Visually stunning car competition OVER FINISHED

[Dragawn]

Might look futuristic in a good way in the game, but I'm afraid it'd look like Swiss cheese if you would have actual meshes in the grills (irl).
I like the organic lines in it, but I feel like the vents were totally overdone on other bits (such as rear), indeed an interesting design though, although I'd have liked more simplicity.

[Noporian]

Due to creators request, more pics of Sleipnir.

Sleipnir-6_zps9567e249.png (503.84 KiB) Viewed 4065 times

Sleipnir-4_zpsc4e5f424.png (566.13 KiB) Viewed 4065 times

[strop]

You know those concept cars at events like Geneva that look totally crazy and no way they'd ever put them into production? That's how I see this. Or maybe even, now I see where the lines are going based on the other angles of the rear, trying to capture the 'organic' flow of line in the folds of the skin, like the Furai or something. I just don't see all of those being vents so much as trying to create grooves of lines. On the same token I note that several of the vents are awkwardly placed, I suspect it's because there are certain places on that shell that you simply cannot place or move vents.

[Noporian]

2 new submissions

Petra

Petra.png (1.43 MiB) Viewed 4055 times

Q58

Q58-1.png (1.45 MiB) Viewed 4055 times

[Noporian]

This is the Fobia

Fobia.png (1.4 MiB) Viewed 4036 times

[07CobaltGirl]

You know those concept cars at events like Geneva that look totally crazy and no way they'd ever put them into production? That's how I see this. Or maybe even, now I see where the lines are going based on the other angles of the rear, trying to capture the 'organic' flow of line in the folds of the skin, like the Furai or something. I just don't see all of those being vents so much as trying to create grooves of lines. On the same token I note that several of the vents are awkwardly placed, I suspect it's because there are certain places on that shell that you simply cannot place or move vents.

This was exactly what I thought about it, too. I think it is simply awesome! Now, if they are ALL actually intended as VENTS, then I think the swiss cheese comment would most certainly apply. But to me it seems more like the black pieces on the new C7. They are highlights to give dimension to the shape of the body, sort of like mini accent walls in a room.

[CNSpots1]

I personally find myself fancying the Halycon, it looks very subtle -with the exception of the chrome paint- but also aggressive, like a muscle car meets classy European coupe. I imagine it has a nice V-8 under the hood, but could also see a large-displacement Straight-6.

The Esoterica is also very nice, but a bit too absurd for my taste. Like it's trying a bit hard.

[VosNox]

Isn't trying too hard or looking downright weird the point of this challenge? Look at any Pagani or Lamborghini. Do you think the creators of the Zonda or the Aventador gave themselves a firm, yet soft golf clap in recognition of their perfectly reasonable designs? Hello no. You don't spend that much time or that big a wad designing the car of your dreams to be piratical. It should shout about it all. it should look wild and outlandish. Like it has god damned lasers and hyper-drive capability. It should make your inner 5 year old scream with awesome!

[jhd1124]

While what you say has some merit, I would argue, like any other medium of art, that there is a perfect center between the visually stunning and the overdone. This is not to say that any car here is bad, I actually find myself struggling to pick a winner for my vote, bit some are a bit more extreme than others. Cars like Pagani and Lamborghini make the perfect statement: They stand out from the rest with a unique style, but don't intimidate them with concepts of automotive they find unappealing. When cars become too centered on making the design radical and shocking, you end up with cars like the Gumpert Apollo (I don't think it's that attractive) or even worse, the Pontiac Aztek. Again, I like the cars here, but I think a car that is visually stunning means something different to everyone. For me, a designer shouldn't just think about shock value. A stunning car incorporates revolutionary style with a sort of classic grace. Take the Cadillac El Miraj. While this stunning car features designs seldom found on the road today, it still maintains classic values of car design: that arching C-Pillar or those razor-edged taillights. That's what a stunning car is to me.

[TheTom]

I agree with jhd. I'm gonna give you an example of two Lamborghinis to give you an idea of what i mean with stunning.
The Gallardo (be it the "normal" one, the LP560-4, or the Superleggera) is, in my opinion, one of the best looking cars ever. It's striking, it's aggressive, it's crazy, but at the same time you notice a sort of elegance when you're looking at its silhouette or when it's standing still. That's what a stunning car is to me.
The Egoista, on the other hand, is plain terrible. It looks like they were trying to find the ugliest of spaceships, then apply their classic Lamborghini-wedge style to it, and paint it in two colours that don't go well together (grey and orange). Sure, everyone looks at it, but only for a few seconds until they can't look at it anymore.

Also, i think there is a distinction between a "beautiful" car and a "stunning" car. For example, i think the BMW 8 series is a beautiful car. However, you can argue that the taillights look too ordinary (like the 3series and 5series) or that the headlights should be bigger, or that it's too wide, and so on. So you can argue about whether it's beautiful or not, and you can argue about it with yourself or with someone else. On top of that, i think you can use "good-looking" instead of "beautiful" if you think the car is not truly elegant but looks better than average.
That's not the case with a stunning car, though. When you see a car that you find stunning, you don't think about whether it's stunning or not. You just go like "Woooow!!" For me, that was the case with the Ferrari F12, for example.
"Beautiful" implies elegance, whereas "stunning" is more about the drama, the theater, how striking the car looks but it still needs to go well together and have some elegance in it because otherwise we end up with something like the Egoista.

[strop]

Like I said, a distinction needs to be made as to which of these models are designated as a concept as opposed to something designed for production and presumably consumption. I do think while not necessarily relevant to what we think of the aesthetics, it does give context to the approach to design. It's true that even in concept land, some designs are more extreme than others, but that too is dependent on intention and success in communication, and also what you like to look at.

I embrace outrageousness, and I daresay vosnox does too. I don't grant it any greater or lesser intrinsic value than elegance or any other aesthetic attribute, but I can appreciate the Egoista for the obnoxiousness that it is haha. My own preferences tend towards coherence, which, depending on your approach and vision, has varying difficulty (again, sleipnir taking the most difficult and least likely to succeed route). The disadvantage of this is that I'd have a very hard time picking who to vote for!

[VosNox]

The Egoista has it's place in the realm of automotive artistry. It's mantle isn't one of practicality or nuance. It's purely Lamborghini doing what Lamborghini does best: Bringing their inner 5 year old into the design lab and letting it fiddle with every little thing. Is it practical? No. Is it reasonable? Surely not. Is it something you'd pick up someone in a blind date with? Hell no. Is it something you'd drive if you wanted to feel like you were in Battlestar Galactica? God yes. The Murcialago, while beautiful on nearly every level (with the exception being that one oil cooling vent on the side), its far to constrained for Lamborghini's design style.

You mentioned the Gumpert Apollo. Yes, it's ugly. Very ugly. Weapons grade ugly. But it works. It's designed to do what it does very well. You wouldn't drive an Apollo to pick up chicks. You'd drive it to impress other people who know a lot about cars. It's a drivers car with out the driver's ego. It's not a Porsche 911, or a Ferrari California, or an Ariel Atom. Think of it like a woman. Sure. You can drive Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence. Hell, you could drive Natalie Dorner, and you'd get all the looks your ego requires. Now, that isn't to say that they wouldn't drive well. I'm sure all three would your mind, but the girls that don't look like fucking movie stars are the ones you want to drive. For the sake of fun and for thrills and hell, even for the sake of practicality you drive a woman who's built to drive.

[strop]

I think something got lost in that analogy LOL. For some reason the notion of "driving a woman" makes me uneasy, perhaps because the analogy requires objectification. But nonetheless I kinda get the point.

However is that the point of this thread? Methinks that the debate about this is in fact the real point

[VosNox]

Oh look at Strop with his SJW helmet on rofl.

Good point.

[strop]

LOL so sorry not sorry. What with your employees' track record, somebody has to fight for great justice

Hey, Noporian, when's the poll gonna open?