vs.
Can you clarify...these quotes seem inconsistent. Which is it...does the NSX
fit in with the crowd because the geometries are the same? But then it doesn't because of an optical illusion?
At any rate, that was the whole point of referencing Vitrivian architecture. A good designer does not and should not stop just when the geometry is accurate...they have to take it to the next level to ensure that it registers properly when being looked at. In the real world often times geometry has to take a back seat..that's what the Greeks/Romans did...they did not insist and make every floor, cornice, column technically straight and say if you don't think it looks that way, tough noogies (and it really wouldn't have looked straight). They made sure it would
appear straight by understanding visual distortion and correction after correcting the geometry. There are so many instances in life with other large investments we make like housing construction/remodels where you have to make adjustments here and there to make it appear the way you want it: a ceiling dips here, a wall leans a little there, a section has to much mud on it, etc. you have to do what it takes to make it appear straight or how you want it and geometry at that point takes a back seat.
Quickie's pink line is what this is ALL about when it comes to why some are displeased and not buying, and it's the simplest way to represent the problem. A murdered-out NSX does not solve this issue since it still has a faux mesh grill right there providing a much taller pink line. And in the end, no one cares what the ACTUAL geometry is even if it is right, not consumers, not the Greeks and Romans, etc, it has to
appear right. The young(er) 2.0 design team perhaps were just not yet capable of bringing the fascia to the point of being refined to the level that a $200,000 car should have.
<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 16.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color:
#232323 }span.s1 {font-kerning: none}</style>And again, I'm
not knocking the car as a whole, I know it is amazing to drive and owners LOVE them! And Honda/Acura’s marketing success in their mind might be very straightforward…simply that they were able to do it and make it happen. They got their name back up in the performance charts, graced the cover of many magazines after all these years, invented new tech that will trickle down to other models and for this, they do deserve a big round of applause. It took courage to go for it.
However, coming from a three decade diehard Acura fan, their success in my mind wasn’t based upon how many of these they sell/sold, or what magazine says, …it's simply based upon whether or not it gave me the feeling again to want to buy (any of) their cars again…namely this car...once more...and sadly, it did not. There is an order as to how things are introduced to our hearts and minds and it all starts with whether or not what you see gives you this feeling or not in just a mere fraction of a second. Cheap interior parts and/or antiquated beaks can do that to a buyer and should not be underestimated. Why? Because at the end of the day
you HAVE to have a gut-level connection with the car before you connect at the steering wheel. You see it with your eyes before you will feel it with your hands. You marvel at its looks before you marvel at the throttle. This is the "X" factor-full of passion and enthusiasm for a sports car we ALL long to feel and it cannot be measured by geometry. I would venture to say that whoever pre-ordered might have felt this way and they are true "winners" in all of this...they are the lucky ones.