View Single Post
      08-19-2009, 06:46 AM   #65
wiggyx
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
37
Posts

 
Drives: 2004 Neon SRT-4
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Cleveland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
I'm not taking it as an attack?
I do disagree that the ACR version of the viper looks any better though. It's just as ugly IMO. As a road car it's look idiotic as would any car with full race bodywork. You definitely wouldn't want to be the shy type in either

To be honest I've never put any relevance on anyone's opinion on the looks of a car as I think they are the most subjective part of the whole experience and one mans shite is another mans gold. You just need to look at how many of those Aztec they sold to realise that's true

Anyone on here know somebody that bought one????
The fact that you think the Apollo and Viper are equally ugly means that your opinions about design are uneducated at best. That's fine, there are plenty of things that I have no business commenting about. The difference is that I usually refrain from joining the conversation if that's the case.

Let me tell you about the Asstec. First off, GM didn't even sell enough to recoup its costs for creating it. So, that argument is dead and should serve as good example that poor aesthetics can pretty easily doom a vehicle. The only way that GM sold what they did was through insane discounts at the dealer level, and even that wasn't enough to get GM out of the hole with the Aztec. You know how many Aztec's were sold in 2007? Less than 30. The Aztec was gold for nobody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
1You all keep saying not designed by a professional for certain cars yet the very car you mentioned earlier in the post, the Aztec, was designed by a professional as are any number of butt ugly cars and dull crap. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they are going to make something that looks good.

2Visuals on a car are purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder which is why some people think the M3 looks fantastic and others hate it. Someone who claims to be a design professional should know that and therefore above all else wouldn't be saying things like "whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on" 3as it makes them look like the over emotional kids here that start arguments for no reason. 2 things on that statement.
1. I never said the Viper was ugly. I said the ACR version was ugly.
2. I do think the Viper ACR is ugly. About as ugly as I keep saying the Gumpert is as I believe Robo can confirm (or anyone that reads all of the post).

4Being involved in design of any form doesn't automatically give you good taste. It obviously gives you the impression you have better taste than others but it's not always true.

At least Robo's analysis was bloody funny
You're misunderstanding our meaning. That is to say that it looks like it was designed by a middles school kid, or some guys brother-in-law. The Aztec was a result of the old "too many cooks in the kitchen" and some poor management thrown in for good measure.

Yes and no. There are many things that "technically" make for solid, cohesive design. Sure, in the end anybody can give their opinion, point was to break down, piece by piece why the Apollo is a design failure.

Boo-hoo. You need to clarify that better next time by simply saying something along the lines of "the ACR add-ons make an otherwise attractive car look rather frumpy". Nowhere is it evident that you think non-ACR Vipers are good looking cars.

Correct, it doesn't give you good taste, but it does give you the tools to analyze, and that's what we did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
Jesus. I've lost you again. You've been swapping chat back and forth with me since the start. At what point did I ever say anything other than the fact that the Gumpert is Ugly. Here. I'll say it again. IT's FUCK UGLY. 1I didn't start an argument in any way. In fact we weren't having anything resembling an argument until this last post which seems to be heading in some strange direction. At no point in any of this have I defended the looks of the Gumpert. None. Why do you keep saying I did?

However I still stand 100% by the fact that whether or not a car is good looking is entirely in the eye of the beholder and a matter of taste and not design knowledge. The Viper looks great in normal form. In ACR form it looks like something from a teenagers carpark car meet with giant winged Civics etc.

That's my opinion of the looks of it. Surely any designer worth their salt should understand that fact better than most 2so to make the Corolla statement is dumb in my opinion and reduces their credibility in my book.

I'm not defending the Ugliness of the Gumpert and well done on the last comment. We were having a nice and mostly funny back and forth and now you've gone and made it sound like you think you're some kind of genius who's opinion on the look of a car is the only one that matter because you're a "designer".

I know exactly what I'm talking about. People like the look of some cars and hate the looks of other cars. That's the simple fact. 3I have no clue of the intricacies of the actual analysis you made of the car nor do I need to know them. They're irrelevant. I look and my eyes transmit an image to my brain which then decides for me if I like the look of it or not. Everyone else does the same thing and not a single one of them decides based on whether or not there should be fillets to take the sharpness out of the box extrusions.

4Take a look at cars that have emblazoned teens walls and desired over the years and run your analysis on them and I have no doubt there are a large number that will fall into the "Wrong" design category but people still loved them.

Countach, Testarossa, 308 GT4 (yeuch) to name just a few.
Seriously, you just kept defending the car saying that "you can't analyze a car like this", or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", or "if you saw it in person you wouldn't think that". Stop it. You're playing the devil's advocate and it's just going to get you caught up in an argument like this.

So sorry that you think that. I would argue that your credibility was pretty much lost from the outset when you insisted that the car was untouchable, in terms of its ability to be critiqued.

Then stop talking about it. Someone was interested in a critique and Robo and I delivered. You don't like it? Fine, move on.

I can guarantee that the Gumpert will never find it's way on to any teenager's wall. Basically, you work with what you've got. In the 80's, that wasn't a whole lot. The original LP400 was gorgeous. US bumper regs and tacked on aero parts put the hurt on the Countach. But underneath there's a well styled shell. I've never cared for Ferrari's, with few exceptions, so I won't toss my biased comments in on the others that you mentioned.

Either way, all that I'm arguing is that the Gumpert can be critiqued. I've given my reasons why.