New TVR still under wraps!
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Testarossa said:
Every man and his dog has intricate led DRLs that reflect the car's perceived image, yet we are stuck with tube lights taken from under cupboard units.
That's because, designing, testing and critically, certifying a set of complex LED based lighting units costs millions! It looks like nothing, i mean, just a bit of plastic, glass and some leds, simples right. Er, no, go to a tier1 like Hella, and you'll find massive rooms full of (expensive) engineers, using expensive software to design and test their lighting units. TVR simply can't afford those sorts of overheads on their low producton volumes!I'm taking a break from here, I swear my blood pressure has risen
Enjoy the rest of the week bears and bulls!
TVR FFF
(FIX the f
kING FRONT)El stovey said:
At the end of the day, this is what the thing looks like. How on earth did they sign off on this? This isn’t a funny angle or taken with a fish eye lens. This is it.
Stupid front. Zero road presence. Looks like a Toyota with some guest styling from Chris Bangle.
If this didn’t have a TVR badge on it, nobody would buy it.
It’s amazing. I have just read the last 30 pages of this thread.
For me, in business you must listen to your customers and take actions that show you are listening.
TVR don’t seem to be listening, if they are not listening to die hard fans with a financial interest in the form of a deposit, how are they going to fare in the real world, especially when so many people buy this type of car on looks?
I have seen the new Griff close enough to touch and sadly from the front it has very little presence.
I toyed with placing a deposit, I’m glad I didn’t. I am enjoying my Evora, it’s an actual car that I can drive today. Seems a bit odd Alex Edgar slagging off a car that is in production when he has nothing to put up against it but an ugly prototype that no reviewer is allowed to drive.
For me, in business you must listen to your customers and take actions that show you are listening.
TVR don’t seem to be listening, if they are not listening to die hard fans with a financial interest in the form of a deposit, how are they going to fare in the real world, especially when so many people buy this type of car on looks?
I have seen the new Griff close enough to touch and sadly from the front it has very little presence.
I toyed with placing a deposit, I’m glad I didn’t. I am enjoying my Evora, it’s an actual car that I can drive today. Seems a bit odd Alex Edgar slagging off a car that is in production when he has nothing to put up against it but an ugly prototype that no reviewer is allowed to drive.
twold said:
RichB said:
Strangely it looks rather like this...
Sorry the TVR is not even slightly in the same looks league as the Fezza in my book 
BJWoods said:
twold said:
RichB said:
Strangely it looks rather like this...
Sorry the TVR is not even slightly in the same looks league as the Fezza in my book twold said:
RichB said:
Strangely it looks rather like this...
Sorry the TVR is not even slightly in the same looks league as the Fezza in my book Edited by Driller on Wednesday 22 August 16:22
So it looks like it's the combination of the eyes AND the grille that people are objecting to.
Change one or the other and the result would be very different.
For instance that Ferrari above has a big chummy mouth shape if viewed in isolation but gets away with it, presumably because of the lights.
Change one or the other and the result would be very different.
For instance that Ferrari above has a big chummy mouth shape if viewed in isolation but gets away with it, presumably because of the lights.
Testarossa said:
I've just come over all emotional!
Who's up for a NEW TVR GRIFFITH ONLY meet in say 2021?
Venue: Blackpool, for obvious reasons or just a London Tunnel Run like the old days (no average speed cameras and friendly police) - it will give us a chance to look at everybody's colour and spec?
Bullitt and others not from the UK, all welcome.
I'd say other TVRs welcome too but don't really want any participants to end up in jail due to the inevitable violence that will ensue.
Too early you say. Car not even built yet I hear. They will go under soon. Hell will freeze over first..
if you also agree with the TVR accountant above, you are not welcome anyway.
Count me in ! 2021 a tad optimistic though Who's up for a NEW TVR GRIFFITH ONLY meet in say 2021?
Venue: Blackpool, for obvious reasons or just a London Tunnel Run like the old days (no average speed cameras and friendly police) - it will give us a chance to look at everybody's colour and spec?
Bullitt and others not from the UK, all welcome.
I'd say other TVRs welcome too but don't really want any participants to end up in jail due to the inevitable violence that will ensue.
Too early you say. Car not even built yet I hear. They will go under soon. Hell will freeze over first..
if you also agree with the TVR accountant above, you are not welcome anyway.
Edited by Testarossa on Wednesday 22 August 12:25
Driller said:
twold said:
RichB said:
Strangely it looks rather like this...
Sorry the TVR is not even slightly in the same looks league as the Fezza in my book Edited by Driller on Wednesday 22 August 16:22
swisstoni said:
So it looks like it's the combination of the eyes AND the grille that people are objecting to.
Change one or the other and the result would be very different.
For instance that Ferrari above has a big chummy mouth shape if viewed in isolation but gets away with it, presumably because of the lights.
The 2 big problems with the mouth IMO are:Change one or the other and the result would be very different.
For instance that Ferrari above has a big chummy mouth shape if viewed in isolation but gets away with it, presumably because of the lights.
