C7 Rear - HERE IT IS!

[Longtimer]

OK, Let's recap:

Obviously, GM is very guarded about the corvette. They were very upset when the Jalopnik rendering came out, but realized there was nothing they could do about it at the time, so they issued a statement declaring it was not the C7. We see new renderings and design images almost every week. The Jalopnik rendering was the only rendering for which GM has ever issued an official statement denying it is the C7. Motor Trend just printed their (completely wrong) rendering and MT is a much bigger player than Jalopnik. GM ignored the MT rendering.

Patrick and others had seen the C7 PRIOR to the posting of the Jalopnik renderings and after the posting confirmed Jalopnik.

Omega Tooling, in a colossal screw up, labeled a promotional video as C6 when it was actually CAD and pics of the C7 tooling for the front and rear fascia. Shown clearly in the video, is the actual metal tooling for the rear fascia as it was being machined. GM and Omega immediately tried to pull the video back - even issued threatening communications. Following this debacle, GM sent terse, even threatening communications to all of the key C7 suppliers about plugging leaks and being more guarded about C7 information.

Whether independently or just copying Jalopnik is unknown, but Car & Driver has printed their own renderings of the rear and side of the C7 that agree with Jalopnik. Autoweek and Automobile have also published other renderings that agree with Jalopnik.

Although we have yet to see a naked C7 spy pic, we have seen parts of the C7 naked in the spy pics. We know the the mirrors, the wheels, the side window on the B pillar, the shape of the hatch, and much of the the rear fascia (exhaust surround & outer edge vents) on the Spy Pics are all as Jalopnik presents them. We know there is nothing in any of the spy pics that is in direct conflict with the Jalopnik renderings.

We know someone on another forum posted a LOT of detailed information about the C7 (some info consistent with rumors we've heard) in addition to several CAD drawings, citing an inside source. The CAD of the rear is in agreement with the Jalopnik renderings. Soon after the CAD drawings were posted, they were pulled and there were no more posts from that person. Clearly the result of the wrath of GM.

For those of us who have known Patrick f(the founder of DC) or many years, we needed no proof beyond his statement that the Jalopnik rendering is the high performance C7 model that he has seen. To us, the rest is simply gravy.

If you choose not to believe that the Jalopnik rendering is an accurate, fairly detailed depiction of the C7, that is your choice. Come 1/13/13 you will see that all of the evidence above (and more) is correct .... not some elaborate concoction costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions spent to mislead or misdirect.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Dadman1950

Looks like I need to set the record straight.

Firstly, relax, I meant no harm. Maybe "hero" was too strong a word, but I only used it as figure of speech. And I know what a real hero is, I come form a military family, though due to unfortunate circumstances in my life, I was not able to follow suit. My grandfather is one of those real heroes as well. But I digress. I was also not trying to say you were right, wrong, or anything else about your claims themselves (related to the lights), but simply that making claims that you are right and that we should all remember were we heard it is not a good idea. That's all. Now, in the words of a recently departed, and not-so-wise man; "can't we all just get along?"
But I totally agree with your later statement/question about who on DC has seen the C7 and what have they said. I knew Patrick had seen it, but others have been making it seem like he was not the only one (I can't say about other forums, DC is the only Corvette specific one I visit). Seeing the responses to your question does not really cement anything over for me. Also, I have read the GM responses to the leaked renderings and video, and while it is telling that they bitched about some and not others, they really did not seem that threatening. The one from Omega Tooling themselves was stronger then GM's. And hearing that Patrick saw the C7 BEFORE the Jalopnik rendering also makes my theory (as in potential, not swearing to it, just a theory) that GM has had time to change the rear fascia since then, and maybe has, in response to all the moaning that occurred after those leaks. And as far as, "We know there is nothing in any of the spy pics that is in direct conflict with the Jalopnik renderings," I say, uhh, yeah there is. The pics I have highlighted on here before that show round lights under the camo and covers of recent prototypes. But as I said then, for all we know it's the sawzalled back end off of a C6 that they strapped on to screw with us. But it is "in direct conflict with the Jalopnik renderings." I still say, NONE of us know for sure what it is going to be; not even Patrick, since he saw it so long ago (remember, it has been a bit over a year now). The people who have seen the final, or almost final version, are not talking. I hope they did change it from what the rendering shows, but though I stand behind what I see on those prototypes I have mentioned, I don't want to claim that that is what is going to be on the final car; it could be anything. For all we know they turned the whole back into a giant tail light, like Chrysler did with the new Charger. Wouldn't that be something

[Longtimer]

Originally Posted by Enginerd

But it is "in direct conflict with the Jalopnik renderings." I still say, NONE of us know for sure what it is going to be; not even Patrick, since he saw it so long ago (remember, it has been a bit over a year now).

If you ever want an interesting read about what it takes to get a corvette into production, read "All Corvettes are Red." It's a very inside look at what it took to get the C5 into production. Because purchasing has to send all of the parts out for final bid in order to nail down the cost of the car long before tooling is ordered for production, the design of the entire car had to have been finalized about two years ago.

Granted that because the C7 taillights appear to be in bezels that attach to the rear fascia, what is within the bezels could changed within that window. However, we have already heard that GM knows these taillights are not being accepted well, and their reaction was, "Too bad. They'll get used to them."

For anyone at GM to question the design this late in the process to the extent of changing it and ordering new parts ... this would have severe fallout on those who had made the decision to go forward with the design in the first place.

Tage, Welburn and Peters are still there and will be, as long as the C7 with the camaro taillights sells well.

[Enginerd]

Longtimer, all very true... back in 1997. The process has been streamlined much better now then it was back then. No miracles of course, we are still talking about GM, but it has been improved. And if GM wants/needs something fast tracked, they have the resources to do so. I completely agree that it is not a simple and fast process, and the more complicated or extensive the change, the more complicated and time consuming the process of making the change. But tail lights and/or the rear fascia is not a major change. A year is enough time, as long as they wanted it done and pushed it through. And we do not know if the "they'll get over it" comment was actually in line with what they really feel. Maybe it was spin, maybe it was a foot-in-mouth moment just from that particular person, we don't know right now, but we'll know in January.

Oh, and here's another theory. The renderings and Omega video shows that the lights are/were designed as a bezel assembly, and that the Jalopnik rendering is based on what the hi-po version is supposed to look like. Remember the bitching about the C4 ZR1; how people didn't like that it looked too much like the standard version for the cost premium? What if they intend, at least as of then, to have a more traditional looking assembly for the base version and those ridiculous things are/were meant to be one of the things to differentiate the base car from the hi-po car? That, as well as the export market would make a bezel style design make a lot of sense. Just another 2 cents.

[Longtimer]

Originally Posted by Enginerd

Oh, and here's another theory. The renderings and Omega video shows that the lights are/were designed as a bezel assembly, and that the Jalopnik rendering is based on what the hi-po version is supposed to look like. Remember the bitching about the C4 ZR1; how people didn't like that it looked too much like the standard version for the cost premium? What if they intend, at least as of then, to have a more traditional looking assembly for the base version and those ridiculous things are/were meant to be one of the things to differentiate the base car from the hi-po car? That, as well as the export market would make a bezel style design make a lot of sense. Just another 2 cents.

Yep, that occurred to me too. I think I posted a rump roast rendering long ago with round lenses and Chris applied some round lenses in place of the entire bezel shape, wiping out the tear drops. Much better looking IMO.

Alternative Bezels & lenses are a possibility but not alternatively designed rear fascias, IMO. Far too costly for the low production Vette & Z??. Therefore, the bezel shape must be consistent with that of the Jalopnik rendering of the Z??, the Omega Tooling, and the CAD pic we've seen. You can't just erase those tear drops at the outside corners of the bezels. Welburn and Peters have burned those into all C7s IMO. To try to cover them with something body colored would look almost as bad and cheap up close as the tear drops themselves.

I tried to create a bezel in paint that would fit in the footprint of the camaro-ized HP bezel but have more traditional taillights. But the only thing that will work is either little tiny circle lenses or VERY low, wide oval shapes. Given that tear drop shaped bezel, both are extremely inconsistent with the rest of the fascia "design." Completely round taillights would be just too small for decent illumination. The ovals might illuminate reasonbly well, but would immediately recall the C5 and would not match the "theme" of the rear fascia design.

All of the above that is not fact (lots of facts there), is my opinion. I donnot pretend to speak for the entire forum, any group of likeminded members or anyone else.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by Longtimer

Yep, that occurred to me too. I think I posted a rump roast rendering long ago with round lenses and Chris applied some round lenses in place of the entire bezel shape, wiping out the tear drops. Much better looking IMO.

Alternative Bezels & lenses are a possibility but not alternatively designed rear fascias, IMO. Far too costly for the low production Vette & Z??. Therefore, the bezel shape must be consistent with that of the Jalopnik rendering of the Z??, the Omega Tooling, and the CAD pic we've seen. You can't just erase those tear drops at the outside corners of the bezels. Welburn and Peters have burned those into all C7s IMO. To try to cover them with something body colored would look almost as bad and cheap up close as the tear drops themselves.

I tried to create a bezel in paint that would fit in the footprint of the camaro-ized HP bezel but have more traditional taillights. But the only thing that will work is either little tiny circle lenses or VERY low, wide oval shapes. Given that tear drop shaped bezel, both are extremely inconsistent with the rest of the fascia "design." Completely round taillights would be just too small for decent illumination. The ovals might illuminate reasonbly well, but would immediately recall the C5 and would not match the "theme" of the rear fascia design.

All of the above that is not fact (lots of facts there), is my opinion. I donnot pretend to speak for the entire forum, any group of likeminded members or anyone else.

Also all true and possible. I would like to know one thing that has a huge bearing on all of these ideas. How much does it cost, and long does it take, to make those molds that we saw in the Omega video? I know it's a lot, of course, but is it really so expensive and time consuming that GM would not do it? Does anyone here on DC have real experience in this area (even if in a non-automotive industry) or know someone who does? Can anyone give us an idea of the real cost to GM and Omega to toss the mold we saw into the scrap pile? I do have a little cad experience, so I know the design aspect of redoing them would be fairly minimal, relatively speaking. How about DC community, help us out.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

Uh no. He asked a question and I answered it.

I quoted you but i was referring to the others

[Dadman1950]

From Longtimer >>

Obviously, GM is very guarded about the corvette. They were very upset when the Jalopnik rendering came out, but realized there was nothing they could do about it at the time, so they issued a statement declaring it was not the C7. We see new renderings and design images almost every week. The Jalopnik rendering was the only rendering for which GM has ever issued an official statement denying it is the C7. Motor Trend just printed their (completely wrong) rendering and MT is a much bigger player than Jalopnik. GM ignored the MT rendering.

Patrick and others had seen the C7 PRIOR to the posting of the Jalopnik renderings and after the posting confirmed Jalopnik.

<<

Thank you Longtimer. That is the first time I have seen a complete statement as to who if anyone has in fact seen the car and also a recap of the how some of the information got out. I appreciate the facts in your post and it gives me a better understanding of where some are coming from.
Nevertheless I am still staying with my thoughts on the rear design.
I know very well what it takes to get a car into production at GM and not from reading the book All Corvettes are Red which I have read more than once.

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by Dadman1950

... Nevertheless I am still staying with my thoughts on the rear design.

At least you now better understand some of our statements. Keep in mind that NONE of them were meant to be cruel or combative in anyway.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

Keep in mind that NONE of them were meant to be cruel or combative in anyway.

Speak for yourself ya pussy

[Dadman1950]

Originally Posted by Junkman2008

At least you now better understand some of our statements. Keep in mind that NONE of them were meant to be cruel or combative in anyway.

I understand completely. What is said doesn't bother me at all. This is a forum. I expect it. And even knowing that "supposedly" some have seen it I still stand by my prediction.

[Longtimer]

Those who still doubt the rear fascia / taillights should have a look at pody 59 on this thread:

http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/foru...93#post1995593

[Junkman2008]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Speak for yourself ya pussy

[YellowBlur07]

Originally Posted by Longtimer

However, we have already heard that GM knows these taillights are not being accepted well, and their reaction was, "Too bad. They'll get used to them."

For anyone at GM to question the design this late in the process to the extent of changing it and ordering new parts ... this would have severe fallout on those who had made the decision to go forward with the design in the first place.

Tage, Welburn and Peters are still there and will be, as long as the C7 with the camaro taillights sells well.

It can cost millions to redesign something as simple as a taillight. It's shape may no longer fit the hole it was designed for in the bumper. So the bumper has to be redesigned, which might affect aerodynamics, or how the bumper or light is attached. Making a die is NOT cheap even in the now modern CAD and CNC Mill days.

BTW: There's a reason GM went bankrupt. They couldn't admit their mistakes. (And by the looks of the Chevy Volt sales they still haven't learned their lesson.)

[Longtimer]

Originally Posted by YellowBlur07

It can cost millions to redesign something as simple as a taillight. It's shape may no longer fit the hole it was designed for in the bumper. So the bumper has to be redesigned, which might affect aerodynamics, or how the bumper or light is attached. Making a die is NOT cheap even in the now modern CAD and CNC Mill days.

BTW: There's a reason GM went bankrupt. They couldn't admit their mistakes. (And by the looks of the Chevy Volt sales they still haven't learned their lesson.)