New TVR still under wraps!
Discussion
Testarossa said:
spagbogdog said:
Testarossa said:
I am sure you are right and artists are not engineers etc.
But smaller wheels, more of a clearance etc etc - it would not harm the looks that much surely?
I mean, look at the Wiesmann for example.
yes, it would look more like an artist's impression if it was slammed even more, but as a road legal car - it's gorgeous wouldn't you say?
Oi...Ginga..!!!!But smaller wheels, more of a clearance etc etc - it would not harm the looks that much surely?
I mean, look at the Wiesmann for example.
yes, it would look more like an artist's impression if it was slammed even more, but as a road legal car - it's gorgeous wouldn't you say?
Get a f
ing grip..That thing’s shhhhhhiiiiiiiite
Hurts.
Doesn't matter to me how good the new 'TVR' is or isn't, it's looks are just so bland and forgettable. The front is gopping and I'm not a fan of the rear end either. Given there's only one prototype and no tooling has been set yet I really don't understand why they won't alter it.
I've said this before but if this start up car company (and that is exactly what it is) hadn't assumed the name TVR but something new would many people still be on here arguing how good the car is, how great the marketing is and how good it looks whilst also keeping their deposit down or even having put one down in the first place?
Zippee said:
I've said this before but if this start up car company (and that is exactly what it is) hadn't assumed the name TVR but something new would many people still be on here arguing how good the car is, how great the marketing is and how good it looks whilst also keeping their deposit down or even having put one down in the first place?
Agree absolutely with the above quote.Can't agree about the looks of the Weissmann though,tail looks kitcar to me.
GB8CH said:
GB8CH said:
Very little. Assuming the front end isn't a structural component and is a clam-shell. It looks to me if you study the actual car versus the tape drawing that most of the CAD modelling has been done and approved with perspective turned off. It is a schoolboy error but to be honest, there is no substitute to working full size in 3D as earlier TVR's were developed. The latest and greenest CAD jockeys and designers who don't have the benefit of working like that, only see the benefits of time saved and the ability to render the concept dreamt of the day before almost instantly. Then they press the make button on the CNC machine and suffer the fallout..
In terms of the styling itself, like I have already said; it is way too dull. To delve deeper, the glasshouse is too wooden, the rear is too contrived and the silhouette is too predictable and rear biased in terms of volume, The windscreen lacks wrap, the whole form lacks drama and then there is the face!
There have been Photoshop versions, presumably by keen enthusiasts on here, that have virtually saved it. Certainly made it look credible.
The headlights are too far apart. I am single at the moment and nothing makes me swipe left faster. Then there is the grin. Great looking sports cars need to be expressionless, sinister looking or preferably look like they are about to rip your head off imho, The current car looks like a loving Labrador runt that wants to lick your face. I still would never buy a runt. Expression and originality are key and it fails dramatically on both of these key elements.
No excuse for not sorting the clam shell though as the tooling involved would be insignificant in terms of cost. I would pay for it myself if I was a deposit holder. Maybe even laminate it myself as I would be so desperate to fix it!
I suppose that Labrador runt implies a degree cuteness. To be clear, I was talking about a dog so misshapen that it will remain homeless. I suppose I used the Labrador puppy analogy, because it is so tempting to take it home anyway and hope that it's gossiness mends with maturity. I have been mulling that since my last post.In terms of the styling itself, like I have already said; it is way too dull. To delve deeper, the glasshouse is too wooden, the rear is too contrived and the silhouette is too predictable and rear biased in terms of volume, The windscreen lacks wrap, the whole form lacks drama and then there is the face!
There have been Photoshop versions, presumably by keen enthusiasts on here, that have virtually saved it. Certainly made it look credible.
The headlights are too far apart. I am single at the moment and nothing makes me swipe left faster. Then there is the grin. Great looking sports cars need to be expressionless, sinister looking or preferably look like they are about to rip your head off imho, The current car looks like a loving Labrador runt that wants to lick your face. I still would never buy a runt. Expression and originality are key and it fails dramatically on both of these key elements.
No excuse for not sorting the clam shell though as the tooling involved would be insignificant in terms of cost. I would pay for it myself if I was a deposit holder. Maybe even laminate it myself as I would be so desperate to fix it!
m4tti said:
GB8CH said:
GB8CH said:
Very little. Assuming the front end isn't a structural component and is a clam-shell. It looks to me if you study the actual car versus the tape drawing that most of the CAD modelling has been done and approved with perspective turned off. It is a schoolboy error but to be honest, there is no substitute to working full size in 3D as earlier TVR's were developed. The latest and greenest CAD jockeys and designers who don't have the benefit of working like that, only see the benefits of time saved and the ability to render the concept dreamt of the day before almost instantly. Then they press the make button on the CNC machine and suffer the fallout..
In terms of the styling itself, like I have already said; it is way too dull. To delve deeper, the glasshouse is too wooden, the rear is too contrived and the silhouette is too predictable and rear biased in terms of volume, The windscreen lacks wrap, the whole form lacks drama and then there is the face!
There have been Photoshop versions, presumably by keen enthusiasts on here, that have virtually saved it. Certainly made it look credible.
The headlights are too far apart. I am single at the moment and nothing makes me swipe left faster. Then there is the grin. Great looking sports cars need to be expressionless, sinister looking or preferably look like they are about to rip your head off imho, The current car looks like a loving Labrador runt that wants to lick your face. I still would never buy a runt. Expression and originality are key and it fails dramatically on both of these key elements.
No excuse for not sorting the clam shell though as the tooling involved would be insignificant in terms of cost. I would pay for it myself if I was a deposit holder. Maybe even laminate it myself as I would be so desperate to fix it!
I suppose that Labrador runt implies a degree cuteness. To be clear, I was talking about a dog so misshapen that it will remain homeless. I suppose I used the Labrador puppy analogy, because it is so tempting to take it home anyway and hope that it's gossiness mends with maturity. I have been mulling that since my last post.In terms of the styling itself, like I have already said; it is way too dull. To delve deeper, the glasshouse is too wooden, the rear is too contrived and the silhouette is too predictable and rear biased in terms of volume, The windscreen lacks wrap, the whole form lacks drama and then there is the face!
There have been Photoshop versions, presumably by keen enthusiasts on here, that have virtually saved it. Certainly made it look credible.
The headlights are too far apart. I am single at the moment and nothing makes me swipe left faster. Then there is the grin. Great looking sports cars need to be expressionless, sinister looking or preferably look like they are about to rip your head off imho, The current car looks like a loving Labrador runt that wants to lick your face. I still would never buy a runt. Expression and originality are key and it fails dramatically on both of these key elements.
No excuse for not sorting the clam shell though as the tooling involved would be insignificant in terms of cost. I would pay for it myself if I was a deposit holder. Maybe even laminate it myself as I would be so desperate to fix it!
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.
.
FarmyardPants said:
swisstoni said:
A used supercar is a no brainer then. Just 6 years old and I've even saved you a few bob.
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
I know which I’d rather have. And I love TVRs https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
The new TVR should be positioned as a car to be enjoyed.
In terms of this, who would rather have a used MP4-12C vs a new Griffith as a car that does lots of track days?
The McLaren would be lovely with the ultra low CofG and the mid engine balance. But how expensive are those twin clutch gearboxes to replace should multiple sessions of 'giving it large' on a track in 30 degree heat proved unhealthy to the older car?
RichardD said:
FarmyardPants said:
swisstoni said:
A used supercar is a no brainer then. Just 6 years old and I've even saved you a few bob.
https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
I know which I’d rather have. And I love TVRs https://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/...
The new TVR should be positioned as a car to be enjoyed.
In terms of this, who would rather have a used MP4-12C vs a new Griffith as a car that does lots of track days?
The McLaren would be lovely with the ultra low CofG and the mid engine balance. But how expensive are those twin clutch gearboxes to replace should multiple sessions of 'giving it large' on a track in 30 degree heat proved unhealthy to the older car?
And of course, talk is free.
bullittmcqueen said:
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 but that is a massive cop-out. Plenty of other manufacturers manage it. It just takes a bit of imagination that’s all. And normally if you’re in the business of designing things then imagination is not lacking.And worse case scenario: far better to look great from the front and average from the side (at the front) than the inverse!
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.
The headlamp cover to bulb ratio is terrible.
I am sick of writing the same s
t - but I can't help myself - I swear I'm going crazy.
CHANGE THE FRONT!
The headlamp cover to bulb ratio is terrible.
I am sick of writing the same s
t - but I can't help myself - I swear I'm going crazy.CHANGE THE FRONT!
Driller said:
Sorry but that is a massive cop-out. Plenty of other manufacturers manage it. It just takes a bit of imagination that’s all. And normally if you’re in the business of designing things then imagination is not lacking.
And worse case scenario: far better to look great from the front and average from the side (at the front) than the inverse!
I don't really like the front either. I'm just saying that different from 20 years ago, at this stage, it will be a major task. It will take a lot of money and a lot of time. You will probably have to re-do the entire uplift/downforce/brake-cooling/airstream/crash-impact engineering and simulation from scratch. That's my entire point. 20 years ago you'd take a saw and a few fibreglass-patches and be done. And worse case scenario: far better to look great from the front and average from the side (at the front) than the inverse!
Why they haven't asked for feedback earlier, i don't know. But the front cannot be an oversight. You can bet that they been thinking about it and looking at it for two years straight !?
twold said:
Zippee said:
I've said this before but if this start up car company (and that is exactly what it is) hadn't assumed the name TVR but something new would many people still be on here arguing how good the car is, how great the marketing is and how good it looks whilst also keeping their deposit down or even having put one down in the first place?
Agree absolutely with the above quote.Can't agree about the looks of the Weissmann though,tail looks kitcar to me.
I also have to add I quite like that front side pic of the 'TVR' quoted above
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff