Sports Car Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter Strata-R
  • 20 comments
  • 2,200 views
S

Strata-R

Messages
36
Messages
gaudeamus_xy
I am not liking the styling trends of modern sports cars. Normal sedans are designed to look sportier, and actual sports cars tend to safer styles. Take the Mazda RX-8 which I own as an example. When it first came out it really looked sporty and risque in appearance in GT trim. The front lip, sideskirts, and the back spoiler screamed speed and looked like it had aftermarket customization. A few years later they softened things up. They made the lines on the front headlights less aggressive, the front lip and sideskirts designs grew softer, and they made the tail lights look less busy. Mazda was probably trying to compete with BMW 3 series by trying to further refine the rotary powered car. In my opinion they failed.

I was looking forward to the new The Scion FR-S/Toyota GT-86, because it has the same formula for the cars I like. It is light, agile, affordable, and refined. I can't however, stand the new changes to the prototype. In much the same way as Mazda ruined the RX-8 by making it look more timid. I fear Toyota is too going to end up with a car with a tame style, that will be unnoticeable on the road compared to the normal modern sedans on the road today.

I am happy that some car manufacturers understand how to design sports cars. Nissan made a huge stride by updating the boring styled 350Z with the "cut" 370Z. I also love the new BMW 1 series M, because it too looks wild and exciting.

I understand that modern sports cars have to be both refined as well as sporty, and style-wise these can be a tricky thing to balance. It's just as bad to have a car that is designed to be too loud. Take the new Chevy Camaro, or the BOSS 306 Mustang. The Camaro's lines are way too sharp, and the front looks too aggressive. The Boss Mustang has too many stickers and stripes for it to work for a daily commute. I personally would feel like a tool every time I'd go to the super market, or to work. However, I'd love it on the track.

Sports in the future should have clear purpose. True sports cars have a priority for speed and handling. They are not for everyone as they tend to not be the most comfortable and lack interior room. For these scarifies, sports cars need to compensate by looking sharp. As an owner of a sports car you need to have that desire of turning back and just admiring your car in your garage for a few seconds, before you finally enter the house to relax after a long day of work. These cars, however, need to also work as daily commuters. There needs to be a level of refinement both in the interior for comfort during long drives, and sports cars can't be embarrassing by trying too hard to be different. They need to be between Pagani Zonda and Bughatti Veyron.
 
Last edited:
There is no "design" for sports car. Its a ideal, and companies interpret it as they see fit. I 'm sure there is a sports car that fits your idea of a sports car.
 
I think the latest RX-8's look far more aggressive than the old ones.
 
Sorry, but I think the RX8 is one of the ugliest sportscars ever. Just watch how Jeremy Clarkson describes it in his Top Gear review.
 
Last edited:
Schwartz38
Sorry, but I think the RX8 is one of the ugliest sportscars ever. Just watch how Jeremy Clarkson describes it in his Top Gear review.
Click to expand...


So explain why I always get compliments on it from strangers.

xNEVER-ONEx
There is no "design" for sports car. Its a ideal, and companies interpret it as they see fit. I 'm sure there is a sports car that fits your idea of a sports car.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I feel there is an instinctive mass appeal to some designs over others. There are going to be stark differences from one person to another, but in the aggregate there are general styling cues that are universal. For instance the E-Type Jaguar of the 1960s is regarded by many as one of the most beautiful cars ever designed. It follows the formula that I tried to outline in my original post. I highly doubt the Scion FR-S will be remembered because in it's current form it doesn't stand out. It looks like every other boring sporty car out there.

Design cues have to come from nature. I would compare the Ferrari Italia to a Cheetah. They are both bare-bone machines (albeit one mechanical, one organic) designed specifically for speed and agility and nothing else. The Italia is purpose built and i feel there is a biological appeal to it, because it looks attractive and healthy and the design almost makes you feel like it has a soul.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A Mustang, Camaro or RX-8 will never look as 'sporty' as a 458 Italia, Veyron or Zonda. Those cars, apart from the 5+ times price hike and manufacturing process, are all mid-engined and therefore are packaged differently. A front engined coupe with small rear seats, is always going to be closer to a regular saloon, they'll often share a chassis or drive-train with them as well. Manufacturers also want their cars to share some family resemblance.

The E-Type Jag is from another era of car design. One where the constraints of crash impact and pedestrian safety regulations didn't exist. You also have aerodynamic constraints due to manufacturers wanting/requiring better fuel milage and therefore lesser emissions.

All these factors add up to how and why modern sports cars, or more accurately, according to the examples you give - 'coupes' look the way they do.
 
I also believe the new GT86 looks alot "sportier" than any RX8 that has ever rolled off the line including the RX8's concepts, the MazdaSpeed is agressive but at it's very low production number's (300 yearly) I won't classify that as a regular sports car. I very much wanted to love the RX8 at release but it just look's wrong in my eye's.

My point is, each person has a different mindset on what look's good and companies like to stay where guaranteed revenue is expected (no off the wall car's). So this usually mean's sticking to what they "know" work's. Supercars and Hypercars developers don't have to stick to the cookie cutter formula as they usually are looked at performance wise before appearance and their "beautiful" sleekness is usually dictated by performance as well.

The in between Zonda and Veyron is scary in my mind as neither car is attractive. The Zonda is decent enough I guess but they Veyron is just butt ugly (I compare it's look's to the Ford Edsel :)). Main class car's like the GT86, Miata, RX8, S2000 need to look rather tame for the general public.

Schwartz nothing that comes out of that man's mouth is unbiased.
 
Extra volume needs to be designed into these models as opposed to their older brothers from the 60's. Designers need to find space for extra large Bose radios, airbags, crumplezones, etc.

My car looks small, sleek, and slim when you put it next to a modern supercar simply because it doesn't need the same volume on the inside. Just the sheer size of the cars these days plays heavily towards their looks. Extra regulation on indicator size, position, also sort of "standardizes" the mold most cars are cut from.

Why can't a BR-Z look like a 458 or Zonda? Because those kinds of bodies are expensive as hell to design and build, not to mention hugely impractical to live with for an average person. Why would Subota make a BR-Z the same shape as a 458 if
A) people will buy it all the same with a cheaper and more practical body and
B) the BR-Z's performance won't benefit from the aerodynamics and characteristics of the 458's body.

Honestly though, I can't give you a solid reason why cars aren't made as pretty as you would prefer.

EDIT: When you talk about how sports cars should have "purpose" in their design, it's also important to remember that the REAL purpose of sports cars is to sell an be sold.
 
Last edited:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So although you may not like the current crop of sports cars, someone else may love them. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion of course, but that's all it is at the end of the day, an opinion.

Personally, I really like the styling of alot of modern sports cars, but again, that's just my own opinion. :)
 
Strata-R
So explain why I always get compliments on it from strangers.
Click to expand...
People are stupid. Though I disagree with Clarkson on it looking bad.(now, I used to not like it) For example A lot of people think my gf's car is really nice and its a cobalt LT.
 
Thatman
People are stupid. Though I disagree with Clarkson on it looking bad.(now, I used to not like it) For example A lot of people think my gf's car is really nice and its a cobalt LT.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Except the RX8 is ugly.
The Nissan 370z is one of the best looking "reasonably priced" sports cars in my opinion.
 
I think TheCracker nailed it. The true designed sports cars are all wickedly priced and are designed entirely differently as an independent car.

"Sports cars" in the reasonably priced range all share tech and parts with the cars of the maker. It's simply not feasible to make a car that's fast and sporty that required completely new tech and parts just for one niche market car. Companies won't pour tons of money into a car that won't sell more than other cars on their line because it doesn't make finiacial sense.
 
Nothing beats the 90's styling really


For example


I Really think that The Mclaren F1 Is more aggresive look than the Veyron


and the Nissan skyline R32 & R33 & R34 Is more bueatiful than the GTR
 
Celicaas
I Really think that The Mclaren F1 Is more aggresive look than the Veyron
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true because upside down bathtubs with W16s don't look aggressive.
 
Ultimately, styling is completely subjective.

I personally think the updated RX-8 looks far more aggressive than the original. The foglights and black vents in the front fascia evoke the similar ones in the Audi R8, the wheels are far more aggressive than the original RX-8, the taillights switched to dual round designs evoking the round taillights in the late FD RX-7, headlights made less bugeyed, the R3 got the awesome new Recaro seats, and the styling was slightly changed to make the car appear lower. The only thing I didn't like was them getting rid of the front fender vents, as it makes the flared wheel arches look more bare.
 
Last edited:
Schwartz38
Yes, this is true because upside down bathtubs with W16s don't look aggressive.
Click to expand...
Not just that The mclaren F1

Was the first car ever to be built with all carbon fiber body And the middle position of the driver It was built for racing not like this French/German Beetle with W16 The so called Veyron the fastest supercar Hence it the veyron looks ugly And the last thing & which pisses me off that it Engineerd by VW .

VW Originally Didn't built any supercar just buys another manufacturers Example is Lambo



And then people say VW Built the gallardo & the murcielago Which is actually built by feraccio lamborghini's Workers



and i think lamborghini's Cooperation with VW Is a big mistake why Because they Didn't product the 1995 V10 Cala which is the gallardo's Ancestor
 
Last edited:
Celicaas
Not just that The mclaren F1

Was the first car ever to be built with all carbon fiber body And the middle position of the driver It was built for racing not like this French/German Beetle with W16 The so called Veyron the fastest supercar Hence it the veyron looks ugly And the last thing & which pisses me off that it Engineerd by VW .
Click to expand...

So, you get annoyed because a car was engineered by VW. The Veyron was never intended for racing. They wanted it to be big, luxurious, powerful and fast in a straight line. It does all of that...
 
I thought the McLaren F1 was built to be the best possible road car, if I recall the huge Evo feature correctly then they had no intention of entering a factory car into the 24 hours of Le Mans yet a late decision saw them enter with the car that eventually won it.
 

Latest Posts

Back