your point. Sounds to me like McClellan was just tired of you and a few other broken records. Talk about "cherry picking!"
To the point. The C8 can be exciting AND classic. Extraneous "styling" that will age as badly as the 1984 Testarossa will make a splash, but not have staying power.
Last edited by Rapid Fred; 03-09-2018 at 08:46 PM.
You keep quoting yourself and thinking that proves your point. Sounds to me like McClellan was just tired of you and a few other broken records. Talk about "cherry picking!"
To the point. The C8 can be exciting AND classic. Extraneous "styling" that will age as badly as the 1984 Testarossa will make a splash, but not have staying power.
We agree on your final point--the C8 can be, and should be, both exciting and (as much as anyone has a crystal ball) "Classic." As in C2 Stingray.
My suspicion is you're implying that "conservative" means "classic."
Last edited by IronV; 03-09-2018 at 08:57 PM.
Reason: grammar
My feeling is that the renderings, while generally accurate to the mules, is not as refined or "edgy" as can be imagined under the camo. Just as with the c7 front end which is beautifully sculpted I feel the ME body lines will be more refined and "amped-up" . How all those elements are put together and presented will make a huge difference in how we perceive the car.
I tried to compare similar render styles with the 488. Not a perfect match but you get an idea that the final product will be more refined and "exotic" looking than the rendering. The rendering is just a taste of the ME IMO. Small changes in shape and line can make a big difference in overall appeal.
NIce work FVS!
I think the rear quarter will be more rounded/arched sort of like the Ferrari you put up next to the render. I think the camo hides the curves and makes it looks flattened out. Probably not as extreme as the Ferrari but kind of compliment the front wheel arches. The front and back don’t “flow” together like I’m sure the actual car will. They kind of look like the front and rear of two different cars. I think your getting close it are missing a piece of the puzzle to tie it all together.
It trying to be critical but rather help further the discussion and hopefully get the thread back on track.
Also looks like the left side tail lights are convex on your render instead of concave like the right side
Thanks for the input. I agree there are many details and fine-tuning that will be done on this basic image I am sure all of the lines and surfaces will blend together in a very attractive way.
I am hoping that C7 pimp will comment further and give some more description and details on some of the features and overall impression of the car. His original impression was exciting to hear.
Thanks for helping to get back on subject. !
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 03-09-2018 at 09:50 PM.
Thanks for the input. I agree there are many details and fine-tuning that will be done on this basic image I am sure all of the lines and surfaces will blend together in a very attractive way.
I am hoping that C7 pimp will comment further and give some more description and details on some of the features and overall impression of the car. His original impression was exciting to hear.
Thanks for helping to get back on subject. !
First. Thanks for your great work, FVS. Just because I'm not always happy with the result, doesn't mean I think your efforts are not outstanding.Here's a detail from the Pimp's descriptions that may fundamentally change the look--even though it seems small at first. I was confused about his admonition to "look at the rear scoops from the front." (Paraphrasing) But as I look at the LaFerrari which he referenced, I think (hope) I get it...
The rear scoops, though substantial in size and depth, don't extend beyond the sides of the breadth of the main body boundary. Their depth is integral to the body, meaning the depth comes from how far they intrude toward the middle of the car, from the outside boundary line.
So if you look at the car from the front, you don't see the scoops, even though they're quite deep. That means there is a substantial shelf on top of the midsection of the car, including the door. Kind of a coke bottle that starts halfway up from the sill.
Take a hard look at the midsection, scoop, back end integration of the LaFerrari. Integrate that with your renderings and I think that will also solve the mismatch of the front to the back.
First. Thanks for your great work, FVS. Just because I'm not always happy with the result, doesn't mean I think your efforts are not outstanding.Here's a detail from the Pimp's descriptions that may fundamentally change the look--even though it seems small at first. I was confused about his admonition to "look at the rear scoops from the front." (Paraphrasing) But as I look at the LaFerrari which he referenced, I think (hope) I get it...
The rear scoops, though substantial in size and depth, don't extend beyond the sides of the breadth of the main body boundary. Their depth is integral to the body, meaning the depth comes from how far they intrude toward the middle of the car, from the outside boundary line.
So if you look at the car from the front, you don't see the scoops, even though they're quite deep. That means there is a substantial shelf on top of the midsection of the car, including the door. Kind of a coke bottle that starts halfway up from the sill.
Take a hard look at the midsection, scoop, back end integration of the LaFerrari. Integrate that with your renderings and I think that will also solve the mismatch of the front to the back.
Thanks!
Thanks for the observations. I agree with you that the description given describes a side vent that is essentially at the same with as the rear wheel well and that the midsection of the car narrows substantially in front of the scoop. This is essentially the way I depicted it no the angle does not show off the narrowing as well as an elevated POV would.
The final take away from all of the descriptions and discussion really winds up on C7pimps last comments that the drawings and renderings shown is essentially the car he as seen in his 3-D images.
I look forward to more comments and descriptions and guidance to make further modifications if necessary to get a closer the presentation of the ME. Any further details or corrections offered will be incorporated into the renderings.
I am also looking forward to MikeG37s version.
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 03-10-2018 at 12:55 AM.
03-09-2018, 04:43 PM
