Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
I agree with every bit of this; especially point #3. In the original concept thread I created last year I was putting in a lot of time and thought towards doing exactly what you outline in points #2 and #3. I wanted and still want a Camaro that's a great driver's car; not something that looks like a robot toy or a toy of any kind period. While I didn't do any interior designs I did put a lot of effort into improving driver visibility which is a big issue to me too. A lot of thought went into fender lines, roof lines and window shapes.
But for the most part people didn't seem to care; or at least those who commented didn't seem to. All they talked about were the looks and as I made modifications based on their feedback, to my surprise they didn't care that those modifications were compromising their experience as a driver. A surprising number seem to only care about appearance. Obviously appearance is important, but can't we have both? A great driver experience and a great appearance?
I think if GM were to do what you outline, and build a great Camaro without the gimmicky stuff; make it sleek, make it classy, make it elegant and give it the kind of looks that would enable it to sit next to a fighter jet and look like it belongs there... like it's one of them.... once people saw it and drove it, they'd want it. At that point it's competition wouldn't be a Mustang; it would be a Ferrari or Porsche.
With the new 3D printing technologies and new materials like Liquidmetal that can be used in 3D printing, GM can not only lead the sales pack but lead the American and world automotive scene and use those technologies to deliver a world-class Camaro. I completely agree with you Number 3; not only about the NG Camaro but your comments about the C7. It's almost a truly awesome looking car; if it weren't for the gimmicks it would have been. Still could be if they eliminate the gimmicks in future revisions. As it is it's looks are 90% of great which is good enough for robust sales, but I would love to see GM go that extra 10%.
Good post sir....good post.  |
Doc, I know you mean well and maybe I'm jaded because I read more on this topic than others(?), but you keep going on and on about gimmicky anime cartoon toy robot looking concepts... I think you've made your point. However, it's not an entirely relevant one. As some others have pointed out in the past, you don't even have to look further than the original 5th gen concept drawings to see that a cartoonish imagining can turn into a real and usable car. Obviously it's not identical to that first giant-wheeled flat-roofed completely unrealistic sketch, but it maintains that exact flavor that makes it so exciting in real life. While it has not the best of driver visibility,
hundreds of
thousands of drivers manage to pilot it around every single day without banging against every possible obstacle in its path. It's not that bad... and it came from a fully and completely unrealistic cartoon.
If you do need to look further than that, Google is full of images of
manufacturer concepts that are just as over the top, yet somehow get built into amazing looking usable cars with the full essence of what they were conceived to be.
My point is that your bottom-up approach isn't the only one that works. Please understand that. Furthermore, there are things on some of your concepts that aren't realistic, legal, or reasonable either.
Secondly... whether the styling is full of gimmicks, trends, ridiculously outlandish features, or whether it has flowing curves that precisely model a fighter-jet without any other distractions...
STYLING IS 100% OPINION. Let me repeat that.
STYLING IS 100% OPINION. There is no right or wrong... simple as that.
I love everything about the C7, gimmicks and all, and I extra love the extra gimmicky C7 Z06. I love the new crop of sharply angled Lamborghinis, I love how LED lighting is used for extra character on a lot of cars (especially the Audi's and the Corvette), I love a lot of things that were unheard of 10 years ago, much less 30 or more. I also love a lot of 80's cars, especially the later third gens (specifically the 85-90's with GFX). Some will say I'm insane, but in my mind, a clean, debadged and mildly lowered IROC-Z has timeless styling. From a certain angle especially, it just flows from beginning to end so smoothly that it belies its boxy nature and has a spirit that says "let's go have some fun!" that speaks directly into my soul. Similarly but differently, I love the C5 Corvette and to me it's also timeless (not counting the notchbacks), pop-up headlights and all (actually, that's part of why). It's low front end flows into its high rear haunches with clean, sculpted curves that look to slip through the air rather than buldoze it aside, all while it hugs the ground as to say "C'mon, let's eat that corner alive... faster faster
faster!"
What I don't love... among many other things... the Ferrari 308. It just looks old and bland to me. No agressiveness, nothing that screams to me "let's go!". It's rocked back on its heels with its nose stuck up in the air. I don't like imports with outlandish body kits that don't flow with any original lines on the car. I don't love, believe it or not, the '69 Camaro either... The cleaner leaner '67 looks much better to me.
And Doc, I hate to say it, I really do, but I don't love your concepts either, despite some of my ideas being used on the original one in its final form. You say it looks fighter-jet smooth, I say that it looks a bit old and a bit bland (regardless of whether or not it should be called Camaro). I don't think it's bad, it just doesn't quite do it for me.
So who is right, you or me? No one, of course.
It's 100% opinion, and thank goodness people have different ones because it would suck if all cars looked identical for all of eternity. Let people like what they like.
Now... form follows function. That's a perfectly fine concept, but obviously you know that there has to be a compromise between the two for any realistic enthusiast car. Where you're getting hung up is on
how much to compromise. That is something people are allowed to disagree upon (assume staying within laws and regulations), so try not to get too defensive when people would rather have a car that looks like a toy robot than one that is a little easier to see out of. Either is fine.
When you say "...but can't we have both? A great driver experience and a great appearance?"... Sure we can! but "great" is based solely on opinion, so your great is not the same as all others' great. Again, let people like what they like. By all means, please keep sharing your ideas and asking for honest inputs, I think it's awesome when people get together and exercise their mind a bit on a topic that I love so much (I am all for people having mature, constructive inputs).
Just please, don't get bent out of shape when someone thinks a different approach to design is a better way to go or someone disagrees with your idea of "great". It's all good.
