The pictures of the 2004 Cobra concept elswhere in this Forum prompt me to ask the question:

Is it just me or did Ferrari, Mercedes, and Porsche miss the boat a bit on the styling of the Enzo, McLaren SLR and Carrera GT? Of all the hyper-exotics recently released only the Ford GT makes me WANT. I truly understand the performance of all these, but must add that where most of us live it would be quite a feat to utilize them to the degree their makers have enabled them. On the other hand a knockout, fall-down gorgeous car makes a statement everywhere you have it. And none of the three are in my view that pretty. I much prefer the 575 Maranello, the McLaren F1 and the Porsche GT3. Not that these manufacturers are losing a lot of rest worrying about what I like.....

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob Moss

 

I believe there are several reasons. First, I think the number of great auto stylists is limited. Secondly, too often today's designer is a computer person rather than an artist and it definitely shows - just look at all the breadbox designs that make it into production. Third, it's no longer enough that car's meet the test of being eye candy. Instead, they must meet a zillion requirements - be aero, safe, easy to build, easy to replace parts, etc., etc. and certainly gas mileage is always a factor. Why? The number one complaint about the Hummer? Poor gas mileage! Duh. Really? I could go on, but once again Bob you and I agree. Too often instead of saying OMG look at that beautiful concept car or whatever, I'm saying What were they thinking?

 

It came to me most noticeably as I watched the latest version of "Victory by Design-Ferrari" on Speed again the other night. They have added some footage of someone (not Alain de Cadenet) driving the Enzo, probably at Fiorano. It looks positively ungainly. The same program has those beautiful segments as de Cadenet drives various historical Ferraris, and of course as he speeds away in the 1962 250GTO a smile comes to my face. Never fails. That is a car that I once spent about 45 minutes just ogling at Monterey a few years back.

Last year I saw the Enzo at the LA Auto Show and yes it was cool to see it and appreciate the technology. But a coupla minutes was all I needed.

 

For those who haven't seen it, the Enzo:

I personally like the look and the sound (it sounds like a fast burps going through the gears.)

 

remember guys...there was a time when the gt40 looked pretty radical...and the countach was not a worn automotive cliche....the problem here appears to be oldness of the observer rather than the newness of the car.[sorry bob]

 

dbw,

I'm sure there's truth in what you say. Each new generation discovers new cars that it falls in love with. The '60s were unquestionably my favorite era in styling. The wonderful "round" shapes that flow over the wheels and chassis (D-types, Birdcage, 375GTB, 250GTO, etc.). The kind of metal that makes you want to run your hand over it because it looks like a rolling piece of art.

However, my love of car design is far from limited to any time period. For example, the Bugatti Atlantic built in the mid-30s. What a wonderful example of auto art.

In general, today's designs are too slab sided, boxy and often ugly for my tastes. I can appreciate the Ferrari pictured above and that Shumm'y F1 styling is pretty cool in my book - definitely a race car for the road look. Much like the S2000.

Even the S2000 with it's clean timeless appearance and no bad angles still doesn't come close to exciting me as a work of art. As one writer commented it looks like they dropped a sheet over the chassis and said, yea that will work. Don't get wrong as I do love the looks when I see my car in person (it certainly doesn't photograph well) and it looks much, much better than it's competitors -- many of which really look like crap to me. Whenever I see a photo of the S2000 it more often than not includes the headlights and grill opening since they are about only thing that is visually exciting about the car. And, that's too often true about too many of today's car designs... they lack the reflective light designs that only round cars can provide.

Oh, and personnally I think there are numerous sports car's in the mid-60s that look better than the GT-40. But it did get the job done and was a terrific race car, so it's the heritage rather than the looks that appeal to me with that car.

End of rant.

 

No need to apologize Dave I completely agree. I don't like a lot of the current music either but that's another example of my (our) old age. And while I still enthusiastically devour every minute of modern-day F1 I love to look at my model of the '67 Gurney Eagle. As my son would say "it's all good." Likewise I totally appreciate the concept and design of the Enzo but still do not think it is as lyrically beautiful as others I mentioned.

 

Don't forget that a lot of the "styling" of these hyper-exotic cars is driven by function as well. Sure the 250 GTO may be more aesthetically appealing than the Enzo, but I guarantee you it'll get absolutely destroyed by the Enzo on a race track. Ungainly? I think appearances are deceiving in this case. For whatever reason, basic aerodynamic requirements like those quantifiable in the 60's usually result in shapes that are visually attractive to us (big, swooping curves, sleek shapes, etc), but the highly refined stuff that we can now calculate requires a lot of "non-intuitive" details...hence all the huge vents, wings, gills, etc. seen on many of the recent super-cars. To me, the engineering and technological excellence embodied by these cars is part of what makes them beautiful to me.

 

Tedow, as correct as you may be, give me tha "OMG" my age is showing Good Ole Daysl The days when "visually attrative" was real. But, I've got an open mind.... please give me a few examples of modern "to die for" designs.