[wiggyx]

I signed up after my bud Robo sent me a link. He thought I may want to chime in, as I went through the same auto design program as he.

First off, I want the make it clear that I am not calling out the abilities, panel fitment, track times, etc of this car. This is purely an aesthetic critique of the car from a trained eye.

Overall there is little to tie the design together. There are conflicting design elements throughout. The biggest issue that immediately struck me when I first time I saw the Apollo was the conflict between soft and hard-edged forms. Almost all of the surface transitions are extremely soft (i.e. the crown where the transition from cockpit to body side is made), while pretty much every graphic detail (headlights, tail lights, ventilation cutouts, etc.) consist of sharp lines and crisp edges. That's not to say that there is no way to mix organic surfaces with sharp lines. Hell, the E92 does that just about perfectly. The problem here is lack of cohesive design. The car looks like it was made by sorting through a parts bin from about every manufacturer and then using what was found to slap a car together.



On to the details. Cheap gutter guard mesh abound. No thanks. Again, I understand that it serves a purpose, but there's no reason that something with a little more visual flair couldn't be used. Remember, this is a road-going vehicle, no matter how much of a track beast it is. Being that it's a road-going vehicle, it will inevitably be compared to other cars on the road, and that's probably not a good thing for this fugly beast.

One of the other more obvious flaws that make me think this was CAD modeled in a weekend by somebody's brother-in-law ("who knows how to design cars") is the sloppy resolution of the graphic layout. The headlights look pinched at the top by the quarter panel and the silly, bulbous fender flares giving the impression that tacking headlights on was more of an afterthought rather than an actual part of the design process. The flares themselves could easily have been more integrated into the front quarters. There is no narrow body version, so why make the flares look like slap-on Autozone parts? Surely it’s not to help its ability to cut through air. A simpler, seamless part would be a better choice for both aesthetics (and I imagine drag reduction).



The tail lights and headlights themselves look to be the work of an inexperienced one-off car builder. Headlight projectors slapped into a make-shift housing, with the tail lights consisting of what look like eBay LED bulbs with hardware store reflectors. On an ugly or plain looking car, the graphics can really be a saving grace, but not in this case.

F1 cars, LM prototypes, and all other purpose-built vehicles made EXCLUSIVELY for motorsports have absolutely no need to take aesthetics into consideration, unless their makers feel that it will add equity/notoriety to the brand. To those that say “hey, the Gumpert is a purpose-built vehicle, the aesthetics don’t matter”, I say you’re wrong. Here’s the reason; When an attempt is made to style a car and it fails (in the case of the Apollo), then questioning its design/styling becomes Kosher. If they had simply abandoned all styling and built it almost exclusively to appease the wind tunnel gods, then we wouldn’t be arguing about this and we’d all be staring at an F1 car. In fact, I’d rather they had done just that because at least there would be an excuse for any ugly bits. The truly sad part is that cars that are designed in a wind tunnel like F1 and LM actually look better than this Frankensteinian abomination.

There are plenty of purpose-built road cars that still look great. The Viper ACR (whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on), the Ferrari Enzo/FXX, The Murciélago SV, etc. Yeah, they all have tack-on aero parts, but their styling underneath is great. You don’t have to like them, but they are all successful designs from a technical standpoint (yes, styling can be critiqued from a technical standpoint). There are “rules” in design folks, and the Gumpert breaks almost all of them. For goodness sake, even the badges look frumpy.







I'm sure Robo will chime in and give his .02 as well. There are plenty of things to call out on this car still. I only touched on a few.

BTW, you guys have some great smileys on this board

[Robo Squirrel]

Originally Posted by wiggyx

I signed up after my bud Robo sent me a link. He thought I may want to chime in, as I went through the same auto design program as he.

First off, I want the make it clear that I am not calling out the abilities, panel fitment, track times, etc of this car. This is purely an aesthetic critique of the car from a trained eye.

Overall there is little to tie the design together. There are conflicting design elements throughout. The biggest issue that immediately struck me when I first time I saw the Apollo was the conflict between soft and hard-edged forms. Almost all of the surface transitions are extremely soft (i.e. the crown where the transition from cockpit to body side is made), while pretty much every graphic detail (headlights, tail lights, ventilation cutouts, etc.) consist of sharp lines and crisp edges. That's not to say that there is no way to mix organic surfaces with sharp lines. Hell, the E92 does that just about perfectly. The problem here is lack of cohesive design. The car looks like it was made by sorting through a parts bin from about every manufacturer and then using what was found to slap a car together.



On to the details. Cheap gutter guard mesh abound. No thanks. Again, I understand that it serves a purpose, but there's no reason that something with a little more visual flair couldn't be used. Remember, this is a road-going vehicle, no matter how much of a track beast it is. Being that it's a road-going vehicle, it will inevitably be compared to other cars on the road, and that's probably not a good thing for this fugly beast.

One of the other more obvious flaws that make me think this was CAD modeled in a weekend by somebody's brother-in-law ("who knows how to design cars") is the sloppy resolution of the graphic layout. The headlights look pinched at the top by the quarter panel and the silly, bulbous fender flares giving the impression that tacking headlights on was more of an afterthought rather than an actual part of the design process. The flares themselves could easily have been more integrated into the front quarters. There is no narrow body version, so why make the flares look like slap-on Autozone parts? Surely it’s not to help its ability to cut through air. A simpler, seamless part would be a better choice for both aesthetics (and I imagine drag reduction).



The tail lights and headlights themselves look to be the work of an inexperienced one-off car builder. Headlight projectors slapped into a make-shift housing, with the tail lights consisting of what look like eBay LED bulbs with hardware store reflectors. On an ugly or plain looking car, the graphics can really be a saving grace, but not in this case.

F1 cars, LM prototypes, and all other purpose-built vehicles made EXCLUSIVELY for motorsports have absolutely no need to take aesthetics into consideration, unless their makers feel that it will add equity/notoriety to the brand. To those that say “hey, the Gumpert is a purpose-built vehicle, the aesthetics don’t matter”, I say you’re wrong. Here’s the reason; When an attempt is made to style a car and it fails (in the case of the Apollo), then questioning its design/styling becomes Kosher. If they had simply abandoned all styling and built it almost exclusively to appease the wind tunnel gods, then we wouldn’t be arguing about this and we’d all be staring at an F1 car. In fact, I’d rather they had done just that because at least there would be an excuse for any ugly bits. The truly sad part is that cars that are designed in a wind tunnel like F1 and LM actually look better than this Frankensteinian abomination.

There are plenty of purpose-built road cars that still look great. The Viper ACR (whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on), the Ferrari Enzo/FXX, The Murciélago SV, etc. Yeah, they all have tack-on aero parts, but their styling underneath is great. You don’t have to like them, but they are all successful designs from a technical standpoint (yes, styling can be critiqued from a technical standpoint). There are “rules” in design folks, and the Gumpert breaks almost all of them. For goodness sake, even the badges look frumpy.







I'm sure Robo will chime in and give his .02 as well. There are plenty of things to call out on this car still. I only touched on a few.

BTW, you guys have some great smileys on this board

+1 i would have written such a detailed and thought collected post if i didnt lack the abilty sometimes to explain the innerworkings of my mind. Nevertheless, i will do up a photoshop with "call outs" pinpointing this abomination's design fuck-tardedness

[Robo Squirrel]

[Dr.G]

my god that is so funny! lol when i got to ass crack i was rolling!!!

[lucid]

Thanks for the opinions guys. I agree that this is one ugly car.

What's your opinion of the Zonda's design? It seems to offer similar performance with a similar layout/size, but I believe at about twice the cost. Or maybe the Gumpert is smaller. Can't tell from the pics exactly.

[TheKosherStogie]

just came from zonda factory....that is the #1 car in my book...amazing factory...they keep a binder of every spec of every car made...including everything in it...the factory was sick...from how they press their carbon fiber...you can specify anything u want on the car...its a masterpiece in every sense of the way....light...powerful...and luxurious

[Prit@Euro Autowerx]

this forum is starting to sound like kids from E46 Fanatics.

[Robo Squirrel]

i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.

[wiggyx]

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

You fuckin' crack me up!

Originally Posted by lucid

Thanks for the opinions guys. I agree that this is one ugly car.

What's your opinion of the Zonda's design? It seems to offer similar performance with a similar layout/size, but I believe at about twice the cost. Or maybe the Gumpert is smaller. Can't tell from the pics exactly.

Ooooh, that's awesome. I'd love to take a tour of that factory. I'd give my opinion about the Zonda, but I'm a bit biased as it's one of my favorite cars. I'm sure Robo will call out all the busted-ness it contains

edit: I see I was scooped by Robo on the Zonda

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.

You all keep saying not designed by a professional for certain cars yet the very car you mentioned earlier in the post, the Aztec, was designed by a professional as are any number of butt ugly cars and dull crap. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they are going to make something that looks good.

Visuals on a car are purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder which is why some people think the M3 looks fantastic and others hate it. Someone who claims to be a design professional should know that and therefore above all else wouldn't be saying things like "whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on" as it makes them look like the over emotional kids here that start arguments for no reason. 2 things on that statement.
1. I never said the Viper was ugly. I said the ACR version was ugly.
2. I do think the Viper ACR is ugly. About as ugly as I keep saying the Gumpert is as I believe Robo can confirm (or anyone that reads all of the post).

Being involved in design of any form doesn't automatically give you good taste. It obviously gives you the impression you have better taste than others but it's not always true.

At least Robo's analysis was bloody funny

[Robo Squirrel]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

You all keep saying not designed by a professional for certain cars yet the very car you mentioned earlier in the post, the Aztec, was designed by a professional as are any number of butt ugly cars and dull crap. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they are going to make something that looks good.

Visuals on a car are purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder which is why some people think the M3 looks fantastic and others hate it. Someone who claims to be a design professional should know that and therefore above all else wouldn't be saying things like "whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on" as it makes them look like the over emotional kids here that start arguments for no reason. 2 things on that statement.
1. I never said the Viper was ugly. I said the ACR version was ugly.
2. I do think the Viper ACR is ugly. About as ugly as I keep saying the Gumpert is as I believe Robo can confirm (or anyone that reads all of the post).

Being involved in design of any form doesn't automatically give you good taste. It obviously gives you the impression you have better taste than others but it's not always true.

At least Robo's analysis was bloody funny

The reason the aztec is ugly is b/c the management at GM picked a sketch that could never fit the chosen package. ive heard the original sketch is actually cool. i used the aztec as a reference b/c most people car realte to it. And no just because someone is a proffesional designer doesnt mean they are good.

The gumperts design is fundamentaly wrong. the viper is not. thats all there is too it. all that i said is that the gumpert is fugly...thats all i said...you started the argument....you could have just left well enough alone.

Design is subjective, and even in the design community there are different tastes, some bad some good, and whatnot. But we doing CLAIM to be design professionals we ARE design professionals.

We have a trained eye, we spend 5 years and alot of money to get that trained eye, and 100% of people i know who have any kind of design training, automotive or product agree that the gumpert is ugly.

Wiggz and I have pretty much laid it out for you why its ugly. Stop defending it. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

i was TRYING to be funny, especially since the design is laughable.

The Zonda is a great car, and much more cohesive than the gumpert...but still it doesnt look as though it was designed by a proffesional, more like a middle schoolers notebook sketch from math class...which i guess is part of the charm.

Originally Posted by Robo Squirrel

The reason the aztec is ugly is b/c the management at GM picked a sketch that could never fit the chosen package. ive heard the original sketch is actually cool. i used the aztec as a reference b/c most people car realte to it. And no just because someone is a proffesional designer doesnt mean they are good.

The gumperts design is fundamentaly wrong. the viper is not. thats all there is too it. all that i said is that the gumpert is fugly...thats all i said...you started the argument....you could have just left well enough alone.

Design is subjective, and even in the design community there are different tastes, some bad some good, and whatnot. But we doing CLAIM to be design professionals we ARE design professionals.

We have a trained eye, we spend 5 years and alot of money to get that trained eye, and 100% of people i know who have any kind of design training, automotive or product agree that the gumpert is ugly.

Wiggz and I have pretty much laid it out for you why its ugly. Stop defending it. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

Jesus. I've lost you again. You've been swapping chat back and forth with me since the start. At what point did I ever say anything other than the fact that the Gumpert is Ugly. Here. I'll say it again. IT's FUCK UGLY. I didn't start an argument in any way. In fact we weren't having anything resembling an argument until this last post which seems to be heading in some strange direction. At no point in any of this have I defended the looks of the Gumpert. None. Why do you keep saying I did?

However I still stand 100% by the fact that whether or not a car is good looking is entirely in the eye of the beholder and a matter of taste and not design knowledge. The Viper looks great in normal form. In ACR form it looks like something from a teenagers carpark car meet with giant winged Civics etc.

That's my opinion of the looks of it. Surely any designer worth their salt should understand that fact better than most so to make the Corolla statement is dumb in my opinion and reduces their credibility in my book.

I'm not defending the Ugliness of the Gumpert and well done on the last comment. We were having a nice and mostly funny back and forth and now you've gone and made it sound like you think you're some kind of genius who's opinion on the look of a car is the only one that matter because you're a "designer".

I know exactly what I'm talking about. People like the look of some cars and hate the looks of other cars. That's the simple fact. I have no clue of the intricacies of the actual analysis you made of the car nor do I need to know them. They're irrelevant. I look and my eyes transmit an image to my brain which then decides for me if I like the look of it or not. Everyone else does the same thing and not a single one of them decides based on whether or not there should be fillets to take the sharpness out of the box extrusions.

Take a look at cars that have emblazoned teens walls and desired over the years and run your analysis on them and I have no doubt there are a large number that will fall into the "Wrong" design category but people still loved them.

Countach, Testarossa, 308 GT4 (yeuch) to name just a few.

[Dr.G]

since we on the subject of ugly, is the gtr ugly?

[Year's_End]

the gt-r doesn't brake the fundamentals of design. it's actually very balanced, cohesive and modern. it's also polarizing, and extremely functional.

[GnokGnik]

Anyways, for Gumpert for shitting on every other production-road-car manufacturer on the N-ring.

[ChasenM3]

Video Proof?

[r_seng]

Ugly as sin...

[Koroush]

I thought the Caparo T1 would be better...
It weighs less than an Elise (200 KG less) and it's very quick, amazing handling and great looks.

[footie]

I didn't realise that the right of passage to holding the title around the ring had to include being beautiful. Yes it's ugly, but no more ugly than the Viper ACR or the Ferrari FXX.

It's a functional design, everything on it is there for a purpose.

[Koroush]

Ahhh, the Capro T1 would be the winner but the only problem with it is that it explodes when driven.

I hope they fix that little problem.

[wiggyx]

Originally Posted by SoreHead

I'm not taking it as an attack?
I do disagree that the ACR version of the viper looks any better though. It's just as ugly IMO. As a road car it's look idiotic as would any car with full race bodywork. You definitely wouldn't want to be the shy type in either

To be honest I've never put any relevance on anyone's opinion on the looks of a car as I think they are the most subjective part of the whole experience and one mans shite is another mans gold. You just need to look at how many of those Aztec they sold to realise that's true

Anyone on here know somebody that bought one????

The fact that you think the Apollo and Viper are equally ugly means that your opinions about design are uneducated at best. That's fine, there are plenty of things that I have no business commenting about. The difference is that I usually refrain from joining the conversation if that's the case.

Let me tell you about the Asstec. First off, GM didn't even sell enough to recoup its costs for creating it. So, that argument is dead and should serve as good example that poor aesthetics can pretty easily doom a vehicle. The only way that GM sold what they did was through insane discounts at the dealer level, and even that wasn't enough to get GM out of the hole with the Aztec. You know how many Aztec's were sold in 2007? Less than 30. The Aztec was gold for nobody.

Originally Posted by SoreHead

1You all keep saying not designed by a professional for certain cars yet the very car you mentioned earlier in the post, the Aztec, was designed by a professional as are any number of butt ugly cars and dull crap. Just because someone is a professional doesn't mean they are going to make something that looks good.

2Visuals on a car are purely subjective and in the eye of the beholder which is why some people think the M3 looks fantastic and others hate it. Someone who claims to be a design professional should know that and therefore above all else wouldn't be saying things like "whoever said that the Viper looks like crap should seriously just buy a Corolla and move on" 3as it makes them look like the over emotional kids here that start arguments for no reason. 2 things on that statement.
1. I never said the Viper was ugly. I said the ACR version was ugly.
2. I do think the Viper ACR is ugly. About as ugly as I keep saying the Gumpert is as I believe Robo can confirm (or anyone that reads all of the post).

4Being involved in design of any form doesn't automatically give you good taste. It obviously gives you the impression you have better taste than others but it's not always true.

At least Robo's analysis was bloody funny

You're misunderstanding our meaning. That is to say that it looks like it was designed by a middles school kid, or some guys brother-in-law. The Aztec was a result of the old "too many cooks in the kitchen" and some poor management thrown in for good measure.

Yes and no. There are many things that "technically" make for solid, cohesive design. Sure, in the end anybody can give their opinion, point was to break down, piece by piece why the Apollo is a design failure.

Boo-hoo. You need to clarify that better next time by simply saying something along the lines of "the ACR add-ons make an otherwise attractive car look rather frumpy". Nowhere is it evident that you think non-ACR Vipers are good looking cars.

Correct, it doesn't give you good taste, but it does give you the tools to analyze, and that's what we did.

Originally Posted by SoreHead

Jesus. I've lost you again. You've been swapping chat back and forth with me since the start. At what point did I ever say anything other than the fact that the Gumpert is Ugly. Here. I'll say it again. IT's FUCK UGLY. 1I didn't start an argument in any way. In fact we weren't having anything resembling an argument until this last post which seems to be heading in some strange direction. At no point in any of this have I defended the looks of the Gumpert. None. Why do you keep saying I did?

However I still stand 100% by the fact that whether or not a car is good looking is entirely in the eye of the beholder and a matter of taste and not design knowledge. The Viper looks great in normal form. In ACR form it looks like something from a teenagers carpark car meet with giant winged Civics etc.

That's my opinion of the looks of it. Surely any designer worth their salt should understand that fact better than most 2so to make the Corolla statement is dumb in my opinion and reduces their credibility in my book.

I'm not defending the Ugliness of the Gumpert and well done on the last comment. We were having a nice and mostly funny back and forth and now you've gone and made it sound like you think you're some kind of genius who's opinion on the look of a car is the only one that matter because you're a "designer".

I know exactly what I'm talking about. People like the look of some cars and hate the looks of other cars. That's the simple fact. 3I have no clue of the intricacies of the actual analysis you made of the car nor do I need to know them. They're irrelevant. I look and my eyes transmit an image to my brain which then decides for me if I like the look of it or not. Everyone else does the same thing and not a single one of them decides based on whether or not there should be fillets to take the sharpness out of the box extrusions.

4Take a look at cars that have emblazoned teens walls and desired over the years and run your analysis on them and I have no doubt there are a large number that will fall into the "Wrong" design category but people still loved them.

Countach, Testarossa, 308 GT4 (yeuch) to name just a few.

Seriously, you just kept defending the car saying that "you can't analyze a car like this", or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", or "if you saw it in person you wouldn't think that". Stop it. You're playing the devil's advocate and it's just going to get you caught up in an argument like this.

So sorry that you think that. I would argue that your credibility was pretty much lost from the outset when you insisted that the car was untouchable, in terms of its ability to be critiqued.

Then stop talking about it. Someone was interested in a critique and Robo and I delivered. You don't like it? Fine, move on.

I can guarantee that the Gumpert will never find it's way on to any teenager's wall. Basically, you work with what you've got. In the 80's, that wasn't a whole lot. The original LP400 was gorgeous. US bumper regs and tacked on aero parts put the hurt on the Countach. But underneath there's a well styled shell. I've never cared for Ferrari's, with few exceptions, so I won't toss my biased comments in on the others that you mentioned.

Either way, all that I'm arguing is that the Gumpert can be critiqued. I've given my reasons why.

[SoreHead]

Originally Posted by footie

I didn't realise that the right of passage to holding the title around the ring had to include being beautiful. Yes it's ugly, but no more ugly than the Viper ACR or the Ferrari FXX.

It's a functional design, everything on it is there for a purpose.

Oh no Footie. Don't you know the ACR and FXX are made according to rules that must be followed for you to think they look nice.

You just said exactly what I've been saying all along but the "experts" are telling me I'm wrong and I should buy a Corolla.