[ssrs2lt]

tomatoes potatoes.. the opinions are just that, based on personal preferences.. anyone of the hardcore bloggers here on Camaro5, could have and probably did already state the same opinion as the article referenced..

[ALLTRBO]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

They neutered it. Ouch!

IMHO, if they had landed squarely in between those sketches and what they ended up with, I think it would have been perfect. The sketches were too far out there and the final product is too reserved.

As for the 6th gen Camaro... I want a lighter evolution of the 5th gen and I said a long time ago that that's what they'll do.
I have full faith in the Camaro team to make this car look absolutely stunning. I don't envy them for having to one up the 5th gen's looks, though. After playing around in Paint Shop Pro on concept Camaros for a while, I've decided that I would not, in fact, like to be on the Camaro design team. Theirs has to be the hardest job in the whole of the automotive world.

For me it's a race between saving enough to get an AGP TT kit and what will be an amazing 6th gen. I wish I could have both!

[2cnd chance]

The 5Gen was almost perfect as is reflected in the sales. The Camaro needs to be muscular, aggressive...a presence parked or being driven. It should have a strong track (road-race not drags) identity.
The "future direction" of sporting cars IMO is:

[2cnd chance]

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

IMHO, if they had landed squarely in between those sketches and what they ended up with, I think it would have been perfect. The sketches were too far out there and the final product is too reserved.

As for the 6th gen Camaro... I want a lighter evolution of the 5th gen and I said a long time ago that that's what they'll do.
I have full faith in the Camaro team to make this car look absolutely stunning. I don't envy them for having to one up the 5th gen's looks, though. After playing around in Paint Shop Pro on concept Camaros for a while, I've decided that I would not, in fact, like to be on the Camaro design team. Theirs has to be the hardest job in the whole of the automotive world.

For me it's a race between saving enough to get an AGP TT kit and what will be an amazing 6th gen. I wish I could have both!

I agree. I think the 2014 front is a move in the "right direction" for the 6Gen. I'd love to see the 6Gens coke-bottle shape (a must for Camaro) incorporate the fender creases of the '69.

[ALLTRBO]

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

The "future direction" of sporting cars IMO is:

Aww man! You had to go there, didn't you? You just sobered me up from my Camaro high. A blue P1 is the sexiest car alive. Nothing else holds a candle. Now
I have to go do something else. Thanks.

[2cnd chance]

Yes the P1 is absolutely awesome. They've set the bar again. The new Porsche may have some cool tech, but the P1 hands down is the (much) more beautiful and futuristic looking of the 2.

[Bad@ssCamaro]

IMO, Even though styling is 100% opinion, you still need to have the right kind of styling in the near future generation to be released to appeal to the masses to maximize sales in order for the corporation to have major success with it. There are certain styles that appeal more to some than to others. GM creates cars that generally for the 99%. Porsche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini target the 1%'ers.

With that said, GM has developed a team that can design and build award winning stylish cars that appeal to those 99%er's. So far they are on the right track because I believe that those teams within GM utilize some sort of marketing assessment to help in developing those vehicles based on sales and customer feedback. The system they have setup has helped seen the Camaro improve over the last 5 years. What's there to worry about? I say, keep the faith.

I'd also like to add that people like Number 3, Fbodfather, Al. O, Mark Steilow, will and should help Camaro have continued success

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

I always enjoy reading your posts number 3...usually well thought out and insightful.

But...I have a few "buts" lol

I was going to respond but you took the words right out my mouth! Thank you! Especially on the interior part because it's all 60's camaro in it. It creates a special experience because of the interior retro design! The whole Retro theme is the exact reason why I am keeping my car forever. I would need a 60's camaro to compete with the 5th Gen. So I'm good! Can't beat a 60's camaro design!

[Doc]

Originally Posted by ssrs396

I still like this rendering doc. it is one of my favorites.

That particular shape had some nice elements to it; the front still had some issues I think but overall it had a good feel.

Originally Posted by ALLTRBO

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.

I know all about the 5th gen; I bought one sight-unseen when it first came out. I still have it, love it and fully intend to keep it as long as I live. The first image I saw was the actual concept car; I never saw the drawings until much later.

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.

I never said my bottom-up approach was the only one that works. I just preferred to use it myself. I'm well aware that there are things on some of my concepts that aren't realistic, legal or reasonable; that's why they were concepts not production models. Much of what I wound up doing was the result of other's suggestions too I hope you realize, since I used some of your excellent suggestions.

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.


