Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > General Automotive (non-BMW) Talk + Photos/Videos

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-18-2009, 05:09 PM   #45
wiggyx
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
37
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

I signed up after my bud Robo sent me a link. He thought I may want to chime in, as I went through the same auto design program as he.

First off, I want the make it clear that I am not calling out the abilities, panel fitment, track times, etc of this car. This is purely an aesthetic critique of the car from a trained eye.

Overall there is little to tie the design together. There are conflicting design elements throughout. The biggest issue that immediately struck me when I first time I saw the Apollo was the conflict between soft and hard-edged forms. Almost all of the surface transitions are extremely soft (i.e. the crown where the transition from cockpit to body side is made), while pretty much every graphic detail (headlights, tail lights, ventilation cutouts, etc.) consist of sharp lines and crisp edges. That's not to say that there is no way to mix organic surfaces with sharp lines. Hell, the E92 does that just about perfectly. The problem here is lack of cohesive design. The car looks like it was made by sorting through a parts bin from about every manufacturer and then using what was found to slap a car together.



On to the details. Cheap gutter guard mesh abound. No thanks. Again, I understand that it serves a purpose, but there's no reason that something with a little more visual flair couldn't be used. Remember, this is a road-going vehicle, no matter how much of a track beast it is. Being that it's a road-going vehicle, it will inevitably be compared to other cars on the road, and that's probably not a good thing for this fugly beast.

One of the other more obvious flaws that make me think this was CAD modeled in a weekend by somebody's brother-in-law ("who knows how to design cars") is the sloppy resolution of the graphic layout. The headlights look pinched at the top by the quarter panel and the silly, bulbous fender flares giving the impression that tacking headlights on was more of an afterthought rather than an actual part of the design process. The flares themselves could easily have been more integrated into the front quarters. There is no narrow body version, so why make the flares look like slap-on Autozone parts? Surely it’s not to help its ability to cut through air. A simpler, seamless part would be a better choice for both aesthetics (and I imagine drag reduction).



The tail lights and headlights themselves look to be the work of an inexperienced one-off car builder. Headlight projectors slapped into a make-shift housing, with the tail lights consisting of what look like eBay LED bulbs with hardware store reflectors. On an ugly or plain looking car, the graphics can really be a saving grace, but not in this case.

F1 cars, LM prototypes, and all other purpose-built vehicles made EXCLUSIVELY for motorsports have absolutely no need to take aesthetics into consideration, unless their makers feel that it will add equity/notoriety to the brand. To those that say “hey, the Gumpert is a purpose-built vehicle, the aesthetics don’t matter”, I say you’re wrong. Here’s the reason; When an attempt is made to style a car and it fails (in the case of the Apollo), then questioning its design/styling becomes Kosher. If they had simply abandoned all styling and built it almost exclusively to appease the wind tunnel gods, then we wouldn’t be arguing about this and we’d all be staring at an F1 car. In fact, I’d rather they had done just that because at least there would be an excuse for any ugly bits. The truly sad part is that cars that are designed in a wind tunnel like F1 and LM actually look better than this Frankensteinian abomination.

There are plenty of purpose-built road cars that still look great. The Viper ACR (whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on), the Ferrari Enzo/FXX, The Murciélago SV, etc. Yeah, they all have tack-on aero parts, but their styling underneath is great. You don’t have to like them, but they are all successful designs from a technical standpoint (yes, styling can be critiqued from a technical standpoint). There are “rules” in design folks, and the Gumpert breaks almost all of them. For goodness sake, even the badges look frumpy.







I'm sure Robo will chime in and give his .02 as well. There are plenty of things to call out on this car still. I only touched on a few.

BTW, you guys have some great smileys on this board
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 06:40 PM   #46
Robo Squirrel
Major
Robo Squirrel's Avatar
United_States
52
Rep
1,001
Posts

 
Drives: 991.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggyx View Post
I signed up after my bud Robo sent me a link. He thought I may want to chime in, as I went through the same auto design program as he.

First off, I want the make it clear that I am not calling out the abilities, panel fitment, track times, etc of this car. This is purely an aesthetic critique of the car from a trained eye.

Overall there is little to tie the design together. There are conflicting design elements throughout. The biggest issue that immediately struck me when I first time I saw the Apollo was the conflict between soft and hard-edged forms. Almost all of the surface transitions are extremely soft (i.e. the crown where the transition from cockpit to body side is made), while pretty much every graphic detail (headlights, tail lights, ventilation cutouts, etc.) consist of sharp lines and crisp edges. That's not to say that there is no way to mix organic surfaces with sharp lines. Hell, the E92 does that just about perfectly. The problem here is lack of cohesive design. The car looks like it was made by sorting through a parts bin from about every manufacturer and then using what was found to slap a car together.



On to the details. Cheap gutter guard mesh abound. No thanks. Again, I understand that it serves a purpose, but there's no reason that something with a little more visual flair couldn't be used. Remember, this is a road-going vehicle, no matter how much of a track beast it is. Being that it's a road-going vehicle, it will inevitably be compared to other cars on the road, and that's probably not a good thing for this fugly beast.

One of the other more obvious flaws that make me think this was CAD modeled in a weekend by somebody's brother-in-law ("who knows how to design cars") is the sloppy resolution of the graphic layout. The headlights look pinched at the top by the quarter panel and the silly, bulbous fender flares giving the impression that tacking headlights on was more of an afterthought rather than an actual part of the design process. The flares themselves could easily have been more integrated into the front quarters. There is no narrow body version, so why make the flares look like slap-on Autozone parts? Surely it’s not to help its ability to cut through air. A simpler, seamless part would be a better choice for both aesthetics (and I imagine drag reduction).



The tail lights and headlights themselves look to be the work of an inexperienced one-off car builder. Headlight projectors slapped into a make-shift housing, with the tail lights consisting of what look like eBay LED bulbs with hardware store reflectors. On an ugly or plain looking car, the graphics can really be a saving grace, but not in this case.

F1 cars, LM prototypes, and all other purpose-built vehicles made EXCLUSIVELY for motorsports have absolutely no need to take aesthetics into consideration, unless their makers feel that it will add equity/notoriety to the brand. To those that say “hey, the Gumpert is a purpose-built vehicle, the aesthetics don’t matter”, I say you’re wrong. Here’s the reason; When an attempt is made to style a car and it fails (in the case of the Apollo), then questioning its design/styling becomes Kosher. If they had simply abandoned all styling and built it almost exclusively to appease the wind tunnel gods, then we wouldn’t be arguing about this and we’d all be staring at an F1 car. In fact, I’d rather they had done just that because at least there would be an excuse for any ugly bits. The truly sad part is that cars that are designed in a wind tunnel like F1 and LM actually look better than this Frankensteinian abomination.

There are plenty of purpose-built road cars that still look great. The Viper ACR (whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on), the Ferrari Enzo/FXX, The Murciélago SV, etc. Yeah, they all have tack-on aero parts, but their styling underneath is great. You don’t have to like them, but they are all successful designs from a technical standpoint (yes, styling can be critiqued from a technical standpoint). There are “rules” in design folks, and the Gumpert breaks almost all of them. For goodness sake, even the badges look frumpy.







I'm sure Robo will chime in and give his .02 as well. There are plenty of things to call out on this car still. I only touched on a few.

BTW, you guys have some great smileys on this board
+1 i would have written such a detailed and thought collected post if i didnt lack the abilty sometimes to explain the innerworkings of my mind. Nevertheless, i will do up a photoshop with "call outs" pinpointing this abomination's design fuck-tardedness
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 07:09 PM   #47
Robo Squirrel
Major
Robo Squirrel's Avatar
United_States
52
Rep
1,001
Posts

 
Drives: 991.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MI

iTrader: (1)

__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 07:20 PM   #48
Dr.G
Private First Class
Dr.G's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
188
Posts

 
Drives: Not enough room!!!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas

iTrader: (0)

my god that is so funny! lol when i got to ass crack i was rolling!!!
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 07:26 PM   #49
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
308
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Thanks for the opinions guys. I agree that this is one ugly car.

What's your opinion of the Zonda's design? It seems to offer similar performance with a similar layout/size, but I believe at about twice the cost. Or maybe the Gumpert is smaller. Can't tell from the pics exactly.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 08:10 PM   #50
TheKosherStogie
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
250
Rep
1,784
Posts

 
Drives: 08 M3 DCT AW/Red
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Hollywood

iTrader: (1)

just came from zonda factory....that is the #1 car in my book...amazing factory...they keep a binder of every spec of every car made...including everything in it...the factory was sick...from how they press their carbon fiber...you can specify anything u want on the car...its a masterpiece in every sense of the way....light...powerful...and luxurious
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 08:14 PM   #51
Prit@Euro Autowerx
Second Lieutenant
11
Rep
250
Posts

 
Drives: E46 M3
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: calgary

iTrader: (0)

this forum is starting to sound like kids from E46 Fanatics.
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 09:41 PM   #52
Robo Squirrel
Major
Robo Squirrel's Avatar
United_States
52
Rep
1,001
Posts

 
Drives: 991.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MI

iTrader: (1)

i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 09:43 PM   #53
wiggyx
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
37
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel View Post
You fuckin' crack me up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Thanks for the opinions guys. I agree that this is one ugly car.

What's your opinion of the Zonda's design? It seems to offer similar performance with a similar layout/size, but I believe at about twice the cost. Or maybe the Gumpert is smaller. Can't tell from the pics exactly.
Ooooh, that's awesome. I'd love to take a tour of that factory. I'd give my opinion about the Zonda, but I'm a bit biased as it's one of my favorite cars. I'm sure Robo will call out all the busted-ness it contains

edit: I see I was scooped by Robo on the Zonda

Last edited by wiggyx; 08-19-2009 at 07:01 AM..
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 11:24 PM   #54
SoreHead
Captain
SoreHead's Avatar
Canada
10
Rep
865
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel View Post
i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.
You 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.