1) the top lip which curves up from the sides giving the gormless look. It’s very subtle but if you look at the Ferrari this curve goes the other way.
2) the angles at the sides should be ideally narrower at the top and wider at the bottom to give a snarl rather than the gormless look. The Ferrari gets away with it again due to the lights, the aforementioned top lip and the fact that it’s wider. Again it’s subtle but the shading either side of the grill of the Ferrari adds to the strong face. All these things count.
Imagine the mouth of a Stormtrooper on Starwars. In fact just think of the back of the Griffith with the sides sloping from inside towards the outside. Looks much more purposeful.
Edited by Driller on Wednesday 22 August 18:24
Now I ain't no artist, but just turning the existing orifice 
upside down and making it a bit wider and already - in my eyes at least - it's looking a lot more purposeful.
Not saying it's perfect - but to me it's a bit meaner. So presumably some proper designer type bod could address the fish-mouth far better than me. ideally I'd want someone looking in their rear view mirror and thinking "wow - that thing looks like it's about to tear me a new one"; not "wow, I'm going to get gummed to death by that happy fish"..
upside down and making it a bit wider and already - in my eyes at least - it's looking a lot more purposeful.Not saying it's perfect - but to me it's a bit meaner. So presumably some proper designer type bod could address the fish-mouth far better than me. ideally I'd want someone looking in their rear view mirror and thinking "wow - that thing looks like it's about to tear me a new one"; not "wow, I'm going to get gummed to death by that happy fish"..
The problem with all this 'curving up or down at the edges' malarky comes when the third dimension, depth, is added. A perfectly straight and horizontal line that happens to turn back at the ends will appear to curve up or down at the ends depending on the relative height of the viewer. Seen from slightly above and it's a smile. Seen from slightly below and it's a scowl. That's why it's relatively easy to make it look 'better' in a one frame Microsoft Paint mock up. Quite another to make the same 'improvement' from another (or indeed all) angle/height. Still, other designers have managed it...
Most cars have a favourable angle/height from which to view and of course it's these shots that inevitably find their way into the publicity. But if you were to walk around them five times, you'd probably find a less than flattering view somewhere... just not from the front...
The problem with the Griffith is that its most favourable angles are not the primary, natural, most important and most common one, ie straight on, from a height of 5' 6"!
Most cars have a favourable angle/height from which to view and of course it's these shots that inevitably find their way into the publicity. But if you were to walk around them five times, you'd probably find a less than flattering view somewhere... just not from the front...
The problem with the Griffith is that its most favourable angles are not the primary, natural, most important and most common one, ie straight on, from a height of 5' 6"!
[quote=bullittmcqueen]
Dammit, if only they had switched on the "perspective"-button they'd never gotten into this mess !!!
Sorry, no way in hell. What is "approved with perspective turned off" supposed to mean ? If you look at the instagram account of David Seesing there were various clay-models in different sizes. The model was even shown at the the reveal. The depositors also have seen the full size model at the reveal. Does anyone honestly think they "sign-off" something based on render ????? Of course it's all done in CAD-models before you build something. And it's done on paper with pencils first. That's the only economically viable way.
Earlier TVRs were a steelframe with a plastic-skin. When it drove, you could sell. There was no crash-testing, no emissions, no aerodynamics, no nothing. There not thousands of pages of regulation concerning pedestrian crash impact, driver viewing angles, angles at which head/rear lights must be visible, resistance of materials when pedestrians hit the hood, no regulation concerning deformation of driver cells etc.
It was all freestyle back then. None of the cars would have the slightest chance of being type-approved without being fully re-engineered from the ground up.
I agree on the dullness of the face, but it's not easily changed, even if it is not structural. It clearly has the task of guiding air-flow to the brakes which results in the smiley-face. And even if one doesn't like it, it is following distinct lines and a "curve flow". Imo all of the 2D front paint-"modifications" totally underestimate the complexity of the 3d-ness of the surface. Easy to make it look "right" from the front but don't look at it from sides then.
I really don't want to be drawn into some kind of debate here, but the fact that you take issue with my comments on perspective, demonstrate clearly to me that you don't have the required experience to offer an insightful view. My point, to be clear, was that to have the required skill, the man in charge of aesthetics needs to be able to balance the quantity of development done on the screen, versus that done in reality. Or possibly virtual reality, to some degree. The latest breed of graduates, don't have the benefit of chiselling out a form, sitting in it, and arguing what to do next with people of the same schooling. This is largely irrelevant in big companies with big resources; viewing gardens and older, wiser design chiefs ensure that these required skills filter through. A small company with a young inexperienced team, in a rush, lead by someone with no experience of managing the styling process results in a car that almost looks as bad as the mid 90's Ford Granada from the front.
My actual point was that if you had a CAD model of the finished car and turned perspective off, it would much more closely resemble the tape drawing, which looks far superior in terms of fish eyes and happiness. And this demonstrates the teams immaturity as above imho.
.
quote:
Earlier TVRs were a steelframe with a plastic-skin. When it drove, you could sell. There was no crash-testing, no emissions, no aerodynamics, no nothing. There not thousands of pages of regulation concerning pedestrian crash impact, driver viewing angles, angles at which head/rear lights must be visible, resistance of materials when pedestrians hit the hood, no regulation concerning deformation of driver cells etc.
It was all freestyle back then. None of the cars would have the slightest chance of being type-approved without being fully re-engineered from the ground up.
That is complete nonsense in every regard apart from the deformation of driver cells. I suspect that no such crash testing or worthwhile FEA simulation on the new car has been done either, as it is not cost effective to do so and more crucially, not required for the approval process at the numbers currently quoted. It's a TVR with a minuscule production volume (probably one at this rate), not a Volvo V70! Legislation in any case is not an excuse for ugliness. In fact, it is the designers job to ensure the opposite despite all of the barriers imposed. That is why it is a stinker.
Peter Wheeler once said to me when I was Chief designer at TVR when I was 27, what is the point in you? When I asked him to elaborate, he said, what is the point of a car designer? My response was: to make it look pretty? No, he said. You add value. You turn a load of materials into something that people get emotional about and can't resist. So right, and so badly failed with the new car.
I can't believe I bothered writing all of that. If someone comes back with another nonsensical response, please understand that I have better thing to do then sit here writing. I am not that passionate about it anymore. I am just very mildly frustrated that the current team refuse to open their ears.
Dammit, if only they had switched on the "perspective"-button they'd never gotten into this mess !!!
Sorry, no way in hell. What is "approved with perspective turned off" supposed to mean ? If you look at the instagram account of David Seesing there were various clay-models in different sizes. The model was even shown at the the reveal. The depositors also have seen the full size model at the reveal. Does anyone honestly think they "sign-off" something based on render ????? Of course it's all done in CAD-models before you build something. And it's done on paper with pencils first. That's the only economically viable way.
Earlier TVRs were a steelframe with a plastic-skin. When it drove, you could sell. There was no crash-testing, no emissions, no aerodynamics, no nothing. There not thousands of pages of regulation concerning pedestrian crash impact, driver viewing angles, angles at which head/rear lights must be visible, resistance of materials when pedestrians hit the hood, no regulation concerning deformation of driver cells etc.
It was all freestyle back then. None of the cars would have the slightest chance of being type-approved without being fully re-engineered from the ground up.
I agree on the dullness of the face, but it's not easily changed, even if it is not structural. It clearly has the task of guiding air-flow to the brakes which results in the smiley-face. And even if one doesn't like it, it is following distinct lines and a "curve flow". Imo all of the 2D front paint-"modifications" totally underestimate the complexity of the 3d-ness of the surface. Easy to make it look "right" from the front but don't look at it from sides then.
I really don't want to be drawn into some kind of debate here, but the fact that you take issue with my comments on perspective, demonstrate clearly to me that you don't have the required experience to offer an insightful view. My point, to be clear, was that to have the required skill, the man in charge of aesthetics needs to be able to balance the quantity of development done on the screen, versus that done in reality. Or possibly virtual reality, to some degree. The latest breed of graduates, don't have the benefit of chiselling out a form, sitting in it, and arguing what to do next with people of the same schooling. This is largely irrelevant in big companies with big resources; viewing gardens and older, wiser design chiefs ensure that these required skills filter through. A small company with a young inexperienced team, in a rush, lead by someone with no experience of managing the styling process results in a car that almost looks as bad as the mid 90's Ford Granada from the front.
My actual point was that if you had a CAD model of the finished car and turned perspective off, it would much more closely resemble the tape drawing, which looks far superior in terms of fish eyes and happiness. And this demonstrates the teams immaturity as above imho.
.
quote:
Earlier TVRs were a steelframe with a plastic-skin. When it drove, you could sell. There was no crash-testing, no emissions, no aerodynamics, no nothing. There not thousands of pages of regulation concerning pedestrian crash impact, driver viewing angles, angles at which head/rear lights must be visible, resistance of materials when pedestrians hit the hood, no regulation concerning deformation of driver cells etc.
It was all freestyle back then. None of the cars would have the slightest chance of being type-approved without being fully re-engineered from the ground up.
That is complete nonsense in every regard apart from the deformation of driver cells. I suspect that no such crash testing or worthwhile FEA simulation on the new car has been done either, as it is not cost effective to do so and more crucially, not required for the approval process at the numbers currently quoted. It's a TVR with a minuscule production volume (probably one at this rate), not a Volvo V70! Legislation in any case is not an excuse for ugliness. In fact, it is the designers job to ensure the opposite despite all of the barriers imposed. That is why it is a stinker.
Peter Wheeler once said to me when I was Chief designer at TVR when I was 27, what is the point in you? When I asked him to elaborate, he said, what is the point of a car designer? My response was: to make it look pretty? No, he said. You add value. You turn a load of materials into something that people get emotional about and can't resist. So right, and so badly failed with the new car.
I can't believe I bothered writing all of that. If someone comes back with another nonsensical response, please understand that I have better thing to do then sit here writing. I am not that passionate about it anymore. I am just very mildly frustrated that the current team refuse to open their ears.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff