Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
ManFromDelmonte said:
Flemke said:
Dynamically the F12 is a real achievement, but its looks will forever ruin it.
ManFromDelmonte said:
flemke said:
The F12 is a prime example of not getting it right.
In your opinion.Having spent that much time designing things does not mean automatically that my opinions on design are right, but it does mean that those opinions are more likely to be right, or shall we say well-founded, than would be those of someone who had spent essentially no time designing anything since primary school art class. (I am not presuming that you fall into the latter category, but most people do.)
I think the point is that that 'swoosh' on the F12 is a key visual element. It dominates the eye when looking at the car, and is a core part of the design language Ferrari have adopted.
That design language, as with the mechanical ethos they've created, tries to link as much as possible with the Formula 1 team, whether it be the manettino switch on the wheel, or the 'rain light' on the rear bumper.
It works for them, as it creates an emotive connection for many - it's 'cool' they have breached the wing and are obviously 'sculpting' the airflow for additional performance. Helps make it worth the money - wind tunnels are expensive don't ya know?!
However, in isolation, it's poor visually. It's too dominant, it doesn't flow with the rest of the lines, it catches highights that jar with the rest of the body.
Add in the fact that even if it did perform it's purpose as stated by Ferrari, then it's pointless. It's not a downforce car. No owner would ever be able to tell the difference if it weren't there. Not one, regardless of if it were Mr Vettel's company car.
So, visually it's unsuccessful, and practically it serves no purpose. The fact that that can easily be ignored (or turned into a positive) by creating an emotional connection with the fact it's a Ferrari GT 'inspired by F1' doesn't make it attractive. It's attractive for very different reasons that all get conflated.
Ferrari have made a vast success out of the brand. They can make visually ugly cars that people drool over because of said implied (and overt) connection with the F1 cars. Good on them.
Not one from the modern era should be considered a design success if taken in isolation. Take the badge and marketing away and present it as the new Hyundai coupe and people wouldn't think it was a pretty thing at all.
I'm just as guilty. I know the proportions of the Rocket are awkward, with too much in the middle (with the 2nd seat cover on), yet I covet it. I see beauty in all the little details, the Gordon Murray connection, the many reports of how well detailed and thoughtful the chassis and components are, and I add them up until I see beauty in the whole. I love it, visually (and I hope that I find it meets my expectations dynamically). Catch me in a reflective mood like this morning and I wonder why I do so, as it's not pretty at all really.
That design language, as with the mechanical ethos they've created, tries to link as much as possible with the Formula 1 team, whether it be the manettino switch on the wheel, or the 'rain light' on the rear bumper.
It works for them, as it creates an emotive connection for many - it's 'cool' they have breached the wing and are obviously 'sculpting' the airflow for additional performance. Helps make it worth the money - wind tunnels are expensive don't ya know?!
However, in isolation, it's poor visually. It's too dominant, it doesn't flow with the rest of the lines, it catches highights that jar with the rest of the body.
Add in the fact that even if it did perform it's purpose as stated by Ferrari, then it's pointless. It's not a downforce car. No owner would ever be able to tell the difference if it weren't there. Not one, regardless of if it were Mr Vettel's company car.
So, visually it's unsuccessful, and practically it serves no purpose. The fact that that can easily be ignored (or turned into a positive) by creating an emotional connection with the fact it's a Ferrari GT 'inspired by F1' doesn't make it attractive. It's attractive for very different reasons that all get conflated.
Ferrari have made a vast success out of the brand. They can make visually ugly cars that people drool over because of said implied (and overt) connection with the F1 cars. Good on them.
Not one from the modern era should be considered a design success if taken in isolation. Take the badge and marketing away and present it as the new Hyundai coupe and people wouldn't think it was a pretty thing at all.
I'm just as guilty. I know the proportions of the Rocket are awkward, with too much in the middle (with the 2nd seat cover on), yet I covet it. I see beauty in all the little details, the Gordon Murray connection, the many reports of how well detailed and thoughtful the chassis and components are, and I add them up until I see beauty in the whole. I love it, visually (and I hope that I find it meets my expectations dynamically). Catch me in a reflective mood like this morning and I wonder why I do so, as it's not pretty at all really.
Crockefeller said:
Flemke.
I know you are fond of both the NSX and the Rocket yet they each split opinion WRT looks. e.g. The NSX rear overhang too long and the Rocket strangely proportioned (side view especially). Do you agree with those observations but forgive the cars because they're great to drive, or do you think they're both good looking motors?
NSX and Rocket - very different things.I know you are fond of both the NSX and the Rocket yet they each split opinion WRT looks. e.g. The NSX rear overhang too long and the Rocket strangely proportioned (side view especially). Do you agree with those observations but forgive the cars because they're great to drive, or do you think they're both good looking motors?
First thing to note about the NSX is that is has certain forms - the view of the top of the front wing as seen from the driver's seat, for example - that are absolutely stunning. Another would be the side view of the roof line:
I mean, that is a roof line.
I am not convinced that the reason that we tend to think that the rear of the NSX is too long is because it is too long, rather than simply because we are unaccustomed to seeing a rear extend quite that far. As it is, it's not really out of proportion, is it?
Let's contrast the proportionality of the NSX rear with that of the F50 rear:
The F50's rear does not come back as far, but its overall dimensions dwarf the rest of the car. In contrast, although the NSX rear comes back farther, its petiteness is consistent with the rest of the car's design.
The Rocket is another story. I agree that the rear is too bulbous:
although the whole car is so frivolous that it doesn't really matter. What one could say in its defence is that the shape of the rear indeed makes the car look more like a (comic book) rocket.
I think what drove the size of the rear was that Gordon wanted the car to be a two-seater, which necessitated placing the fuel tank(s) aft of the firewall.
A car akin to the Rocket, and which has a "purer" shape, is the Cooper T55:
In aesthetic terms alone, I'd prefer the Rocket to look like the Cooper. Nonetheless the Rocket is a lot of fun and whether it falls short of being beautiful is not in the equation.
alecmets2011 said:
As always Flemke, thanks for the replay.
I don't know if you've personally sat in a C7 corvette before, but if you haven't, don't be too quick to judge. Quality is far superior than most other American cars I've been in. Rivaling even some German offerings.
As for the Mustang. I knew it wasn't at all your type. I'm just interested to see how it sells over in the UK. Most seem to like more refined cars. While the Mustang has surely taken a leap forward in the right direction, it's not quite there yet in my opinion.
As for the F12, it's hideous. A disgrace to the Ferrari name, although most modern Ferrari are disgraces as well. At least they're consistent
I see this - overdone steering wheel, leather-covered gearstick, passenger grab-handle - and want to run a mile. Like Ferrari but in a different way, Corvette often seem to be trying too hard.I don't know if you've personally sat in a C7 corvette before, but if you haven't, don't be too quick to judge. Quality is far superior than most other American cars I've been in. Rivaling even some German offerings.
As for the Mustang. I knew it wasn't at all your type. I'm just interested to see how it sells over in the UK. Most seem to like more refined cars. While the Mustang has surely taken a leap forward in the right direction, it's not quite there yet in my opinion.
As for the F12, it's hideous. A disgrace to the Ferrari name, although most modern Ferrari are disgraces as well. At least they're consistent
Seriously, there is a lot to like about the recent Corvettes. The fact that pretty much every other modern American road car is utter crap unfortunately creates the wrong mood music. As I said above, however, if they did one in RHD, I would probably have bought it by now.
flemke said:
NSX and Rocket - very different things.
First thing to note about the NSX is that is has certain forms - the view of the top of the front wing as seen from the driver's seat, for example - that are absolutely stunning. Another would be the side view of the roof line:
I mean, that is a roof line.
I am not convinced that the reason that we tend to think that the rear of the NSX is too long is because it is too long, rather than simply because we are unaccustomed to seeing a rear extend quite that far. As it is, it's not really out of proportion, is it?
Let's contrast the proportionality of the NSX rear with that of the F50 rear:
The F50's rear does not come back as far, but its overall dimensions dwarf the rest of the car. In contrast, although the NSX rear comes back farther, its petiteness is consistent with the rest of the car's design.
The Rocket is another story. I agree that the rear is too bulbous:
although the whole car is so frivolous that it doesn't really matter. What one could say in its defence is that the shape of the rear indeed makes the car look more like a (comic book) rocket.
I think what drove the size of the rear was that Gordon wanted the car to be a two-seater, which necessitated placing the fuel tank(s) aft of the firewall.
A car akin to the Rocket, and which has a "purer" shape, is the Cooper T55:
In aesthetic terms alone, I'd prefer the Rocket to look like the Cooper. Nonetheless the Rocket is a lot of fun and whether it falls short of being beautiful is not in the equation.
Thanks. Agree totally on the NSX. It doesn't look at all out of proportion in that side view of the car. Spot on about the front wing from the drivers seat too, perfect!First thing to note about the NSX is that is has certain forms - the view of the top of the front wing as seen from the driver's seat, for example - that are absolutely stunning. Another would be the side view of the roof line:
I mean, that is a roof line.
I am not convinced that the reason that we tend to think that the rear of the NSX is too long is because it is too long, rather than simply because we are unaccustomed to seeing a rear extend quite that far. As it is, it's not really out of proportion, is it?
Let's contrast the proportionality of the NSX rear with that of the F50 rear:
The F50's rear does not come back as far, but its overall dimensions dwarf the rest of the car. In contrast, although the NSX rear comes back farther, its petiteness is consistent with the rest of the car's design.
The Rocket is another story. I agree that the rear is too bulbous:
although the whole car is so frivolous that it doesn't really matter. What one could say in its defence is that the shape of the rear indeed makes the car look more like a (comic book) rocket.
I think what drove the size of the rear was that Gordon wanted the car to be a two-seater, which necessitated placing the fuel tank(s) aft of the firewall.
A car akin to the Rocket, and which has a "purer" shape, is the Cooper T55:
In aesthetic terms alone, I'd prefer the Rocket to look like the Cooper. Nonetheless the Rocket is a lot of fun and whether it falls short of being beautiful is not in the equation.
The picture you use for the Rocket is my favourite view of the car actually, it's the side view that I find most difficult. Like you say, at least there is a reason it has a big bum
E65Ross said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
flemke said:
It often seems that about 90% of the population has below-average intelligence
So basically anyone who doesn't share your opinion is thick? 
evenflow said:
Hi flemke,
As a fan of pinstriping, what do you think of this?
I think it works quite well.
I agree with you on the design (a pity that the shape of the diffuser is not a bit more like the other shapes of the car, but one trusts that it is that way for a reason!). As a fan of pinstriping, what do you think of this?
I think it works quite well.
The colours I am less sure of. I'm not a fan of matte black for the body surfaces. Whenever I see it, either apparently in paint or apparently in vinyl, I get the sense that the owner was trying to say, "Hey, look at me - aren't I cool in my matte black car!", rather than thinking about what actually would look good. Same thing, I suppose, as when people dye their hair green.
chris333 said:
Just to help along the discussion on the NS-X rear overhang, here's a slightly shorter one:
personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
Perfect illustration of the point, thank you. personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
Eta: I reckon you have taken about 4" out of the rear overhang. That does not seem like a lot, but what a difference it makes.
Edited by flemke on Sunday 1st March 13:05
chris333 said:
Just to help along the discussion on the NS-X rear overhang, here's a slightly shorter one:
personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
Those proportions just dont look right, lack of balance front to rear particularly compared to the actual car, and I don't generally like long overhangs. personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
Sway said:
I think the point is that that 'swoosh' on the F12 is a key visual element. It dominates the eye when looking at the car, and is a core part of the design language Ferrari have adopted.
That design language, as with the mechanical ethos they've created, tries to link as much as possible with the Formula 1 team, whether it be the manettino switch on the wheel, or the 'rain light' on the rear bumper.
It works for them, as it creates an emotive connection for many - it's 'cool' they have breached the wing and are obviously 'sculpting' the airflow for additional performance. Helps make it worth the money - wind tunnels are expensive don't ya know?!
However, in isolation, it's poor visually. It's too dominant, it doesn't flow with the rest of the lines, it catches highights that jar with the rest of the body.
Add in the fact that even if it did perform it's purpose as stated by Ferrari, then it's pointless. It's not a downforce car. No owner would ever be able to tell the difference if it weren't there. Not one, regardless of if it were Mr Vettel's company car.
So, visually it's unsuccessful, and practically it serves no purpose. The fact that that can easily be ignored (or turned into a positive) by creating an emotional connection with the fact it's a Ferrari GT 'inspired by F1' doesn't make it attractive. It's attractive for very different reasons that all get conflated.
Ferrari have made a vast success out of the brand. They can make visually ugly cars that people drool over because of said implied (and overt) connection with the F1 cars. Good on them.
Not one from the modern era should be considered a design success if taken in isolation. Take the badge and marketing away and present it as the new Hyundai coupe and people wouldn't think it was a pretty thing at all.
I'm just as guilty. I know the proportions of the Rocket are awkward, with too much in the middle (with the 2nd seat cover on), yet I covet it. I see beauty in all the little details, the Gordon Murray connection, the many reports of how well detailed and thoughtful the chassis and components are, and I add them up until I see beauty in the whole. I love it, visually (and I hope that I find it meets my expectations dynamically). Catch me in a reflective mood like this morning and I wonder why I do so, as it's not pretty at all really.
You make many good points.That design language, as with the mechanical ethos they've created, tries to link as much as possible with the Formula 1 team, whether it be the manettino switch on the wheel, or the 'rain light' on the rear bumper.
It works for them, as it creates an emotive connection for many - it's 'cool' they have breached the wing and are obviously 'sculpting' the airflow for additional performance. Helps make it worth the money - wind tunnels are expensive don't ya know?!
However, in isolation, it's poor visually. It's too dominant, it doesn't flow with the rest of the lines, it catches highights that jar with the rest of the body.
Add in the fact that even if it did perform it's purpose as stated by Ferrari, then it's pointless. It's not a downforce car. No owner would ever be able to tell the difference if it weren't there. Not one, regardless of if it were Mr Vettel's company car.
So, visually it's unsuccessful, and practically it serves no purpose. The fact that that can easily be ignored (or turned into a positive) by creating an emotional connection with the fact it's a Ferrari GT 'inspired by F1' doesn't make it attractive. It's attractive for very different reasons that all get conflated.
Ferrari have made a vast success out of the brand. They can make visually ugly cars that people drool over because of said implied (and overt) connection with the F1 cars. Good on them.
Not one from the modern era should be considered a design success if taken in isolation. Take the badge and marketing away and present it as the new Hyundai coupe and people wouldn't think it was a pretty thing at all.
I'm just as guilty. I know the proportions of the Rocket are awkward, with too much in the middle (with the 2nd seat cover on), yet I covet it. I see beauty in all the little details, the Gordon Murray connection, the many reports of how well detailed and thoughtful the chassis and components are, and I add them up until I see beauty in the whole. I love it, visually (and I hope that I find it meets my expectations dynamically). Catch me in a reflective mood like this morning and I wonder why I do so, as it's not pretty at all really.
How ironic that Ferrari are striving so hard to create visual associations between their road cars and their F1 cars, when it is widely agreed that current F1 cars are amongst the ugliest there have ever been.
chris333 said:
Just to help along the discussion on the NS-X rear overhang, here's a slightly shorter one:
personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
That's because the front overhang is also too long, reduce that and the NSX might work aesthetically for me, functionally I'm sure it's great.personally, I'm sticking with Honda's design.
Now this is a tightly packaged mid engined car:
This is hideous (ignoring the black wheels ;-) and bodykit):
How Mr F can think it's remotely acceptable I simply don't know. And that massive bottom only houses a transverse 3.2 V6, I can only think that the need to accomodate 4 sets of golf clubs blighted it thus.
flemke said:
hurstg01 said:
buckle88 said:
I don't suppose anyone has any information about that red and white F1 that was flipped/hit a tree on the F1 rally a while back?
Just seen a picture of the crash again and wondered if it had been repaired?
Thanks
Its not yet repaired Just seen a picture of the crash again and wondered if it had been repaired?
Thanks
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff