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.
Nice job futurevision ,you seem to have captured some of the chiseled lines which I believe bill be used, especially the top rear quarter .
The front beak is of interest and somewhat plausible...
I wish some of these talented artists would respect the very evident ride height. Car is definitely higher off the ground. its sloping 5 to 10 degrees towards the front.
Think stealth fighter jet coming down on its prey and pointing downwards.
Thanks Pietro. Most of the earlier renders and illustrations just don't say "Corvette" to me. I chose to emulate the current ZR-1 look because it's currently the highest definition of that look. I have been told by people who have seen the C8 that this illustration is "close to right." The more I look at the FVS renders, the more I think he's just about nailed it as far as what we'll see on the initial version. As to whether there will be something more aggressive looking down the road - we'll have to wait and see...
LOL on the ride height!! All designers exaggerate the stance and proportions in their illustrations! It's "in the blood"!!! I know a few of the people who have had the good fortune to do this job for a living, and their stuff is all full of dramatic forced perspective! It's later in the process when reality come into play ...
If we think that the rear buttresses are solid - like a Ferrari 512 BB Testarossa - then their is no need for the little rear windows behind the passenger doors. The mules have NEVER shown a window behind the door, but it sure looks to me like there is no large glass plane between the buttresses in the rear. If you apply Occam's Razor, the most logical answer is they aren't there. It also saves weight, (as does deletion of a large rear glass window over the vertical "chauffeur" window right behind the seats).
If we think that the rear buttresses are solid - like a Ferrari 512 BB Testarossa - then their is no need for the little rear windows behind the passenger doors. The mules have NEVER shown a window behind the door, but it sure looks to me like there is no large glass plane between the buttresses in the rear. If you apply Occam's Razor, the most logical answer is they aren't there. It also saves weight, (as does deletion of a large rear glass window over the vertical "chauffeur" window right behind the seats).
Just because they are black does not mean a glass window. Most unlikely.
Look at the Ferrari 455 and 488 which also have a black B pillar in the spider versions.
I don't understand the second part at all. The present belief is that the convertible will have a vertical window behind the seats (perhaps retractable), and there will also be a coupe with sloped glass. The coupe will need another window for heat and sound reasons. Like every other ME car on the planet.
Just because they are black does not mean a glass window. Most unlikely.
Look at the Ferrari 455 and 488 which also have a black B pillar in the spider versions.
I don't understand the second part at all. The present belief is that the convertible will have a vertical window behind the seats (perhaps retractable), and there will also be a coupe with sloped glass. The coupe will need another window for heat and sound reasons. Like every other ME car on the planet.
The coupe does NOT need a rear window beyond the vertical window behind the seats. Take a look at the first production ME sports car if you don't believe me - the Ferrari Dino 206/246. A big sloped piece of glass just adds weight - not needed. THIS is what the C8 rear window will look like - trust me.
Also, who says there will be a convertible ? A targa top works just as well. ME convertibles (aka Spyders) are an oxymoron....they only sell in small numbers and are a mechanical nightmare. I am guessing you won't see one in the first year. There are no mules of one spotted thus far.
Last edited by dcbingaman; 06-23-2018 at 08:03 PM.
Reason: add point on convertibles
If we think that the rear buttresses are solid - like a Ferrari 512 BB Testarossa - then their is no need for the little rear windows behind the passenger doors. The mules have NEVER shown a window behind the door, but it sure looks to me like there is no large glass plane between the buttresses in the rear. If you apply Occam's Razor, the most logical answer is they aren't there. It also saves weight, (as does deletion of a large rear glass window over the vertical "chauffeur" window right behind the seats).
c7pimp said there is an upswept “rear window” shape. He said he did not know if it was a window or a vent.
The renderings are more an amalgam of concepts since we don’t know much for sure.
The coupe does NOT need a rear window beyond the vertical window behind the seats. Take a look at the first production ME sports car if you don't believe me - the Ferrari Dino 206/246. A big sloped piece of glass just adds weight - not needed. THIS is what the C8 rear window will look like - trust me.
I would not count out a full glass coupe. It will be needed for the extra storage.
The mclaren GT on steroids I would imagine.
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 06-23-2018 at 08:06 PM.
c7pimp said there is an upswept “rear window” shape. He said he did not know if it was a window or a vent.
The renderings are more an amalgam of concepts since we don’t know much for sure.
Could also be a decal ! Not sure one dude's observations prove anything. That area is solid and camouflaged on every mule photo and video I have seen. I am thinking the Dino approach as the baseline, because it is simpler and lighter. (Occam's Razor is rarely wrong).
Could also be a decal ! Not sure one dude's observations prove anything. That area is solid and camouflaged on every mule photo and video I have seen. I am thinking the Dino approach as the baseline, because it is simpler and lighter. (Occam's Razor is rarely wrong).
I've been following this forum and the spy shots and analysis closely.
Very clearly there are two versions of test cars running around.
Very clearly the roof seams are different in each.
Very clearly we have seen "fat buttress" vertical glass convertibles, and very clearly we have seen fastback coupes, with slim buttresses matched with the targa roof seams.
The most logical interpretation is that there will be two versions - a fastback targa coupe and a hardtop convertible.
What is so hard to understand?
Last edited by Bikerjulio; 06-23-2018 at 08:38 PM.
Bikerjulio makes a valid point. The wife and I were talking about this last night after viewing the recently posted GM Authority video. As the mule accelerates away, the heavy tarp camo rises up over the engine area. It really looks like there is a flying-buttress roofline. If there were glass there, the area below the tarp probably would not become pressurized in that fashion. The wife even posed the question: "Could it have a removable upright window like the early C3's?"
There is one good reason to have quarter-lites behind the doors: Over-the-shoulder visibility. A flying buttress creates a pretty good blind spot.
Could also be a decal ! Not sure one dude's observations prove anything. That area is solid and camouflaged on every mule photo and video I have seen. I am thinking the Dino approach as the baseline, because it is simpler and lighter. (Occam's Razor is rarely wrong).
You’re applying Occam’s Razor without accounting for two things: the deliberate misdirection/camouflage being used on the mules and aerodynamics. Regarding windows just aft of the b-pillar, there probably aren’t any on the spider and they probably do exist on the coupe. If you want to apply Occam’s Razor here, it’s most simple to keep this area transparent on the coupe because this is open and will minimize blind spots while on a spider the area houses mechanical equipment for the automatic roof and would not improve vision outside of the greenhouse; thus adding glass will just add weight with no functional benefit. As far as having a sloped rear glass for the coupe it does add some weight but this is overcome by the significant aerodynamic advantage of decreasing drag without decreasing downforce. Anytime there is a dramatic change in shape there is flow separation, causing turbulence and therefore causing drag.
I've been following this forum and the spy shots and analysis closely.
Very clearly there are two versions of test cars running around.
Very clearly the roof seams are different in each.
Very clearly we have seen "fat buttress" vertical glass convertibles, and very clearly we have seen fastback coupes, with slim buttresses matched with the targa roof seams.
The most logical interpretation is that there will be two versions - a fastback targa coupe and a hardtop convertible.
What is so hard to understand?
You must have X-ray vision or have seen more photos than I have, because they all look exactly the same to me. In addition, the original C3 Mako Shark had the same solid buttresses as the Dino had and a small vertical rear window. The C3 convertible had no buttresses at all.
Why would a C8 need buttresses in an ME convertible ? Because thats how McLaren or Ferrari does it ?? Why not do it like the Audi R8 Spyder ? It would look a hell of a lot better !!
You must have X-ray vision or have seen more photos than I have, because they all look exactly the same to me.
Well, I have obviously looked carefully at more photos. The cars running around have been noted as two types for quite some time now. Nor do I claim credit for this observation. Pay attention.
Look also at the Ferrari spider roof videos.
C8 convertible
C8 fastback coupe. Spot the difference
Last edited by Bikerjulio; 06-23-2018 at 08:54 PM.
You’re applying Occam’s Razor without accounting for two things: the deliberate misdirection/camouflage being used on the mules and aerodynamics. Regarding windows just aft of the b-pillar, there probably aren’t any on the spider and they probably do exist on the coupe. If you want to apply Occam’s Razor here, it’s most simple to keep this area transparent on the coupe because this is open and will minimize blind spots while on a spider the area houses mechanical equipment for the automatic roof and would not improve vision outside of the greenhouse; thus adding glass will just add weight with no functional benefit. As far as having a sloped rear glass for the coupe it does add some weight but this is overcome by the significant aerodynamic advantage of decreasing drag without decreasing downforce. Anytime there is a dramatic change in shape there is flow separation, causing turbulence and therefore causing drag.
Maybe, but maybe not. One could argue that pushing the separation point forward to just aft of the driver's head does two things - it fixes the separation point longitudinally and it puts it FORWARD of the rear wheels - causing pressurization on the deck OVER the rear wheels and ADDING downforce. It also will create a low pressure zone right at the point you need it to pull cooling air through the engine compartment. Ever look at a Porsche 917 or a Porsche 918 ? Both are faster cars than a C8.
The most logical reason for a big glass window is a hatch for storage, as in the current C7. The "burka car covers" all look pretty floppy to me over the top of the buttresses. This leads me to believe they are covering a cavity between the two buttresses and not a big glass hatch.
The most logical reason for a big glass window is a hatch for storage, as in the current C7. The "burka car covers" all look pretty floppy to me over the top of the buttresses. This leads me to believe they are covering a cavity between the two buttresses and not a big glass hatch.
I've been following this forum and the spy shots and analysis closely.
Very clearly there are two versions of test cars running around.
Very clearly the roof seams are different in each.
Very clearly we have seen "fat buttress" vertical glass convertibles, and very clearly we have seen fastback coupes, with slim buttresses matched with the targa roof seams.
The most logical interpretation is that there will be two versions - a fastback targa coupe and a hardtop convertible.
What is so hard to understand?
Very good points, Julio. You picked the right two photos to illustrate how it could be done. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
You have to admit the 488 approach is complex and expensive, though ! That retracting hard top on the 488 Spyder is a Rube Goldberg device if I've ever seen one. It certainly won't be light or cheap. Occam is shaking his head somewhere if this is how it goes.
Very good points, Julio. You picked the right two photos to illustrate how it could be done. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
You have to admit the 488 approach is complex and expensive, though ! That retracting hard top on the 488 Spyder is a Rube Goldberg device if I've ever seen one. It certainly won't be light or cheap. Occam is shaking his head somewhere if this is how it goes.
I have both a mechanical engineering background and a convertible. I don't agree that the Ferrari solution looks any more difficult or expensive than the current soft top.
I'm hoping that the convertible is included in the initial production for which my deposit is made!
I have both a mechanical engineering background and a convertible. I don't agree that the Ferrari solution looks any more difficult or expensive than the current soft top.
I'm hoping that the convertible is included in the initial production for which my deposit is made!
I just looked on Ferrari's website - the 488 Spyder weighs about 115# more than the coupe. My guess is the glass hatch on the coupe weighs about 50-60 pounds, so the total penalty is likely about 165 to 175# over a simple targa with vertical aft window and a flat deck. For reference, the C7 ragtop convertible weighs about 60# more than the coupe (with glass hatch). It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
You must have X-ray vision or have seen more photos than I have, because they all look exactly the same to me. In addition, the original C3 Mako Shark had the same solid buttresses as the Dino had and a small vertical rear window. The C3 convertible had no buttresses at all.
Why would a C8 need buttresses in an ME convertible ? Because thats how McLaren or Ferrari does it ?? Why not do it like the Audi R8 Spyder ? It would look a hell of a lot better !!
Soft-top convertible mid-engine cars look stupid with the top up, and that’s why the Volkswagen group is the only one who makes such a thing. Even then, the Adventador S Roadster is a hardtop. Further more, R8 Spyders, Huracan Spyders, and the limited-edition Porsche Speedster soft tops have their own buttresses or flying buttessess. You cannot buy a new convertible mid-engine car without some form of buttresses.
I think it’s safe to say that the hardtop convertible mid-engine Corvette will have Butresses regardless of if the top is up or down.
You don’t buy a convertible for the way it looks with the top UP, you buy it for the way it looks with the top down ! That’s why a ME Spyder is a dumb idea to begin with. I think they’ll sell about three of them, but I could be wrong. I’d never buy one.
Now a Ferrari Portofino FE hardtop convertible is a work of art ! I’d buy one in a heartbeat !
06-23-2018, 11:49 AM
