That's what happens when you guess, you overestimate your own abilities, and underestimate others'. Education and experience are pretty handy for reducing one's reliance on guessing, wouldn't you say? At the risk of tooting my own horn, I studied transport design, among other things. The 612 is an aesthetic compromise, for the sake of packaging requirements (powerplant, passengers). It does the job, of housing the powerplant and cossetting four passengers, but its looks suffer as a result. It is bloated and pig-ugly. The size of taillamps, rake of windshield, roofline, bonnet curve, side scallops, all add to the jumble of design elements thrown together with little regard to proportion, cohesiveness, or Ferrari's design language for the gorgeous front-engined sportscars it is famous for. There's a fan club for the Avanti too. Are you a member? ;-)
Nonsense. The 456 had to package just about the same amount of passengers and power plant and that's general agreed to be a good looking car. So to suggest the the 612 looks the way it does simply as a result of the internal volumes it's being asked to accommodate just doesn't hold water. The 612 looks the way it does because that's how they wanted it to look. By the way, you were the one who started with the guessing...
Not quite. The 456 has much less legroom. Its engine bay is also smaller. For the longer length of the 612, Ferrari decided to go with a more massive look, to give it proportionately more "visual weight". This led to the bulbous shape. The smaller taillights are another example, accentuating the mass of the metal surrounding them. There are many other such details, but if you like it, you like it. I guessed about the things one cannot possibly know or understand...not about the design elements on the 612 and why they are there. You can look up any number of articles on the 612's design, or do as I did--simply visit the factory and ask the right people how it came about. You can agree to disagree, but facts are undisputable. Now, how much does your partner really weigh. Be honest!
It is well known that the 612 design was really compromised between the conceptual drawings and the final car. As you point out, they just couldn't pull it off, too many compromises required for the package they wanted. This issue has been beat to hell over in the 599/612 section. Same thing happened to the rear of the California to fit the hard roof, I think.
Put a picture of the the 456 on a photocopier. Enlarge it by, say, 12%. There, that should accommodate everything that 612 has to deal with. Has it suddenly become a bulbous ugly car? Nine and a half stone.
Yes. It makes all the difference. And the 456, while not ugly, is not exactly an award-winning design either. Ferrari is not a marque where one should be satisfied with merely average or adequate solutions. 456 - mediocre. 612 - hideous. It really is that simple. If you don't agree, simply imagine your partner being 12%, or 20% shorter. Wait, is she over 5 feet to begin with??
The point I'm making is that if it is ugly (and you're quite entitled to think it is) it's not because of what it has to accommodate. So O.K. if not the 456 then blow up the Maserati GT until it accommodates the same ask as the 612. It wouldn't suddenly become ugly. It might become too big (a point I conceded for the 612) in the quest for a little extra leg room and a larger engine bay, but the lines would still be beautiful. So he idea that the 612 became ugly as a result of having to accommodate a lot internal volume doesn't work. If it is ugly, then it's because he designers didn't get it right, not because it had to do a lot. As for "Ferrari is not a marque where one should be satisfied with merely average or adequate solutions." Ferrari have a long history of "average or adequate". Despite the myth the truly great Ferraris, design wise, can be counted on one hand.
It's ugly, glad you finally concede that. And I can tell you it's the shape it is because of the packaging considerations, per the designer. So, that's fact. Maserati did the same thing, but pulled it off beautifully. And Ferrari's mediocre or ugly cars are the ones that can be counted on one hand. Ferrari has had a ton of gorgeous designs, and has often set the benchmark for others to follow. Wrong and wrong again. Now, what was the height?
Err... so you agree with me, then. At the very least those sentences are in complete contradiction. Now, should I finish this post by insulting your wife... Mmm.
You could, but you'd be barking up the wrong tree as usual, since I don't have a wife. You are the one that completely contradicted yourself, going from calling the 612 handsome (among other things) to agreeing that it was ugly (I like how you couched it with a hypothetical "if" it was ugly), but not for the reason of packaging, even though the designer himself says this is the reason why. Suddenly proclaiming that I am agreeing with you when I, along with others, have been doing the exact opposite, reveals a great deal of insecurity. So does claiming that two consistent statements are in complete contradiction. Is it my problem you can't understand them and therefore don't get that they are consistent? If something is eating you up, perhaps this is not the best medium for resolving it. Is it your claim about your clients being happy with your work, which apparently has something to do with design...how really sure are you about that? Is it something else? Now you want us to believe that Ferrari makes mostly ugly cars. *sigh*
Er, you might want to read my posts again. Nowhere do I agree it's ugly. I simply entertain your right to think it's ugly as a means to getting my point across. Anyway, I've had enough of this. Your tone is unpleasant. EDIT: Ah, I see from your amendment you at least agree with my last point.
I laugh when I see grown men arguing in a message board. Back to the topic, I love the new 458, the 360 and 430 were conservative in terms of looks. I like the new design and everything about it.
I think whoever started this thread is on crack. Hopefully this will change your mind. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Sure it looks good from this angle because all the flaws are hidden. I'm sorry but Ferrari has an expensive loser here. I'm starting to like the California GT after seeing the 458.
You may say that now, but I guarentee you that about a year after it comes out, you are gong to realize its one of the best looking cars Ferrari has ever produced. Besides the front what other flaws are there? Personally I like the front, very different and aggressive.
^ It might be a good looking exotic with performance to match but I don't think it will ever be mentioned in the same lines as 288 GTO, Ferrari 355 and Challenge Stradale in terms of beauty, say 10 years from now. F430 looks more business than this ultramodern playboy.
I actually liked it in the pics released a couple of weeks ago. The shots from the unveiling kind of destroyed that. I don't like the look of the front of the car. Perhaps I need to see one in the metal. The one thing I really didn't like was the sort of eyeliner stuff from the front lights going along the bonnet/hood.
To me the entire car seems a bit off. Here's why. At the dealers' meeting in Italy, Ferrari told the dealers that starting with the 458 and all future Ferraris, the design of the car will be dictated by the wind tunnel results. I'm sure it has to do with CAFE standards to get mpg's up. And probably the design is also dictated for safety reasons .. down force for example. You obviously don't want the car lifting at 200 mph. So Pininfarina designs a car and then the tweaking starts after wind tunnel results. Maybe the crease in the hood is there because of the wind tunnel and not because the designer designed it that way? I just feel the 458 doesn't flow right and it has lost some cohesiveness.
Guys, to be honest, i like the back of the car,the interior is so so well put together,rims good,engine wuaaaa.... but that front guys,that front....IMO it's too ugly for Ferrari.... I mean, they couldn't introduce something better? But that's my only taste....
