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.
You know, there has been some discussion about how Chaz likes the additional length of the nose on his render, vs the length of the camo’d test car. Is it possible that GM is using a front facia different from the real, final item?
I’m thinking they could replace the real front facia with a different one for camo reasons.
Anybody think this is possible?
There is or was, something going on with the nose. Earlier pics of the prototypes show a distinctly longer, sleeker, more Vette-like, nose. And I don't think it's just camera angle...
I can’t ever get enough of those McDonald’s spy pictures....best look at the cars silhouette before all the crazy bolt on cladding...on some angles you actually see the scoop the way it is,low and swept back almost till the rear tire.Never bulging out,and following the Coke bottle shape.
No disappointments with this next vette.
I don't think there's much question that various mules have had different types of camo techniques applied. That would almost certainly include various methods of hiding the true shapes.
I don't think there's much question that various mules have had different types of camo techniques applied. That would almost certainly include various methods of hiding the true shapes.
What's REALLY weird is that as the some of the heavier, thicker camo has come off, the C8 has seemed to lose that coke-bottle shapeliness and grow blockier with each new sighting. Whereas with the C5,6 and 7, as the camo came off, the shapeliness increased.
Yep, but I simply can't imagine that after the C7 and all that's riding on this thing, that GM would design something as blocky as the camo versions appear. However, I've been stunned by horrible designs in the past.
I do know someone who has seen the car, and he/she says it's "stunning" and "far more beautiful than any of the renders." I trust this person's taste. That is all he/she will say.
I wasn't going to say anything but it needs to be said because the critics are right. You are all over the place Chaz. But, instead of just talking **** I'll give some constructive feedback that nobody else seems to be able to do despite their "expertise".
I'll point out two critical areas that are the worst offenders.
#1 The door crease 3/4" the way up the door isn't correct. The front bumper's side inlets don't flow towards that door crease, they angle up much more which completely disrupts the flow of the design. you are literally going in 5 different directions instead of 1. Blue, red, pink, orange and green are your 5 different directions. There is one cohesive direction I'll point out below.
#2 Your belt line is too high at the bottom of the side window, and your 1/4 window shape is wrong. The C8.R spy shots shows that shape and flow 100% accurate to production. There is a fake panel over the top of the door, and quarter window misdirecting all of this on the street cars and you have traced the fake line and it really doesn't look right at all. I outlined the correct window shape in black. Green is your approximate lines. again, note the semi-transparent line showing the flow direction from front, to side to back. It's one direction, not 5.
Hope this helps! I know controlling these cage models are really difficult and it requires a lot of time and patience. I appreciate that.
This is EXACTLY what I've meant about design "coherence." It is one of the biggest concerns I've had about all the renders. Unfortunately, there are others. Such as lack of shape and proportions.
I can’t ever get enough of those McDonald’s spy pictures....best look at the cars silhouette before all the crazy bolt on cladding...on some angles you actually see the scoop the way it is,low and swept back almost till the rear tire.Never bulging out,and following the Coke bottle shape.
No disappointments with this next vette.
But that's not true. The perceived angles you are referrering to that sweep back toward the tire are caused by the stitching pulling the cover toward the wheel. The lines you think you see are just resulting creases in the fabric. More proof? Take a look at where the inlet is on the door in those same pictures, it is up high, not down low like it should be to coincide with the vent that you are describing. Also, look at the C8R, it has the same scoop shape as we are seeing on the regular C8. It appears to have been camoed by a completely different team and many more of the lines are visible on the car as a result. We have not seen one real piece of evidence that would support a vent low and toward the wheel and have a mountain of info pointing to the fact that the vent we see up high is the vent we are getting.
I appreciate C7Pimp's constructive observations. he is correct that my door sill crease was angling downward. I fixed that. I don't believe my lines "go all over the place". I've always acknowledged they are not perfect, and drawing a line on a lens distorted perspective image will not always convince me of that. Other than the 19" front wheels and the license plate, I don't have any other definable measurement to go off of. You can't get accurate measurements drawing computer lines on a photo from a distorted lens and a curvy car. I think I do pretty well considering.
As far as my windows being off, I lined up my model as best i could to a similar photo and put the window silhouette from the C8-R over it along with the pertinent features. The gif shows I am largely on the right line, certainly not too high, but my cut line for the engine hood is too far back. I will try to fix that, but it may ruin my mesh, so I am not sure I will. Lining up the side showed me my door cut at the back was too straight up and it was tricky to move the mesh to reflect the curve at the top. So I am hesitant to try again.
My mirror is definitely too high.
I might use this rotoscope to flatten the window sill a bit more and flatten the edges around the "small rear window".
While some mules may have fake panels at the top of the door, clearly in the photo below, this one does not. I am not sure if the window silhouette of the convertible (which this is) is different than the coupe, but I doubt it.
It also underscores how badly I modeled the window moulding. (one of the first things I modeled). I will have to rework that soon.
Thanks, again C7, we may not agree on all your observations, but checking them out pointed out some other issues.
That window is an issue from the time I saw the pic with the open door, below. It appears to show a camo panel on the top of the door (the circled area) which raises the window line by 2-3 inches. Also the top of the scoop on the door appears to be basically horizontal.
What is confusing to me are the assorted mules photographed seem to have different sized shapes. Front end on some appear shorter and stubbier then others. I think it would be easy to extend the length of the front or rear end in camo but wouldn't the shorter one be the actual size? Corvette Blogger had a revealing shot and a short video yesterday with the stubbier mule.. Check it out. I think it speaks volumes for the actual design. Here's a shot from that site. I notice the side scoops and the shorter rear end are pretty much defined in this shot..
What is confusing to me are the assorted mules photographed seem to have different sized shapes. Front end on some appear shorter and stubbier then others. I think it would be easy to extend the length of the front or rear end in camo but wouldn't the shorter one be the actual size? Corvette Blogger had a revealing shot and a short video yesterday with the stubbier mule.. Check it out. I think it speaks volumes for the actual design. Here's a shot from that site. I notice the side scoops and the shorter rear end are pretty much defined in this shot..
Its either them testing different body shapes/aero work or its them using fake panels to throw off the media and photographers to the true shape of the car.
That window is an issue from the time I saw the pic with the open door, below. It appears to show a camo panel on the top of the door (the circled area) which raises the window line by 2-3 inches. Also the top of the scoop on the door appears to be basically horizontal.
This. It's covering 2 inches of the window/window sill.
That same covering up of about 2 inches continues onto the 1/4 window.
The prototypes at Nurburgring a few months ago car had at least 10 fake panels on them. (4 per side, plus front hood and rear deck) and loads of cam tape/vinyl also obscuring lines.
This. It's covering 2 inches of the window/window sill.
That same covering up of about 2 inches continues onto the 1/4 window.
The prototypes at Nurburgring a few months ago car had at least 10 fake panels on them. (4 per side, plus front hood and rear deck) and loads of cam tape/vinyl also obscuring lines.
If true, we should be in for a great surprise and fun when it is finally uncovered! Looking forward to it!
Don't really see how the window height is off by 2 inches tho. In my comparisons to the c7 and other ME cars, the actual window height/opening shown in the camo cars is about the same and the c7.
Maybe I'm not understanding the observation?
Are you saying the bottom of the window extends down 2 inches more than what we see here?
If so... how? The mirror wedge corner dictates where the window needs to begin. Following a clean line back it would be hard to drop the line 2 inches IMO.
Last edited by firstvettesoon; 01-24-2019 at 11:09 AM.
What is confusing to me are the assorted mules photographed seem to have different sized shapes. Front end on some appear shorter and stubbier then others. I think it would be easy to extend the length of the front or rear end in camo but wouldn't the shorter one be the actual size? Corvette Blogger had a revealing shot and a short video yesterday with the stubbier mule.. Check it out. I think it speaks volumes for the actual design. Here's a shot from that site. I notice the side scoops and the shorter rear end are pretty much defined in this shot..
The camo changes are quite entertaining. One day I posted an image of what the rear glass might look like under all the tape, the hypothetical being a kind of wrap around C4/C5 glass. A few days later the mules started having black out tape in the same design to make the car look like it had a glass rear hatch. GM clearly watches the forums. They have changed the camo several times to mess with people and in reaction to people figuring things out.
Well if there're not... they are a pretty good facsimile !
They "could be" earlie test parts and may not be 100% final but the basic lines sure match up with the leaked CAD images pretty good! ; )
...everything we see could all be lies of course....
Do you have the raw CAD image without the red lines on it? Did the CAD image have the headlight mock up or did you add it in?
To me these panels look like rear quarter panels.. look at the bottom part where it would interface with rocker panel. It doesn't make sense as a front quarter panel IMO.
if what I'm saying is true, that would imply this car is a lot more sharp edged than any of these renders. And also implies the side scoop doesn't really appear in the contours of the rear quarter panel, and mostly occurs in the door panel
Last edited by mammoth713; 01-24-2019 at 11:32 AM.
01-23-2019, 03:28 PM
It's da schnoz...
