Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

Counting the polygons: a peek at the C7s rear

11K views 46 replies 18 participants last post by  OC Vic 
#1 ·
For this post, I'm simply going to count the number of polygons present on the C7s rear.

Then, for kicks, ask if anybody has ever seen any car ever percieved as beautiful that had a polygonal styling. Now, on to the counting:

The spoiler is effectively 3. The rear light on the spoiler is one.

Each taillight is effectively 2, mkaing 8. or 11 total so far.

The COMPLETELY NON FUNCTIONAL racoon eyes around the rear lights (only the vent is functional, which did not need to be part of a japanese cartoon robot eye) makes 13.

Call it 17 after the angular way the part of the rear that cuts back into the taillight racoon eye is handled. 2 on each side.

Make it 19 after teh strip of body colored paint that goes down each side. For petes sake at least tapered the body painted part in a little bit. See F430 (unbelievably beautiful rear end on a mediocre car) or even teh Hyundai Veloster.

Make it 21 after seeing the reflectors ont he rear.

Make it 24 after seeing the license plate area and its surroundings, which are curved in real life but tend to look like triangles.

25 for the exhaust outlet area.

27 for the brake vents, on the lower outer parts.

31 for the fake-diffusor (fake because this car has no smooth underbody at all, this is not a diffusor ala GT-R or F430) panels and the parts just under the reflectors.

And I'm being somewhat generous in saying there aren't other polygons back there. 31 polygons.

It looks like a rear designed by Mrs. Johnsons kindergarten class with a scissors. It kind of makes me want to cry.

Toss in the sharp edge of the rear when viewed from the side, the bottom rear, which so clearly could have been curved or at least angled, as it serves no aerodynamic function at all. I want an explanation.

If that explanation is a gigantic, 20 day, cocaine binge in las vegas that blew the entire design budget, so be it, i just want an explanation.

"every line matters" about as much as every line on my ... um, weiner. Seriously. This car has dozens of lines that do not matter.
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#3 ·
or even better:



but those polygons served a purpose: stealth.

The polygons on the rear of the C7 are absolutely purposeless. The C7s rear serves a purpose in providing those (4) vents and thats it. The diffusor looking parts are false, that is not a diffusor, I took pics under the car at the NAIAS, I will post them. The car does not have a smooth underbody, that is not a true diffusor ala GT-R or F430 etc.

Styling that HAS A PURPOSE always winds up working. The C7 is a case of creases and angles and styling that servrs no purpose at all.
 
#4 ·
Overall I love the design of the C7. I will say that I think the exaggerated line that runs down the lower part of the side is a bit much. It's similar to the line on the C6 that starts at the bottom of the side vent, but on steroids. If someone opens a car door on that thing, it's gonna take out a chunk! :surprised
 
#6 ·
If Welburn had been around, I guess the C2 would have looked like this:



Fighters are beautiful aircraft, but plane design never has tranlated well to street cars.

We make fun of the fins of the 50's today. Wonder what they'll say about the Art & Science in 60 years.
 
#7 ·
C'mon, you know you'd love to drive around town in the original Firebird, with your dog Astro riding shotgun. With the split cockpit, you wouldn't even have to smell Alpo farts.
:smack

I really am convinced that they backed one of the Sideswipe Stingray cars into a wall accidently and said "Wow, just the look we were going for."
 
#8 ·
Well, sure, if you wanna get real, then nearly all styling changes are bullshit.

Bodies are changed every so often to make you feel like your model is out of date, and you need a new one.

Does anyone think this myriad of straight lines on the Aventador are really each all that important? Is this really an improvement over the Muci? Only a child would think that a new body style is actually any real change for the good. (Except if we're talking cooling, downforce) Actually, the Aventador, while largely angular, is really in interplay of angles and subtle curves. Like the the rear light tapering into the tail, as seen on this orange one below.

If a car is ALL angles, with no curves whatsoever, then it doesn't engage your eye. Kind of like a Hummer, or the Aztek. Those are examples of vehicles that don't have the needed balance between angles and curves, to approach anything that could be construed as artful.

Styling is really just fashion. But that doesnt bother me, even if it's only partly functional. Sometimes, bullshit styling can look exciting. Cars are art, as much as they are science. They change the way we feel about ourselves, and reflect our emotions.



 
#41 ·
lambos, have always been angular and peculiar, it is their purpose, all after the Countach, its a tribute to heritage.

The C7 is part curves, part angles, and then that wildly absolutely bizzare rear end.

100000% different cases. Lamborghinis are not meant to be beautiful, they are meant to have panache. Corvettes have usually been beautiful, functional, purposeful.

The C7? Clear case of form over function, of designers gone drug-binge in vegas.
 
#9 ·
Automotive styling goes through phases.

1970's everything was big, bulky, muscular looking

1980's everything was boxy

1990-2000's everything got rounded edges and fatter.

mid 2000s-current everything is becoming more angular with sharper edges.

You can look across the board at every manufacture and see these things, it's not just GM/Corvette
 
#13 ·
I can't help but think if the C7 were a Lambo design everyone would be creaming over it. Both Lambo and Ferrari have some styling cues that are more about form than function. And some of the ugliest rears I've ever seen are on some of these beasts.

It's taken me about 2 weeks to fully appreciate the unique combination of curves and angles the C7 has. Polygon Folygon. Originally I kinda liked some of the round tail light chops on the C7 rear. Now I think the actual lights (afterburners) look fine. And they are 3 dimensional and very different from anything else out there. I think the comparison to the Camaro has FINALLY played out.

The hood has some hard lines that seem more about form, and I suspect they direct air in some advantageous way. Even if they don't, the hood looks great.
 
#18 ·
I can't help but think if the C7 were a Lambo design everyone would be creaming over it. Both Lambo and Ferrari have some styling cues that are more about form than function.
That's what I was thinking.

On another note, does anybody subscribe to Automobile magazine? There's some interesting notes in it, written by a former Corvette designer, (Robert Cumberford), who candidly points out how many design cues on early vettes were lifted from other cars. Somebody here did a comparison between the C7 and the 599, and yeah, it has some 599 in it, but that's no reason not to like the C7, unless your one of the snobby wine + cheese set.

I'm not, and would be happy to add a C7 to my blue-collar stable. I have seen more exciting rear ends, (but those were attached to two legs!) :partyon:
 
#42 ·
except

1. Lamborghini has a heritage of polygons, of angles, of gauche bizzare shapes
2. no other maker is pursuing the lambo route, not Ferrari, not Jag, Not BMW not Benz, not Audi, not ANYBODY
3. the C7 hardly accomplishes a lambo shape, it accomplishes something completely pointless, angular and odd, yet curvy, can't make up its mind, fails at everything.
 
#15 ·
The F458 is a beautiful car that isn't polygon crazy. And it's the direction I was hoping the C7 would take.

Now as it stands I understand your argument. I also like the design though. It's different, and aggresive; the rear tail lights one me over the minute I saw them lit up and the brakes applied.

Take a look at that if you don't like the tail lights. Very cool how they illuminate, doesn't look camaroish at all.
 
#21 ·
I guess all these polygons are "fluidic" according to Welburn and Peters. This reminds me of the emperor with no clothes... they just say it is fluidic and everyone believes that.:surprised
Like in that movie "Idiocracy", where everyone in the future is dumbed down past the point of independant reasoning, and just mindlessly repeats advertising jargon?

"
[cabinet has been debating putting water on the plants instead of Brawndo]

Pvt. Joe Bowers: What *are* these electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: They're... what they use to make Brawndo!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: But *why* do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo's got electrolytes.


"

Say it with me- "Brawdos' got electrolytes!" That's it.....
Good consumer, good consumer...Now wag your tail and go buy some more Brawndo.



But I'll say it again, (talking to my imaginary audience here) we like things based primarily on emotion, more than science. The human being is emotional, more so than it is rational. Our heart is the engine of our decision making, and our brains are often just the cabose. (Look who you got married to)

Here is an example in regards to cars: If you were strictly rational, and did not make purchasing decisions based on emotions, then when you shop for a car, you'd buy some "Point A to Point B" vehicle, good on gas, supremely safe, that is basically just a transportation appliance. Obviously, we don't use our brains when we shop for a car. Most of us want something exciting, if we can afford it.

What we REALLY do subconsiously when we buy a car is this-
"Wow, that car is sexy! Chicks dig it! I can beat my neighbor's brand "X" car with this baby, oh yeah!"

Then, to appease the rational part of your brain, or sell it to your wife, we follow up with this crap-
"It's really not too bad on gas, it's actually a good value for the money, it's got a decent crash rating, blah, blah, blah"

You weren't attracted to the car for it's miserly fuel usage, nor it's great safety record, nope. That's just the sh*t we sell ourselves (or others) on to justify the purchase.

We initially wanted the car for it's visual emotional whallop. If you haven't realized this about yourself, you haven't been honest! It struck us in the gut when we first saw it, and we were hooked then, at that point. The science of vents had NOTHING to do with it. Thoughts of rational reasons to buy the car come AFTER we already want it. That "want it" feeling is based on the way it looks, primarily.

The point of all this is just to say, that no matter if a particular vent is fluidic, or if it's got electrolytes, etc, it doesn't really matter to me, essentially.The C7 reminds me of a fighter jet, and I want one! The fact that it's efficient, is a great performer, has great seats, lots of fantastic features, the various vents have real functions, it gets decent gas mileage, etc, is just gravy that seals the deal. The sale was already made, before I knew all that stuff.

Some people have a tendency to fall alseep when I am examining a subject in great depth, which is a shame, since they are missing out on my sterling wit, and endless intellect. (!) :laughing:

So those who prefer a short and sweet shot from the hip, the short verion of this post is,

"I'm gettin a C7, and fk everybody who don't like it"

It's got electrolytes. And fluidic vents.






.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreamcars99
#23 ·
As I mentioned on another thread, Bennion confirmed to Car & Driver that there were no clinics on the exterior design - they were not interested in the opinions of Corvette Loyalists.

During the design development of both the C5 and the C6, there were many clinics on exterior design and the opinions voiced impacted the final result of both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreamcars99
#24 ·
As I mentioned on another thread, Bennion confirmed to Car & Driver that there were no clinics on the exterior design - they were not interested in the opinions of Corvette Loyalists.

During the design development of both the C5 and the C6, there were many clinics on exterior design and the opinions voiced impacted the final result of both.
Longtimer,
I wish I was in one of those clinics! When the C6 was coming out, I was actually hoping it would be pretty retro, like the C2. I had heard hints of that before the C6s' release, but the resemblence turned out to be way remote.

An example of a REALLY retro design that works quite well, was Ford's 2005 "xerox" of the GT40 from the early 60s. That kcked ass! Too bad I couldn't get a new one of those. There' s a special space in my heart for that iconic body shape.

I guess I either like really retro designs, or way modern designs, but the in-between stuff is weak sauce. Do you think a tame, conservative "C6.5" would maintain Corvettes' status as an American icon? I don't know myself....I do know they need sales to be in the 30-40 thousand units yearly, for a healthy business model. Either that, or have an expensive boutique car for an elite few.
 
#26 ·
Frankly I'm glad they decided to make some changes to the design rather than just opt for another refinement like Porsche does. There are certainly merits to both policies, but it's rather late in the game for Corvette to adopt the Porsche approach.

If by retro, you mean a Mustang / VW bug type of retro, I'm glad they didn't go down that road. There are some outstanding aftermarket outfits that make some beautiful (and some not) conversions of late model vettes into various 50's and 60's designs with various degrees of coolness.

I'm not a fiend for the Transformers Stingray, but at least it is a forward looking, sleek design in most respects. Some think that concept was a good blend of retro and future. Unfortunately, it was not very aerodynamic or even practical as a production car.

IMO the Vette team gets an "A" for deciding to make a big change. Unfortunately, IMO, their design decisions and execution gets a D- from me.
 
#28 ·
If by retro, you mean a Mustang / VW bug type of retro, I'm glad they didn't go down that road. There are some outstanding aftermarket outfits that make some beautiful (and some not) conversions of late model vettes into various 50's and 60's designs with various degrees of coolness.
If you want retro, buy an old car (the real thing). All of these "conversions" are like a professional athlete in Joan Rivers body.

Kill them with fire! :nuts:
 
#31 ·
The above done properly would've been awesome.
WHERE DID YOU FIND THESE???
THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL!

(All caps on purpose)
This is the first conversion I've seen that I really like.

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

Edit:
Love this one. These guys really seem to know what they're doing.

 
#27 ·
Yes ! Absolutely correct Longtimer ! Execution is everything!

I too wanted a more revolutionary rework of the corvette icon, but with some omage to the past with some classical styling cues, but with some creativity... like..
hideaway headlamps - (not pop-ups !) creativity here
Spit window or at least a hint of it.
roundish rear lamps, but with light pipes like caddy CTS does it
clamshell hoods -
some wow and gotta have it factor.
 
#33 ·
Glad you like it Adonis. To those of us who have been looking at older vettes for decades, even the good (Karl's is excellent IMO) adaptations on C5 & C6 chassis take a bit of getting used to. The windshield rake and some of the panel proportions make your mind scream "Foul!!"

But there are some worthy attempts out there and as I said, I think this is one of the very best.

There are, of course, even more with their own unique alternative (not retro) designs, but IMO there are far more "Fails" in that group than "Worthy" designs.

Brian, I don't recall where I first ran across the Karl's Stingray, but I've admired it for a while now. I agree about the proportions. That, to me is what sets this one apart. I suspect it is much longer than the chassis upon which it is based. Look at how far it extends from the hatch terminus and the hood terminus - although the front is closer than the back. A real C2 probably looks like a toy next to it. But it looks hot!
 
#34 ·
Like it? LOVE it. This is unbelievable! I am not saying this should be the C7 but OMG, this is very Corvette. I envy you for looking older Vettes for decades. Sometimes I think how could it feel like living in the 70s or 60s. Or 80s as an adult. Those Vettes have heart. I still can't define why don't I like the c5, but when I read that GM made a global contest between the design centers to design the next Vette I was thinking about something like this. I mean with real Corvette cues.
Don't get me wrong, I like the new one too, but after looking at this Karl's... I like it as it is. I wouldn't change a thing on this.

I can really see what you mean by "after looking at older vettes for decades... " at least I think I see.
No wonder you have high expectations. And taste.
 
#35 ·
I've seen a C3 (1971 or 1972) that is really a C6 Z06 underneath and it is awsome... In many respects a better overall car than the original. Original is still "original" but we all have to admit that the newer tech, drives much better and is much easier to live with.:partyon:
 
#37 ·
Good taste stands the test of time!

For those old enough to recall, remember Charley the Tuna in the Starkist Tuna adds, Charely wanted to show Starkist that he had good taste... but they wanted tuna's to TASTE GOOD !
Seems to me these days, everyone is just loooking for tuna's with good taste and have forgotten the reality that they should taste good... like the emperor with no clothes, we are sometimes "told" that it's good and we should by it becasue it will mean we have good taste... a marketing ploy... Us older gentlemen, tend not to be swayed buy such marketing because we've been around long enough to know what is truly beautiful and why...

The "kids" will find out in about 25 years what i'm talking about... just remember... you'll be saying... geez i should have listened to my parents... they were right... about many things.
;)
 
#45 ·
The more I look at the car the more I like it, I like the front and side views. but I just don't know about the back. You can see the overall marine-influenced theme from the front and side, but the back end has no relation to the rest of the car, it's just kind of different-looking.

Is there anyone here who thinks the back of the C7 is beautiful? If you set aside your instinct to believe that a new version of anything must by default be better than the thing it replaces, you have to admit that the rear of the C6 is an example of scultped, subtle beauty.

It's a bit jarring and disappointing to see the lovely angled planes of the front of the C7 sweep around the sides and terminate in a confusing mish-mash of opposing angular shapes, all fighting for prominence with each other; it's like a geometrical war zone back there. I don't quite know what to make of it, but maybe this is what Chevrolet was going for: to leave you scratching your heard wondering what you're looking at.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top