Visuals 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" as 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).

Being 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
Appreciate 0
      08-18-2009, 11:45 PM   #55
Robo Squirrel
Major
Robo Squirrel's Avatar
United_States
52
Rep
1,001
Posts

 
Drives: 991.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoreHead View Post
You 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.

Visuals 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" as 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).

Being 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
The reason the aztec is ugly is b/c the management at GM picked a sketch that could never fit the chosen package. ive heard the original sketch is actually cool. i used the aztec as a reference b/c most people car realte to it. And no just because someone is a proffesional designer doesnt mean they are good.

The gumperts design is fundamentaly wrong. the viper is not. thats all there is too it. all that i said is that the gumpert is fugly...thats all i said...you started the argument....you could have just left well enough alone.

Design is subjective, and even in the design community there are different tastes, some bad some good, and whatnot. But we doing CLAIM to be design professionals we ARE design professionals.

We have a trained eye, we spend 5 years and alot of money to get that trained eye, and 100% of people i know who have any kind of design training, automotive or product agree that the gumpert is ugly.

Wiggz and I have pretty much laid it out for you why its ugly. Stop defending it. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 12:13 AM   #56
SoreHead
Captain
SoreHead's Avatar
Canada
10
Rep
865
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel View Post
i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel View Post
The reason the aztec is ugly is b/c the management at GM picked a sketch that could never fit the chosen package. ive heard the original sketch is actually cool. i used the aztec as a reference b/c most people car realte to it. And no just because someone is a proffesional designer doesnt mean they are good.

The gumperts design is fundamentaly wrong. the viper is not. thats all there is too it. all that i said is that the gumpert is fugly...thats all i said...you started the argument....you could have just left well enough alone.

Design is subjective, and even in the design community there are different tastes, some bad some good, and whatnot. But we doing CLAIM to be design professionals we ARE design professionals.

We have a trained eye, we spend 5 years and alot of money to get that trained eye, and 100% of people i know who have any kind of design training, automotive or product agree that the gumpert is ugly.

Wiggz and I have pretty much laid it out for you why its ugly. Stop defending it. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

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. I 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 so 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. I 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.

Take 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.
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 02:07 AM   #57
Dr.G
Private First Class
Dr.G's Avatar
United_States
8
Rep
188
Posts

 
Drives: Not enough room!!!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas

iTrader: (0)

since we on the subject of ugly, is the gtr ugly?
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 03:28 AM   #58
Year's_End
RWD only.
Year's_End's Avatar
United_States
663
Rep
12,435
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 S550 GT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Pete, FL

iTrader: (0)

the gt-r doesn't brake the fundamentals of design. it's actually very balanced, cohesive and modern. it's also polarizing, and extremely functional.
__________________
Past:'08 E92 335i|ZPP|ZSP|6AT|four (4) HPFPs

Present:'15 Mustang GT|401A|PP|6MT|Recaros
Sig pic unrelated. I like to go sideways and stuff.
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 04:00 AM   #59
GnokGnik
Captain
12
Rep
936
Posts

 
Drives: E92 335i, 997 C2S
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Anyways, for Gumpert for shitting on every other production-road-car manufacturer on the N-ring.
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 04:18 AM   #60
ChasenM3
United_States
18
Rep
163
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Signal Hill, Ca

iTrader: (1)

Video Proof?
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 04:38 AM   #61
r_seng
End Game
r_seng's Avatar
United_States
5
Rep
350
Posts

 
Drives: Devil's Chariot
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: So. Cal

iTrader: (0)

Ugly as sin...
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 04:57 AM   #62
Koroush
Lieutenant
Koroush's Avatar
No_Country
36
Rep
401
Posts

 
Drives: nothing
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

I thought the Caparo T1 would be better...
It weighs less than an Elise (200 KG less) and it's very quick, amazing handling and great looks.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 05:17 AM   #63
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
280
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
I didn't realise that the right of passage to holding the title around the ring had to include being beautiful. Yes it's ugly, but no more ugly than the Viper ACR or the Ferrari FXX.

It's a functional design, everything on it is there for a purpose.
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 05:28 AM   #64
Koroush
Lieutenant
Koroush's Avatar
No_Country
36
Rep
401
Posts

 
Drives: nothing
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Maryland

iTrader: (0)

Ahhh, the Capro T1 would be the winner but the only problem with it is that it explodes when driven.

I hope they fix that little problem.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 07:46 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.
Appreciate 0
      08-19-2009, 08:20 AM   #66
SoreHead
Captain
SoreHead's Avatar
Canada
10
Rep
865
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 M3 coupe - Manual
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2009 E92  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
I didn't realise that the right of passage to holding the title around the ring had to include being beautiful. Yes it's ugly, but no more ugly than the Viper ACR or the Ferrari FXX.

It's a functional design, everything on it is there for a purpose.
Oh no Footie. Don't you know the ACR and FXX are made according to rules that must be followed for you to think they look nice.

You just said exactly what I've been saying all along but the "experts" are telling me I'm wrong and I should buy a Corolla.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST