New TVR still under wraps!
Discussion
Fixed the quotes for the post by GB8CH above:
bullittmcqueen said:
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.
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.
GB8CH said:
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.
.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.
bullittmcqueen said:
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.
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.
GB8CH said:
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.
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.
There is another car on the road at the moment that actually has similar bonnet line and headlights but looks bloody gorgeous because it has a far sexier mouth. Come on TVR, listen to people. Most dislike the front end, a few don't mind it and fewer still actually like it. I haven' heard ANYONE say they LOVE it!
Here's what you could have done....
Here's what you could have done....
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
@GB8CH
First, to make that clear, no offense intended, none taken. Appreciate your post. Debates are what this forum is for.
I understand from your post that you have been chief designer at TVR which qualifies you at lot more than me, no doubt. Still i beg to differ regarding some points. I also think my initial reply included answers to two posts and they got mixed up.
You make two points:
Visuals:
Sorry, i totally don't get what you want to say with "turning off perspective". Yes, the tape drawing looks better, it has sharper contrast, is edgier. But how does that help, they cannot turn of 3d for the real car either. Or do you mean that they should have made it in 3d look more like the 2d tape drawing ? If that's the case, i'm with you.
The "consensus" seems to be, that it looks better in reality but not screen/pictures. So how would have having done "more in reality" altered that perception ? Maybe the opposite is true, they should have looked more at photos of it.
They took two years in the design process, this is hardly a rush. They've been looking at all TVR models so far in existence, tried to determine unique TVR traits. They have seen first as drawings/sketches to determine direction, CAD-models/renders on a screen, then as various clay models of different sizes. Then a full size foam/whatever body, then the reveal prototype.
I bet there were probably at least a dozen people involved at all stages of the process, with endless reviews, all the time. From any angle, on paper, on screen, as a model. Designers, engineers, TVR, GM-people. I'm also sure they've looked in detail at loads of other cars they are competing against.
My point is:
They have looked at it thousands of times from all angles, perspectives in 2d/3d/VR on screen, paper, reality. It is what they wanted it to be. No magic button or render setting would have changed that. They didn't "overlook" anything. There was no point of no-return.
Technical issues:
To my knowledge TVR is going for a EC SSTA approval. I am not a lawyer and this is too much work (although a few months ago i spent a few hours looking at it out of sheer interest) but as per DIRECTIVE 2007/46/EC small series type approval requires fulfillment of at list of things.
Your post prompted me to re-look at it again and you are right, i stand corrected. I've been reading it wrong all the time. These requirements are not applicable for SSTA (at least per my current understanding and for the version i was reading):
53. Frontal impact 96/79/EC L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 7. N/A
54. Side impact 96/27/EC L 169, 8.7.1996, p. 1. N/A
58. Pedestrian protection 2003/102/EC L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 15. N/A
Still, Les said, there was mandatory crash-testing to be done, part in simulation, but part with real car !? Anyone knows where that fits in ?
He also said, they were eying US-approval and i am very sure that crash-simulation was part of the design process from the beginning on. As was advanced air-flow simulation for downforce/lift calculations and simulations of structural rigidity.
My comments regarding no crash-testing, no emissions, etc. were basically a rant, a bit out of context and at best a relative comparison. But 30 year old cars and the design process are in no way comparable to todays requirements, especially not for small manufacturers. I stand by that. Until 1984! seatbelts were not legally required on the backseats of cars in Germany. It was a different era, but you're more qualified to shed some light on the design-process of the TVRs of old.
But the point i was trying to make, was about someone's comment saying that "not much" (yours?) would be required to change the front and i sincerely believe that is not the case, even if it is not structural. The smile is obviously there to have the surface below the smile guide air to the brake openings. If you reverse the smile, you'd lose a lot of the "redirection surface", probably alter downforce and the balance of the car at speed.
So reversing the smile will possibly even concern the underfloor aero thing as well, leading to serious reengineering effort/validation regarding air-flow, impact cooling. This will take a lot of time and will be pretty expensive.
Also, however dull one might find it, it's pretty "designed" in the way lines and edges flow, ratios and surfaces are connected etc. Changes to to just one aspect of it, might bring another kind of imbalance to it.
No easy way out.
First, to make that clear, no offense intended, none taken. Appreciate your post. Debates are what this forum is for.
I understand from your post that you have been chief designer at TVR which qualifies you at lot more than me, no doubt. Still i beg to differ regarding some points. I also think my initial reply included answers to two posts and they got mixed up.
You make two points:
Visuals:
Sorry, i totally don't get what you want to say with "turning off perspective". Yes, the tape drawing looks better, it has sharper contrast, is edgier. But how does that help, they cannot turn of 3d for the real car either. Or do you mean that they should have made it in 3d look more like the 2d tape drawing ? If that's the case, i'm with you.
The "consensus" seems to be, that it looks better in reality but not screen/pictures. So how would have having done "more in reality" altered that perception ? Maybe the opposite is true, they should have looked more at photos of it.
They took two years in the design process, this is hardly a rush. They've been looking at all TVR models so far in existence, tried to determine unique TVR traits. They have seen first as drawings/sketches to determine direction, CAD-models/renders on a screen, then as various clay models of different sizes. Then a full size foam/whatever body, then the reveal prototype.
I bet there were probably at least a dozen people involved at all stages of the process, with endless reviews, all the time. From any angle, on paper, on screen, as a model. Designers, engineers, TVR, GM-people. I'm also sure they've looked in detail at loads of other cars they are competing against.
My point is:
They have looked at it thousands of times from all angles, perspectives in 2d/3d/VR on screen, paper, reality. It is what they wanted it to be. No magic button or render setting would have changed that. They didn't "overlook" anything. There was no point of no-return.
Technical issues:
To my knowledge TVR is going for a EC SSTA approval. I am not a lawyer and this is too much work (although a few months ago i spent a few hours looking at it out of sheer interest) but as per DIRECTIVE 2007/46/EC small series type approval requires fulfillment of at list of things.
Your post prompted me to re-look at it again and you are right, i stand corrected. I've been reading it wrong all the time. These requirements are not applicable for SSTA (at least per my current understanding and for the version i was reading):
53. Frontal impact 96/79/EC L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 7. N/A
54. Side impact 96/27/EC L 169, 8.7.1996, p. 1. N/A
58. Pedestrian protection 2003/102/EC L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 15. N/A
Still, Les said, there was mandatory crash-testing to be done, part in simulation, but part with real car !? Anyone knows where that fits in ?
He also said, they were eying US-approval and i am very sure that crash-simulation was part of the design process from the beginning on. As was advanced air-flow simulation for downforce/lift calculations and simulations of structural rigidity.
My comments regarding no crash-testing, no emissions, etc. were basically a rant, a bit out of context and at best a relative comparison. But 30 year old cars and the design process are in no way comparable to todays requirements, especially not for small manufacturers. I stand by that. Until 1984! seatbelts were not legally required on the backseats of cars in Germany. It was a different era, but you're more qualified to shed some light on the design-process of the TVRs of old.
But the point i was trying to make, was about someone's comment saying that "not much" (yours?) would be required to change the front and i sincerely believe that is not the case, even if it is not structural. The smile is obviously there to have the surface below the smile guide air to the brake openings. If you reverse the smile, you'd lose a lot of the "redirection surface", probably alter downforce and the balance of the car at speed.
So reversing the smile will possibly even concern the underfloor aero thing as well, leading to serious reengineering effort/validation regarding air-flow, impact cooling. This will take a lot of time and will be pretty expensive.
Also, however dull one might find it, it's pretty "designed" in the way lines and edges flow, ratios and surfaces are connected etc. Changes to to just one aspect of it, might bring another kind of imbalance to it.
No easy way out.
GB8CH said:
Big interesting post
Hello GB, another really interesting post and I think adds lots of value to this thread to have someone with your prior direct TVR involvement. Cheeky question.. Do you have any sketches of future TVR models that potentially could have made it from sketch to reality, before the close? Could you share them with us on this thread?
If there are any it would be fascinating to look at now!
Edited by m4tti on Thursday 23 August 13:38
This angle and ‘colour’ are much better.
The front needs to be slightly lower imo (Top Gear also made the same comment)..which I’m pretty sure will be addressed once the final design has been ‘signed off’. 25mm would do it.
The headlights also need to be encased all way around by the bonnet bodywork..and replace the day-time running ‘bar’ with tiny ‘LEDs’.
Smoke the headlight case..just very slightly.
I also agree with a prior comment that the air intakes / slats underneath each headlight would look much better painted in body-colour.
And finally a decent (horizontal slats..with honeycomb behind) grill with Griffith emblem sat just above the no-plate.
Job done !!!
I made the comment to TVR that the underlights bit would look 'better' to some body coloured. And that was definitely being considered.. IE not a physical change.
Though on a dark coloured car you may not need/want to.. the purple wrap looked great. And this area did not stand out so much
Though on a dark coloured car you may not need/want to.. the purple wrap looked great. And this area did not stand out so much
BJWoods said:
I made the comment to TVR that the underlights bit would look 'better' to some body coloured. And that was definitely being considered.. IE not a physical change.
Though on a dark coloured car you may not need/want to.. the purple wrap looked great. And this area did not stand out so much
The lights need to be encased all way round (although I "get" that it maybe a nod to T350 cars)...and would look a lot slicker imo.Though on a dark coloured car you may not need/want to.. the purple wrap looked great. And this area did not stand out so much
I'm not a fan of the purple wrap...I'd like to see it in a pearlescent silver..with lots of tiny rainbow sparkley bits).
Also maybe a slat or vent on the bonnet would give a lot more aggression...but not sure if that's overkill....
Agree the mouth looks empty.. a slotted grille. Horizontal slats. Or cross slats. Pepper pot, hexagons. To fill the mouth, would help the look for those that don't like the mouth.. and a place to fix a TVR badge and the number plate.. it currently looks a bit like they haven't put the grille in yet and is empty mouthed.. none of that is a physical change. Just an addition. Slats can direct air if needed. Or be cosmetic (plus protect) internals from stone damage . I have previously suggested this to TVR. And there was some talk ages ago, about what sort of grille they would have. (I'll try to find the article)
So unsure if that is the final grille or not..
(try removing the grille from an AMG, or an Aston and you'd get a similar empty mouth look)
Though I'd take delivery personally as is!! Hurry up
Actually,look at the Portofino picture. It's mouth is filled with a grille. And the badge mounted on the grille. Imagine he Portofino with the grille removed.
Have TVR just left the 'teeth' out, to be put in later? Might even be an optional style, slatted, vertical, horizontal bars, pepperpot, hexagonal, etc. Body coloured or not. Chromed or carbon or not.
So unsure if that is the final grille or not..
(try removing the grille from an AMG, or an Aston and you'd get a similar empty mouth look)
Though I'd take delivery personally as is!! Hurry up
Actually,look at the Portofino picture. It's mouth is filled with a grille. And the badge mounted on the grille. Imagine he Portofino with the grille removed.
Have TVR just left the 'teeth' out, to be put in later? Might even be an optional style, slatted, vertical, horizontal bars, pepperpot, hexagonal, etc. Body coloured or not. Chromed or carbon or not.
Edited by BJWoods on Thursday 23 August 14:11
Edited by BJWoods on Thursday 23 August 14:14
BJWoods said:
Agree the mouth looks empty.. a slotted grille. Horizontal slats. Or cross slats. Peper pot, hot hexagons. To fill the mouth, would help the look for those that don't like the mouth.. and a place to fix s TVR badge and the number plate.. it currently looks a bit like they haven't put the grille in yet and is empty mouthed.. none of that is a physical change. Just an addition. Slats can direct air if needed. Or be cosmetic (plus protect) internals from stone damage . I have previously suggested this to TVR. And there was some talk ages ago, about what sort of grille they would have. (I'll try to find the article)
So unsure if that is the final grille or not..
(try removing the grille from an AMG, or an Aston and you'd get a similar empty mouth look)
Though I'd take delivery personally as is!! Hurry up
Actually,look at the Portofino picture. It's mouth is filled with a grille. And the badge mounted on the grille. Imagine he Portofino with the grille removed.
Have TVR just left the 'teeth' out, to be put in later? Might even be an optional style, slatted, vertical, horizontal bars, pepperpot, hexagonal, etc. Body coloured or not. Chromed or carbon or not.
Agree on all points...would be interested to see ur prose/article with TVR debating what sort of grill..So unsure if that is the final grille or not..
(try removing the grille from an AMG, or an Aston and you'd get a similar empty mouth look)
Though I'd take delivery personally as is!! Hurry up
Actually,look at the Portofino picture. It's mouth is filled with a grille. And the badge mounted on the grille. Imagine he Portofino with the grille removed.
Have TVR just left the 'teeth' out, to be put in later? Might even be an optional style, slatted, vertical, horizontal bars, pepperpot, hexagonal, etc. Body coloured or not. Chromed or carbon or not.
Edited by BJWoods on Thursday 23 August 14:11
This car is soooooo close to being 'perfection'.....
spagbogdog said:
GB8CH said:
bullittmcqueen said:
Peter Wheeler once said to me when I was Chief designer at TVR....
GB8CH..which cars did you design..can you tell us...??(If i'm not mistaken. I think there are some initials hidden in his nick, you do the googling. Looks like i committed a sacrilege
). Edited by bullittmcqueen on Thursday 23 August 15:37
bullittmcqueen said:
spagbogdog said:
GB8CH said:
bullittmcqueen said:
Peter Wheeler once said to me when I was Chief designer at TVR....
GB8CH..which cars did you design..can you tell us...??(If i'm not mistaken. I think there are some initials hidden in his nick, you do the googling. Looks like i committed a sacrilege
). Edited by bullittmcqueen on Thursday 23 August 15:37
Would I be right in saying that most of the "more vocal" criticisms come from Sag owners...(no problem with that...maybe they're a different breed)...
spagbogdog said:
I'll join your sacrilege then Bullitt...was never a huge fan of the Sagaris (although I "get" the appeal)...much prefer the Griffith that I have..smooth lines..great proportions..and much less of an "Essex-Boy" image...
Would I be right in saying that most of the "more vocal" criticisms come from Sag owners...(no problem with that...maybe they're a different breed)...
Strange but I was never that taken with the Griffith - just too 'rounded'. The natural colour was probably pink with big yellow spots.Would I be right in saying that most of the "more vocal" criticisms come from Sag owners...(no problem with that...maybe they're a different breed)...
The Sagaris was fine, and I'd have had no complaints if the new car came close.
But the Cerbera was the high-water mark. Perfect, stunning, mean but elegant from every angle.
I think the only thing we agree on is most of the new Griff is fine. It's just the guppy mouth
Maybe give it a Cerbera-style crossbar or something.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff