New Range Rover breaks cover before official intro Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I'm not sure why you'd want a 2-door car of that size. There's plenty of space for rear doors for accessing the rear seats. Otherwise, looks like a natural gentle evolution of a proven design. All the best, Andrew.
Simply awesome. Id love to build one of those as a component car (perfect formula) and a have a removable wing to stick on it for those track days
John, I find the design surfaces to be very dull and mismatched. The hard edge to the fenders is all wrong, the door/window openings actually work against getting in and out of car, the rear louvres are wrong shape and placement, the engine deck cover is lifeless, way too 2 dimensional. I feel no real surface tension in the shape anywhere. Rear fender cutout a Countach rip off, but the front fender cutout is nice. engine deck just too flat, relative to rest of car. Maybe I need some more pics to be fair. But to me, it looks like a typical kit car failure...... But then I am not a "car stylist".
Tube frame can am style car with honking V8, looks like a birdcage masser and if suspension is done right should work on track.
Not that I am an expert in any of this stuff. I do race cars-and the CFD/Wind Tunnel pretty much controls the car shape. (And rules.) I would like to be better at car "styling/design", ala---you!
So let's talk about this project. First off, my viewpoint is to place it into the proper context. This is over 30 yrs old. All done by one guy in his garage/workspace over that time period. Wasn't meant for production or mass appeal. One guy's statement, who is/was not a professional car designer. Is the design derivative? Probably. But it is over 30 yrs old. Could the design have been executed better? Of course. Few designs are perfect. Does it look like a glorified 'kit car'? Probably, but that's indeed what it is, more or less. We could all sit around and nitpick it endlessly. To what end. Everyone has an opinion. As I said, no right and wrong answers here. Just different opinions. I'm confident Frank Stephenson, The Sketch Monkey, and the other online design 'experts' would have a field day with this car. BFD. The old design adage holds true here. Give 10 designers the same criteria/project, and you'll likely get 10 different design solutions. Some good, maybe some not so good. I give this gentleman kudos for starting a project and seeing it through after 30 yrs. That's some kind of dedication/perseverance. Like most, I probably would have done some things differently, but I didn't do this for 30 yrs; this guy actually did. It's his labor of love, and I commend him for his effort. Will it win the design award for 'Best Design' of the Century? No. But that probably wasn't his initial goal. When I look at some of the abominations that are proposed for sports/supercars everywhere today, this struck me as an understated effort. 30 yrs on! That is all. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I see l I see elements from Gt40(front), P4 (side view) and countach (rear) all great stuff that looks nicely integrated to the eye. Chasis wise it seems to pick up on the masser bridcage theme. Engine we know its hard to beat a pushrod V8 and if its runnign solid lifters and drystackes with light well balanced rotating masss hard to think of a better or more reliable motor. If an it's a big if the mechaicals and chassis dynamics are sorted, then what a fun car. True the aero is completly unknown and probably not great. But if one can tame lift with a splitter and rear wing for track, theres going to be plenty of power to overcome drag, its a mechanical grip car anyway and whose realisticaly going past 150-160 on track. What I see is a car evocative of a maclren can am car with what looks to be Italian show car stylign of the late 60s early 70s. For backroad fun or trackdays this seems like an awesome machine, assuming the chasis dynamics are good. Does the suspension work, and does the frame have the rigth stiffness in the right areas, thats lots of dynamic sorting which I doubt has taken place. Yes we cannot deny that for many a trackday enthusiast this car ticks many boxes, relaibale and evocative powertrain being at the top of the list, along with presumably light weight, and if youre into cars arguably realy nice styling with v8 brm brm. Compare this to a radical which while puposeful looks like crap, and is maintanance intensive for trackdays. Ultilizing a similar formula a Ultima that looks ok, is overkill and not really track sorted, or a Sin which is great on track but looks like meh and its aero etc is overkill for trackdays. There was also the draken which was like a v8 atom, it too was never sorted. Compared to a race car this car is undoubtably non comeptitive in any regard and proabbly slow compared to a formula atlantic, but thats not the point. To me it "looks" as appealing as a chevron B16 and potentialy has a longevity and reliability that car does not. pobably thoough its a non replicable show piece.
And in other news, evidently Mr. Gandini ain't praising the 'new & improved' Lamborghini Countach. Original Lamborghini Countach Designer Doesn’t Approve Of The Remake Marcello Gandini wants to make his voice heard. This summer, Lamborghini debuted a spiritual successor to the Countach, one of the brand’s greatest products of all time. The revived model is based on the Aventador and only 112 examples will be made. It’s worth noting that this is a different project from the Countach restoration, which premiered several weeks later and was brought back to life in the form of the first LP 500 prototype. But how does the designer of the original Countach feel about its modern-day interpretation? Well, if we have to be short, he is not particularly happy. Marcello Gandini, who is also responsible for the design of other famous Lambos, such as the Espada, Jarama, Miura, and Diablo, recently issued an official statement about the new Countach, and it reveals Gandini didn't support the project. In fact, there’s a very interesting story behind his disapproval, but here’s his official statement first: Gallery: Lamborghini Countach LPI 800-4 Image Unavailable, Please Login 56 Photos Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login 18 Photos Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login ⠀ 1971 Lamborghini Countach LP 500 Reconstruction Debuts After 25,000 Hours Of Work ⠀ New Lamborghini Countach Revealed As 803-HP Hybrid V12 Hypercar “Thus, Marcello Gandini would like to reaffirm that he had no role in this operation, and as the author and creator of the original design from 1971, would like to clarify that the makeover does not reflect his spirit and his vision,” Gandini’s statement reads. “A spirit of innovation and breaking the mould which is in his opinion totally absent in this new design. [...] It is clear that markets and marketing itself has changed a lot since then, but as far as I am concerned, to repeat a model of the past, represents in my opinion the negation of the founding principles of my DNA.” Image Unavailable, Please Login Source: Autoweek Image Unavailable, Please Login By: Angel Sergeev
View attachment 3225167 [/QUOTE] As I said previously, I quite like this and see a bit of Countach & a lot of Lola T70 in this. After having looked at this a few more times, I find I'd really like to see it in front 3/4. If it's as I imagine it to be given the limited front cross section, I would expect to see something much like the early Chaparral 2. Of course this started me down the (short) road to the early 60's Monza GT & SS. I think this car was very much influenced by the open SS. I liked it then and I like it now! Given the details in the article, I'm assuming that these are photos of the actual car, but I find the paint chosen makes it look more like a digital rendering (none of John's reflected light) and does the car no favours. I think the soft curves on this car would be better served by a 'hard surface' reflective colour as on the original Monza GT. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Marcello Gandini still "ha le palle", finally someone says it as it is. Lamborghini has done already too many "Countachs", and this remake is the final insult. Unfortunately, all makes are getting into this retro trend (aka easy cash grab), including Ferrari.
New range Rover just introduced. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login <iframe width="1024" height="576" src="" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Some FoMoCo Design history from Dean's Garage http://www.deansgarage.com/2021/ford-mustang-mach-2/ Ford Mustang Mach 2 October 26, 2021Leave a commentFord Design, Larry Shinoda Image Unavailable, Please Login Ford’s Mustang Mach 2 by Jim and Cheryl Farrell The 1960s were a heady time for Ford. In 1962–3 Ford developed its small block V-8 engine (later used in the Mustang) for racing use. In 1964 that engine got double-overhead-cams—for racing only. In 1965, a Lotus powered by a highly-modified small block Ford V-8 engine won the Indy 500. From 1966-69, Ford won the 24 hour race at LeMans four years in a row. Not only was Ford’s racing program doing well, Mustangs were selling like hotcakes! The double success of Ford racing and the Mustang led to a concept car called the Mach 2. It was a proposed mid-engined, two-seat sports car. The Ford personnel most responsible for development of the Mustang Mach 2 were Lee Iacocca, Gene Bordinat and Roy Lunn. Iacocca became general manager of Ford Division in 1961. Because of the runaway success of the Mustang, he was placed in charge of all of Ford’s cars and trucks in 1965. Bordinat, who started at Ford in 1947, became Ford’s Chief Designer in 1961. Lunn, who started at Ford of England in 1953, came to the U.S. in 1958. He eventually became head of Ford’s Advanced Vehicle Center, and was deeply involved in the final development of the Mach II as a road-ready car and also as a potential race car. Whose idea it was to build a mid-engined sports car from a Mustang is lost to history. From a design standpoint, however, the project got started in early 1966. Bordinat assigned the project to the Corporate Projects Studio. According to designer Bud Magaldi, Jerry Morrison was the primary designer working on the Mach II. Magaldi had recently been hired, and working on the design of the Mach 2 was one of his first assignments. Morrison and Magaldi worked with a talented design engineer named Bob Huzzard who got his start during World War II designing autogiros. Huzzard went on to become a designer at both Hudson and Briggs Manufacturing before switching to design engineering at AMC and then Chrysler. He came to Ford in February 1964, and was immediately assigned by Bordinat to the Corporate Projects studio as a design engineer. Morrison and Magaldi designed the outside of the Mach II, while Huzzard was the one who engineered a ‘66 Mustang into a mid-engined sports car with independent rear suspension. Design and engineering work at Ford’s Design Center was completed by early 1967, and the Mach II was then moved to Kar Kraft, a local job shop set up by Lunn for Ford, where it was finished into a street legal car. Kar Kraft actually built two operable Mach 2 sports cars (red cars) and one race version (white car). According to Ford, the Mach 2 had a wheelbase of 107.3 inches, weighed 2,650 lbs, was powered by a 289 CID mid engine and had doors that “opened high into the roof.” The car was a big hit at the ’67 Detroit Auto Show. Sometime after 1967, Ford determined production was not in the cards, supposedly because of the car’s complexity and the costs involved. Until 1970, the red cars were often featured in parades and other events in the Dearborn area. The race version Mach 2 was eventually crushed, and the two sports car versions of the Mach 2 disappeared sometime after Kar Kraft shuttered its doors in late 1970. Maybe they were crushed, maybe not, but there’s a postscript to the story. In spring 1968, Henry Ford II hired Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen away from GM to become Ford’s president. Knudsen got the job Iacocca wanted. When Kundsen came to Ford he brought two GM designers with him. One was Larry Shinoda of ‘63 Corvette Stingray fame. Shinoda and Bordinat didn’t get along. Shinoda ignored Bordinat, and looked to Knudsen for protection and directions. In other words, Shinoda only did the design work he and/or Knudsen wanted. One of the projects Shinoda undertook was to revise the Mach 2 concept into Ford’s answer to the Corvette, including provision for a big block engine in a substantially revised Mach 2, now called the Mach II. To make a long story short, in September 1969, Iacocca, Bordiant and others Ford executives were successful in getting Knudsen fired. Right after Knudsen was fired, Bordinat placed a call to Shinoda, who was in Germany attending an auto show. Bordinat told him he too was fired, and he needed to return to the U.S. quickly because his company credit card was being canceled. So ended Ford’s Corvette challenger called the Mach II. Image Unavailable, Please Login Posted by permission from James and Cheryl Farrell Photos courtesy of Ford Archives. From Ford Design Department—Concepts & Showcars, 1932-1961by Jim and Cheryl Farrell ISBN 0-9672428-0-0 Book review to come. For book ordering information, email: [email protected] Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I don't get it, they slam the roof and run the black rockers up to the rear to make it look leaner, and then put vertical tail lamps that make it look tall and narrow...
