Zero to Hero: I don't think I have ever really wanted a Corvette until now.

"BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast." (boxerfanatic) 01/18/2020 at 12:43 • Filed to: Chip Foose, Corvette, C5 Corvette, Speedster, Car Design, want, video

2

5

I am not a huge fan of Corvette or GM in general... but I think Corvettes are OK, and good at being what they are. Usually my preferences lead me elsewhere, though.

C1 was one of the coolest looking 50s cars, but arguably a bit different sort of car than what came after them. The C2 is revered as one of the most innovative and original sports car designs ever, the C3 was gorgeously curvaceous, C4 was clean and sleek as an ‘80s wedge.

C5 lost it’s way, and I pretty much agree with Chips’ comments on the C5, and you should click play on the video for multiple reasons.

C6 cleaned up the exterior design, and Grand Sport may be the best modern OEM Corvette design. C7 swung too far the other way from C5 and got way too angular and over-styled, trying to chase the likes of Nissan GTR, although C7 probably improved the interior more than it’s predecessors.

I think the mid-engine move is a good one, but the C8 is still too over-styled, and out of my price range. C8.2 or C9 with a cleaner, smoother exterior design in the future, and feedback from whether the new C8 interior works as good as it looks, a future stock Corvette could be truly great, inside, out, and underneath.

But C5 in stock form, while a good mechanical platform, at an amazing used price about now, is a fairly LARGE aesthetic let-down, and I don’t think it has aged particularly well. I would spend as much or more on a used Porsche, rather than a C5 Corvette.

Then Chip did this.

I should not be surprised, considering what he has a history of doing, including his recent retro-modern Mustang, and Jaguar E-type... and a lot more before that.

I would own a C5-based Foose-designed speedster over a Porsche. That’s HUGE for me, considering how much I like rarer flat 6 OHC engines rather than ubiquitous pushrod V8s that are everywhere, mid-engine or rear engine geometry and physics rather than front-heavy muscle cars, and Porsche’s clean and evolution-refined designs, rather than just bold and brash.

Chip talks about not replicating designs, and bespoke designing each new opportunity for each customer... but in this case, he should license this design to someone who makes fiberglass Corvette re-body kits, and sell these as parts or turn-key for C5 donors. This design is too good to leave it as a drawing or only one example.

But a speedster like that... is achingly gorgeous, and still mechanically quite good underneath... It looks so good, you want to get out and drive it just to see it in the sunlight, rather than going out and looking at it in the garage. A car like that would be an art object that could not be ignored. I am not talking about being an attention getter from other people, which of course it would do... I am talking about appreciating it as its’ owner.

This was a quick sketch, and there would be options for a bit more development... but I can imagine a modernized version of the early C3 nose, a tapered and beveled rear tail light panel above, and a diffuser below the bumper area of the rear fascia, and a C2-like longitudinal center ridge line like the 1963 C2 and the Bugatti Chiron. with a symmetrical design on either side, front the front grilles, heat extractors, interior ‘cockpit’ seating, roll bars and aero fairings, and Chip’s very interesting dual wings on the back, above presumably dual round tail lights behind them... and dual or quad central exhaust.

Chip indicated the wheels without specifying them, I would love to see modernized wheels that update the late C3 slotted aluminum wheels, and the early C4 turbine-vane wheels... with some dramatic concave surfacing.

I haven’t mentioned mechanicals or drivetrain... because baseline is not really a problem... and the car would be great with a stock drivetrain. However, if I really wanted to make a statement... I would make this a speedster successor to the ‘70s AeroVette concept, and put a 3-rotor turbo engine in it...

For the 2020 era... hybrid tech for electric low-end torque for stop-and-go, reverse, and combined burst performance. An electric motor/generator/starter mounted to the rotary engine, and two output drive motors on the rear transaxle for torque vectoring, a Koenigsegg Regera-style torque mixing coupling between the two, and a Supercapacitor or a bit of batteries behind the seats.

Compared to wanting this... I have never really wanted a Corvette before.

slipperysallylikespenguins > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 01/18/2020 at 14:45

2

I’ve really been enjoying the Foose/Hagerty videos. Their “Why I Drive” series is good too.

I’m a much bigger fan of the curves on the C5 vs the tighter lines on the c6. I think a C5 Z06 would be my ideal Corvette right now out of the c5-c8 era.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > slipperysallylikespenguins 01/18/2020 at 15:08

1

I don’t mind the curves of the C5 body... as I mentioned, I like Porsches, which are all curves...

I t’s the proportions, and some of the details of the C5 that aren’t quite right to me. The front end looks melted, and the back end look bulbous and bloated, and just a bit strung together between. The C1 and C2 inspired retro re-bodies don’t really solve it, but just exchange it for other disproportionate aspects of older cars. I tend to like “inspired-by” rather than “replication-of”.

It is AMAZING how much better the tailored aft section is on Chip’s sketch than the bulky posterior on the stock vehicle, which he specifically mentioned that he didn’t shorten the car, he just raised the bottom and lowered the top of the tail just a bit.

The sharper side gills and clean front help, too, which arguably look a bit C6 Grand Sport and old C2/C3 shark-like.

The C6 isn’t as long on the back, but it is still quite high. More than the creases in the bodywork, I like the sharper radiuses on the details that look a bit more sculpted than melted.

slipperysallylikespenguins > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 01/18/2020 at 15:28

1

Those side gills on the Grand Sport are by far my favorite styling element for the C6.

I never really thought about the tail being to o high until watching this video, but it definitely is. Not a bad design but can obviously be improved upon.  

Those retro rebodies are abominations, the Foose C5 would be a way better use of resources. I’m willing to bet they could sell a run of 25 or so pretty easily.(If they had new powerplants.)

I’ve always had a problem with the rear side vent on the C6 Z06 just sticking out. Whenever I think of one that comes to mind.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 01/19/2020 at 00:56

0

halfway there callaway c12

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 01/19/2020 at 02:22

0

Foose actually mentioned the Calla way in the video, although not exactly clear whether he was drawing a little inspiration from that C5-based car, the C6-based C16 car, or the earlier C4-based speedster.

To compare and contrast with Foose’s drawing:

and the standard C5 convertible:

The Callaway C16 Speedster fixed a bit of the car’s bulk on the back, by raising up the bottom of the rear bumper, and tapering the tail panel a bit more, but didn’t actually lower the trunk lid surface the way Foose did.

Callaway didn’t shorten the tail, but actually DID extend the nose and increase the front overhang, which while it looked interesting in the details, especially with the elongated headlights and pursed egg-crate Italian-style grille, it actually threw the proportions of the car off... and kind of served to make the the hood look like an afterthought. Reduced ramp angle, and longer front overhang is not what the car needed.

The Callaway changed the sides to vents, but actually made the doors flatter, which is actually the wrong direction... the C5 and C6 don’t need a lot more uninterrupted surface area, they need the right surface development to draw the eye along the body. Aesthetics that create eye motion tend to make the car look like it is in motion when it is parked, or a drawing, and not actually moving.

Foose’s side ducts are actually more sculpted than stock, although the top line of the indentation going up from the vents toward the window sill on the doors is the one line Foose drew that I don’t 100% agree with, it is almost too different an angle than the hood to window-sill to trunk surface line.

The C5s’ stock side duct line is parallel to the lower line, and the window sill, but it dissipates very quickly past the door’s front shut line, rather than extending further back toward the door handle.

I have to say that I like the Foose Speedbird-derived glass treatment, as well. Not as high as the stock windshield, but not as very low as the C4-based Speedster, or as absent as the C16 Speedster. The rake of the glass gives the windshield a bit of length, but noticeably less height than stock,

I also love the glass-over-windshield frame, both on the windshield glass, as well as it meeting the slick wrap-around side windows that actually curl down to terminate with the rear door shut-line, and leave the rear aero roll bar treatment to stand on it’s own. I loved that aspect of the SVX I owned, too... very flush glass fitment with the roof pillar structures under the glass, rather than between the panels.

The C4-based Calla way was a striking statement, but I have no idea how much of a turbulence generator or pain in the neck to keep clean those rear transparent panels, and the paintwork under them, are.

One aspect of the Foose drawing is the staggered diameter wheels, and how tight the front end is over the notably smaller front tires... the stock vehicle has a lot of space above the front tires on non-staggered-diameter wheels.

However, lowering the car to reduce that gap and would make the front end even more problematic and radiator or engine damage even more of a concern for a street-driven car... unless it has a front end lift suspension system, or a shortened front overhang... or both. And without lowering the rear deck height, lowering the front and raking the car forward a bit, just emphasizes the rear overhang deck height even more, not de-emphasizing the visual mass on the back of the car.