There may not be a hard right or wrong, but I believe there is a pretty solid better or worse. And yes, beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder which means anyone's view is just as valid as another's; including mine. There are people who would pull up to a formal dinner party in an elegant, classy Camaro and never consider doing that in a gimmicky-looking car. Those same people wouldn't take that same car to a parking lot hang-out because they'd be viewed as out-of-touch by the ricer/gimmick crowd with all their tricked-out cars sitting around them. There's a market for both and just because the gimmick crowd tends to be more vocal doesn't mean the conservative crowd should be ignored, because they're the ones who tend to have money and speak with their buying power instead of just a lot of talk and opinion.

There's room for both but consider that it's much easier to start with a conservative design and mod it outward with gimmick styling than start with a gimmick car and tone it down. The safer bet for GM is to go conservative and let the owners mod their cars the way they want. But that's my view and opinion which I'm well aware of many here don't agree with.

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.

Old and bland...I bet if you look in the mirror that description just might fit you, as well as it does me...and who would have guessed it but that description may very well fit most of us! I think there's a sickness that has gotten set into society about this fear of looking old or "dated". It's the reason why you see women pretty much mutilating themselves with surgeries and injecting botulism toxin into their faces trying to prevent looking "dated". And now men are doing the same thing. There's nothing wrong with styling that has elements of yesterday, today and tomorrow in it. For some reason people have gotten this weird mentality that they have to constantly have something new; they have this ridiculous fear of something looking "dated". They throw away and abandon perfectly good things including relationships and people as a result.

I didn't/don't like all of your styling suggestions either but that didn't mean I couldn't recognize and appreciate (and compliment which I did) those ideas that I did like. If everything is one-sided there's no balance. If everything is gimmicky looking which appeals to a certain vocal segment, that eliminates a very large non-vocal segment that is affluent but hardly ever speaks out; they just don't buy. It's easier to add gimmicks to a basic platform than remove gimmicks and tone a look down. In fact nobody wants to bother with toning a look down; if they don't want the gimmicks they'll look for something else and just won't bother with it. As a sales strategy, I think GM would be wise to stay conservative and make it possible for the crowd that want's to trick-out their cars to do so with mods.

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.

Maybe it's fine up until the moment they hit a curb, gouge the side of their car or get into an accident due to an inability to see adequately. Many people are happy with taking that risk and want the toy robot look; that's fine, that's their choice. But GM would be wise to make that optional with mods rather than restricting sales to that crowd only. If you had the choice of driving both and actually drove them as a test, it would be interesting to see which one you felt the safest and most comfortable in afterwards.

Of course there has to be compromises; life is a compromise from start to finish.

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.

What's being "bent out of shape"? That could just be your perception too. My idea of "great" as a driver's car and styling would require the driver's portion be great first; and the styling follow as a result without undue compromise of the driver's experience. That is indeed form follows function. I refer to fighter jets because they pursue function first and foremost and always have the most exciting shapes as a result. And lo and behold you can pretty much figure they provide the most exciting pilot experience too. I doubt any military group ever sits down to design a combat plane and starts with "Ok, let's make a plane that looks bad-ass!"

A great driver's experience is everything; seating, ergonomics of the cockpit and where the controls are, what gauges are visible and where, view out of the cockpit, mirror positions and coverage, control feel, performance, response of the machine, etc. My philosophy is to solve for that first, then figure out how to wrap a suitable shape around that with as few compromises to the function as is reasonably possible. That produces fighter jets with all their exciting looks and performance. And as Number 3 said, that takes a lot of HARD WORK. I never said or say that it's easy.

If you think about it, if the beginning of a car STARTS with the artist's wild over-the-top sketches, isn't that the same thing as saying "Ok, let's make a car (plane) that looks bad-ass!"? I know that's pretty much how it's done but I feel that is something that could and should change. The evidence of how valid (and useful) that is, is the new Z/28. Mark Stielow's mandate from GM was to "make it fast". That is pure function. And that ruled everything they were doing which resulted in a very fantastic-looking car so you see, you do get both if you do it right, but it is indeed hard work.

I may be the only one but I do not like the looks of the new P1. The front and sides (to me) looks like it's been eaten away by a cancer or something. And since EVERYONE is trying to come up with that exact same type of look, here's the bad news... in a few short years that "leading edge" look is going to look...dated. Oh the humanity!

Originally Posted by 2cnd chance

The 5Gen was almost perfect as is reflected in the sales. The Camaro needs to be muscular, aggressive...a presence parked or being driven. It should have a strong track (road-race not drags) identity.
The "future direction" of sporting cars IMO is:

They did an absolutely fantastic job with the 5th gen which is why I bought one. And while I'm a big fan of road-race tracking, I know that most muscle car owners do drag races so they shouldn't be ignored. But you can do both if you design and do styling that's lean and conservative with the expectation that either crowd can and will add mods to make the car suit their preferences and use. As we've seen from the 5th gen almost no one leaves their car stock so adding mods is a huge part of the ownership experience. I think GM should plan for that and provide a terrific, conservative base car that's designed and built in such a way that mods can be added easily. Make it the customizer's car of choice (street, drags, road course) and they'd sell millions of them.

Here's a few peeks at form-follows-function looks.




You CAN have both but it doesn't start with wild over-the-top sketches that have absolutely no respect whatsoever for function. You can do a wild sketch in a few minutes; starting with function takes a lot longer and is much harder but in the end I think the results speak for themselves. And that's my opinion! (checks shape; doesn't see anything that looks bent). It's all good!

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by Doc

That particular shape had some nice elements to it; the front still had some issues I think but overall it had a good feel.



What's being "bent out of shape"? That could just be your perception too. My idea of "great" as a driver's car and styling would require the driver's portion be great first; and the styling follow as a result without undue compromise of the driver's experience. That is indeed form follows function. I refer to fighter jets because they pursue function first and foremost and always have the most exciting shapes as a result. And lo and behold you can pretty much figure they provide the most exciting pilot experience too. I doubt any military group ever sits down to design a combat plane and starts with "Ok, let's make a plane that looks bad-ass!"

A great driver's experience is everything; seating, ergonomics of the cockpit and where the controls are, what gauges are visible and where, view out of the cockpit, mirror positions and coverage, control feel, performance, response of the machine, etc. My philosophy is to solve for that first, then figure out how to wrap a suitable shape around that with as few compromises to the function as is reasonably possible. That produces fighter jets with all their exciting looks and performance. And as Number 3 said, that takes a lot of HARD WORK. I never said or say that it's easy.

If you think about it, if the beginning of a car STARTS with the artist's wild over-the-top sketches, isn't that the same thing as saying "Ok, let's make a car (plane) that looks bad-ass!"? I know that's pretty much how it's done but I feel that is something that could and should change. The evidence of how valid (and useful) that is, is the new Z/28. Mark Stielow's mandate from GM was to "make it fast". That is pure function. And that ruled everything they were doing which resulted in a very fantastic-looking car so you see, you do get both if you do it right, but it is indeed hard work.

I may be the only one but I do not like the looks of the new P1. The front and sides (to me) looks like it's been eaten away by a cancer or something. And since EVERYONE is trying to come up with that exact same type of look, here's the bad news... in a few short years that "leading edge" look is going to look...dated. Oh the humanity!



They did an absolutely fantastic job with the 5th gen which is why I bought one. And while I'm a big fan of road-race tracking, I know that most muscle car owners do drag races so they shouldn't be ignored. But you can do both if you design and do styling that's lean and conservative with the expectation that either crowd can and will add mods to make the car suit their preferences and use. As we've seen from the 5th gen almost no one leaves their car stock so adding mods is a huge part of the ownership experience. I think GM should plan for that and provide a terrific, conservative base car that's designed and built in such a way that mods can be added easily. Make it the customizer's car of choice (street, drags, road course) and they'd sell millions of them.

Here's a few peeks at form-follows-function looks.
Attachment 608125
Attachment 608126
Attachment 608124

You CAN have both but it doesn't start with wild over-the-top sketches that have absolutely no respect whatsoever for function. You can do a wild sketch in a few minutes; starting with function takes a lot longer and is much harder but in the end I think the results speak for themselves. And that's my opinion! (checks shape; doesn't see anything that looks bent). It's all good!

.
The. Z/28 looks was basically already there ,it's just some pasts added

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Q'smuscle

.
The. Z/28 looks was basically already there ,it's just some pasts added

Pasts? You mean parts? If that's what you mean you need to read up on what they did with the Z/28; they went waaay beyond just adding some "parts". From the flow-tie, hood vent, fender skirts, underbody, aero parts, front grill, rear spoiler, etc. They did waaaayyy more.

[ALLTRBO]

Originally Posted by Doc

Here's a few peeks at form-follows-function looks.
Attachment 608125
Attachment 608126
Attachment 608124

Unfortunately I don't have more time to respond (yes, several of your points are taken), but you do realize that that jet is a movie prop, right? It's from 2005's "Stealth". I can almost guarantee that the first thing the writers said was "Ok, let's make a plane that looks bad-ass!"

Some of my old Navy friends were on that carrier during filming. They said it was really cool (but obviously fake).

Also, I'm probably not quite as old as you think. I'm just good at acting like a grownup sometimes

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by Doc

Pasts? You mean parts? If that's what you mean you need to read up on what they did with the Z/28; they went waaay beyond just adding some "parts". From the flow-tie, hood vent, fender skirts, underbody, aero parts, front grill, rear spoiler, etc. They did waaaayyy more.

Yea, spelling check messed it up! But I'm talking about the outside design. It didn't change from the other camaros. As in the shell! Hood vent comes on every SS. Don't forget the front splitter!

[bionick]

Everywhere I have read says they will be using the LT1. Is this official, or just a rumor?