Beretta.net

themadness wrote:add this to the list......

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/autos/2013 ... how/9.html

And then there is this...

"If that's not cool enough for you, you can wait and see if they do a version with the blacked-out wheels and grill."

Maybe the design will grow on my but i'm not feeling the new Vette.

I actually like the new stingray vette. The only thing that looks weird to me is the rear end.

I didn't like the C-6 at all. When it first hit the market, we checked it out, and it felt almost cramped inside -and I am not a big guy. I didn't like the exterior styling either; where were the flip-up headlights present on all 'Vettes since the C-1? And the back-end looked too short, like something was missing. It performed well, but performance alone just isn't enough for me to like a car, which is a good thing since I am a Beretta fan!

felixGTU wrote:I actually like the new stingray vette. The only thing that looks weird to me is the rear end.

I still think they should have built the prototype I seen a year or two ago.
Now that one was nice.

Here are photos of it:

I can see why they didn't build that one though, the styling is too extreme, it just looks like a concept car. Overall, the rear-end looks unrefined, but I like the tail-lights and I love that split rear-window!

Rettax3 wrote:I didn't like the C-6 at all. When it first hit the market, we checked it out, and it felt almost cramped inside -and I am not a big guy. I didn't like the exterior styling either; where were the flip-up headlights present on all 'Vettes since the C-1? And the back-end looked too short, like something was missing. It performed well, but performance alone just isn't enough for me to like a car, which is a good thing since I am a Beretta fan!

A sharp cut-off at the rear is for aerodynamic purposes IIRC, I can't remember why exactly, but I remember reading about that feature on many different performance oriented vehicles in the last decade or so. More than likely just another thing "stolen" from Ferrari though for the C5 (with a hint of 3rd gen RX-7) and C6+ (just look at the F360 and F430 models specifically).

To be honest, I feel super cramped in everything, which is why I like trucks. I don't have to hunch in my shoulders to let the front passenger have some room (I'm a very broad dude).

Koots wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:I didn't like the C-6 at all, the back-end looked too short, like something was missing. It performed well, but performance alone just isn't enough for me to like a car, which is a good thing since I am a Beretta fan!

A sharp cut-off at the rear is for aerodynamic purposes IIRC

Rettax3 wrote:

Koots wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:I didn't like the C-6 at all, the back-end looked too short, like something was missing. It performed well, but performance alone just isn't enough for me to like a car, which is a good thing since I am a Beretta fan!

A sharp cut-off at the rear is for aerodynamic purposes IIRC

OldsAerotech.jpg

I totally would not mind driving that.

GHOSTOWLGRID wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:

OldsAerotech.jpg

I totally would not mind driving that.

I didn't post a pic because I think it is ugly, in fact, function has a certain beauty all its' own, to me.

Rettax3 wrote:

GHOSTOWLGRID wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:

OldsAerotech.jpg

I totally would not mind driving that.

I didn't post a pic because I think it is ugly, in fact, function has a certain beauty all its' own, to me.

Its all good, I didn't think it was because it was ugly.

Rettax3 wrote:

Koots wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:I didn't like the C-6 at all, the back-end looked too short, like something was missing. It performed well, but performance alone just isn't enough for me to like a car, which is a good thing since I am a Beretta fan!

A sharp cut-off at the rear is for aerodynamic purposes IIRC

OldsAerotech.jpg

Look at any modern Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus and many other cars and see that they are all doing this exact same thing for a reason. It's also why modern passenger cars are moving away from smooth bodies and increasing the amount of sharp creases and angles, especially at the rear fender.

I don't claim to know why but remember that aerodynamic doesn't simply mean lowering the coefficient of friction. I believe they do it for increasing downforce and stabilizing flow over, and off of the vehicle, so that turbulence is moved further behind the vehicle and have less of an impact on the rear end stability. Again, I'm no scientist here and not trying to argue with anyone

Rettax3 wrote:

GHOSTOWLGRID wrote:

Rettax3 wrote:

OldsAerotech.jpg

I totally would not mind driving that.

I didn't post a pic because I think it is ugly, in fact, function has a certain beauty all its' own, to me.

One can't say that without thinking of the AeroCivic;



With some extra time, money and testing, this guy lowered his Cd from 0.31 to 0.17 and can put most any hybrid to shame even while driving aggressively.

Now that is a real world example of the benefits of something like the Aerotech above.

ROFL! Koots, you do bring some serious awesomeness to the discussions here! I love it. I studied aerodynamics for a few years, both for professional concerns and for personal interest, but I am far from being an expert either. And you are 100% correct that automobile aerodynamics has more to do other factors than just CD, I couldn't have put it better myself.

BUT, splitting the air and bringing it back smoothly again is the main reason for smooth body-lines, pointed noses, and longer tails -a blunt, flat, tall tail-section is NOT aerodynamic. Angular body designs and short tails have more to do with fashion and current styling trends than it does with function. And that is fine, automobiles should look good, not just function well, and aside from the Olds Aerotechs, not many vehicles will see the needs of extreme aerodynamic styling that 260+MPH brings.

I'm not a fan of the artificially angular designs showing up now, I think they are garish and will look plain given a few years of new trends, even my '85 Nissan 300ZX is pushing the angular limits to me, but in a charming 'dated' way . But I never thought the Volkswagon Beetle should win any beauty contests either. Beauty usually lies somewhere between the extremes, with a finessed blending of concepts and lines, I think.

You are very correct and i'm glad you were able to spread more knowledge my way and thanks for not taking it the wrong way. As a Canadian, i've got an inherent fear of pissing everyone off, but still doing whatever the I want in private LOL I still end up stirring the pot a lot of forums, but will try to be the first one to try and bring it all back down to a sensible level later on.

I just read a lot of stuff and haven't studied anything in particular. So I have a lot of general knowledge to get me through, but there are only a few topics I can get halfway technical with LOL

I too feel the same way about modern vehicles. I kinda liked the CTS when it came out, but then saw everything getting too angular and now I hate it. Kinda like when the Taurus first came out (I was only a toddler then), it was revolutionary in it's smooth shape, but then everything started to look like it and made most American cars look like beans for a few years. I was more of a box chevy and full size pickup kinda guy, which had aerodynamic efficiency at the very bottom of it's list of priorities (until the last 2-4 years). Which is probably why I can stand seeing so many flat sides and sharp angles LOL