I used the latest version in the overlay. You say it's unfair, but I showed you a 3 year old rendering that looks exactly the same as the posted red vs red 2015 NSX vs 1991 NSX with lens distortion.
Sorry for the confusion, I was not suggesting the overlay was unfair at all...I was actually referring to your earlier posts wondering why you would show a couple of altered chops of the 2.0 that were intended to improve its appearance to make the point that the 2.0 as-is resembles the 1.0 instead of using just an unaltered photo or press photo.
I did not know you adjusted the scales of the overlay so now that you've clarified I can understand your point that the Corvette's side profile hood-line (z) is even higher than you've shown. I have understood from your earlier posts that the z-angle or hood-rake angle is very low on the new NSX compared to others. You didn't mention anything, however, about the comparison and contrast of the (x) and
references and that is what I am hoping we can effectively communicate with each other.
I was hoping to find out if you at least understood my point about the x and y vertical references to the front hood-line comparison regardless of the scale since it doesn't change what I was trying to point out? The new NSX's front hood-line is clearly higher than most, if not higher than any current exotic (concept or production). Design is subjective to a certain degree so an element can easily be considered trivial by one and significant by another. Since we are using images to help each other better understand anothers perspective I think it would be of value to try to present the design concept I have been trying to convey as objectively as possible just in case we are not on the same page. We have used terms like "hung headlights", "exotic", and "wedge" to name a few in other threads; but even these terms without some context can get lost and be mischaracterized as being subjective. The images below will hopefully provide some context and make more sense to anyone reading because I think the following concepts are worth understanding and will perhaps shed some objective light as to why some like the new NSX's front and why others do not.
Tradition is just that...tradition. And it typically defined as the transmission of something from one generation to the next...a fact (or perceived fact) being passed along to help the next generation understand something. Some tradition is good, and some is bad. In this specific case let's focus on a snapshot of tradition found in relevant and recent auto design that is an established reality of tradition, whether we agree with it or not. Cars that have traditionally been defined as being exotic, are traditionally associated with a relatively high price point, are traditionally associated with being exclusive, are traditionally associated with being faster than average, are traditionally associated with being able to outperform better than average, and so on. These exclusive sliver of cars are for the most part been defined by the industry as being a cut above the rest and demand respect, admiration, prestige, and even honor in some cases. The idea in "branding" is that then to conceptually package these highly sought after, very desirable, exclusive characteristics and bestow them upon its driver/owner. These designs have traditionally had the a precise design principle built into it: The wedge - meaning that the headlights are always placed above leading hood-line/frontal hood-plane. This essentially guarantees that the bottom apex of this leading front line is closest to the ground creating an aggressive, sharp, jet-fighter like appearance. Whether the z-axis hood is long or short, the closer the front gets to the ground, the more this illusion is accomplished. With present day safety regulations, automakers must exploit this illusion to its fullest to keep this tradition alive.
The 1.0 was penned by Okuyama and he captured and laid this amazing leading line and the birth of the first generation iteration of NS-X was born. It was designed to specifically compete within this tradition of exotic exclusive and be a game-changer because sadly up until 1991, exotics were also
traditionally associated with being unreliable and requiring lots of maintenance.
Another design tradition that has been established for over a century which is the conventional norm and goes as far back as the Model-T to the present day Taurus is: headlights below the leading hood-line/frontal hood-plane. This can be seen on anything from an Audi to an Autovaz, from a Buick to a BMW, from a Dodge to a Daewoo, from a Mazda to a Mitsubishi, from a Mercedes to a Mustang, from a Rolls Royce to Reliant, from a Range Rover to Renault, and until now...from a Nissan to an NSX.
The father NSX 1.0 had this distinguishing linear trait that clumped it in with the elites. It would never get lost in traffic with all the other below-the-plane hung headlights because it was better than that. It, by (complying with) tradition, commands attention, awe, respect, because there is an entire tradition within the car industry that has defined it as so. This definition isn't arbitrary, it is backed by decades of companies proving these to themselves by their brand, appearance, performance, and price point.
It is simply the opinion of some that the 2.0 would have been more true, more accurate, more genuine, more proper, more legit, to its father's design if it had simply kept this single trait of not "crossing the line". It (the face) is essentially the key element that defines whether we like it or not upon first glance before knowing any of the numbers, if it elicits a "gotta have it" feeling or an "I can pass" one. It also dictates how it will be perceived not just by the buyer, but also what the buyer internally hopes and wants to be perceived as when shelling over $160K for some wheels. Why do you think automakers put the emblem up there, it's because that's where people are looking...at the face, and in this case, because of the present state of the Acura brand, most aren't too impressed when they see you in an Acura...and perhaps even less impressed when they find out just how a-lot-a-lot-a-lot-a you paid for this looks-just-like-other Acura's. At least when we were ridiculed for how much we paid for our 1.0's we knew we had a
traditionally designed "exotic" bequeathed into our hands and we enjoyed the heck out of it.
So the corporate decisions that were made that have resulted with the current front face imho is not as insignificant or minor as one might think, it is a weighty departure which potentially catapults this model into a mediocrity of vehicles filled with sedans and coupes that range from Agarths to Zagatos.
Which brings me to a unexpected realization. Maybe some of us were dreamers when we actually thought and believed that the 1.0 deserves such an association with this exotic and elite tradition and have been just fooling ourselves. Like having the cheapest expensive watch one could buy. The Armani shirt from the discount clearance rack. The guys that I know that own Ferrari's and Lambo's for the most part do not sincerely consider the 1.0 as truly deserving of "exotic" category. This might be based solely on manufacturers price points and both 1.0 and 2.0 pale in comparison to the big bucks they have to shell out. But we do know that on the track with 1.0 it's a different story and one can only hope that to be true with 2.0 :wink:
So perhaps the current face puts the appearance of the car in a more correct place of where it truly belongs on the map, where it deserves, perhaps the King of all of the sedan-faced coupes in the world and I don't mean that facetiously. Us leftover dreamers need to wake up and get back in touch with the reality of what the car will really be worth, how the car will really perform, and the limits of how the car will really impress. Perhaps it will be the reverse...the most expensive cheapest car you can buy.
About the suggestion to move on...but what else can be moved on to for the performance price point? Plus I love Honda! Remember, I can only afford the cheapest expensive watch
which leads to mentioning the original intention of the
body kit thread. Some don't care or give a fig about brand, prestige or perception and just want a car that gets them excited when they see it. So perhaps with a good body kit, someday, somewhere, when the white unicorn is more affordable (and actually available), and with a front modification that simply captures a preferred design heritage of 1.0's exotic, fatherly, F-16 lines, I can finally feel the "gotta have it" feeling once again.
- - - Updated - - -
Also, the new Lotus and C7 may look exotic and fantastic, but many will not view them as exotic (I don't.)
It's funny you mention that because the C7 is actually halfsies...headlights partially in/partially out.
The term exotic really does require the inclusion of serious performance and serious price which often results in rarity. There have been many previous vette's where the headlights were above the fold. Obviously slapping high headlights on any car doesn't make it an exotic. If serious performance is really there, then serious price is gonna follow thus making it rare. Except, the Corvette is an anomaly because it battles hard in the performance category by ripping some killer times around the Nurburgring (currently hold two of the Top 10 times) but is at a relatively low price point compared to other exotics so then they are not rare (at least not in the US). Back in the 80's when the Lotus Espirit was looking more like a Lambo, I think it was received as an exotic. I have Car and Drivers from the late 80's/early 90's with titles like 'The Battle of the Exotics' or 'Battle of the Supercars' and a Lotus, a Corvette, a Ferrari, Lamborghini, and a Porsche were always included in the match.
and that would have been mighty good.
