GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There are 2 styling features on the Bolt that really upset me- 1. The "floating" roof and 2. The two points on the front undertray.

These features ape the worst of Japanese design overwrought cliches and show a sad attempt to make the Bolt fit in as mainstream instead of celebrating it for the great departure it is.

Unfortunately they will date the Bolt quickly as the Japanese companies move on to their next set of cliches.

Wish GM had the confidence to go with their own design language for the Bolt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
......and show a sad attempt to make the ____ fit in as mainstream instead of celebrating it for the great departure it is.
Similar complaints have been filed about Volt II. To some degree I have agreed. Volt I was quite bold IMO (and I like that) but I think some at GM feel that this was why it didn't sell more. Maybe they're right, but Volt II didn't inspire a trade-in at my house and I've told the sales manager at my dealer this to her face.

Wish GM had the confidence to go with their own design language for the Bolt.
I feel this way about much of GM's lineup. Will we ever see these cars at our dealerships?




The last car GM made that was really close to it's concept parent was the ELR. We know where that went. I thought it was awesome except for the price, but I have no doubt that some at GM will blame it on the design instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
The "Floating Roof" really works for me and I am glad Chevy's designers included this element. It may or may not look dated in 10 years (I don't think it will but what do I know...) but I think it looks fresh and modern now. And, as the owner of a Leaf, I am glad that Chevy is making an effort to make the Bolt look main stream.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Styling preference is a personal thing. Can't live with it? Buy something you like. Chevy spent months on this and isn't about to change anything. Ditto, Volt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Styling is subjective so no need to agree IMO.

If it was very important to me I'd still be driving my gen 1 Volt and not the gen 2. But I do miss the clean appearance of my gen 1. This darth vader Japanese astroboy styling will look as silly and dated as tailfins in 5 years imo. In fact to me it looked silly the moment it reared its ugly head.

Just as the ever growing tailfin eventually made tailfins seem silly, maybe the new extreme styled Prius sales egg laying will be the beginning of the end of this misbegotten styling fad.

For the manufactuers it only is sales, or lack thereof, that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
The two front teeth, believe it or not, is compliance with a Federal safety standard. They are cowcatchers for an unlucky pedestrian. Meant to prevent a body from being deflected sideways into other lanes of traffic. Even the Corvette has them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Didn't know that. Thanks? Jmaj. Here's hoping there will be a more sightly way to comply in the future.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
The two front teeth, believe it or not, is compliance with a Federal safety standard. They are cowcatchers for an unlucky pedestrian. Meant to prevent a body from being deflected sideways into other lanes of traffic. Even the Corvette has them.
Can someone post a picture of the "teeth"? I'm still not sure what they are exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
The two front teeth, believe it or not, is compliance with a Federal safety standard. They are cowcatchers for an unlucky pedestrian. Meant to prevent a body from being deflected sideways into other lanes of traffic.

What Federal safety standard requires these points? Sounds like baloney to me - preventing body deflection, huh?

If they deflect anything, it's air. My guess as to why they are there: aerodynamics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Can someone post a picture of the "teeth"? I'm still not sure what they are exactly.
I think they are the two points on the edge of the air dam below the bumper. You'll see them in Mister Dave's photos of the Chevy and Buick dream cars - most obvious on the white Chevy. How these would bother the eyes of anybody is a mystery to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Didn't know that. Thanks? Jmaj. Here's hoping there will be a more sightly way to comply in the future.
There is. You can get a Volt, or if that is not universal looking enough, you can get a UGS, Univeral Generic Sedan.

At a distance, many sedans look virtually identical today. It's controlled by aero limitations and 2012+ fashion sense:

Test, really quick, ID all the cars (there are many more, this is five a random:

USC40MSC062A021001.jpg 2013%2F05%2F09%2Fdb%2FTeslaModelS.66c4e.jpg 2017-honda-civic-hatchback-concept-photos-and-info-news-car-and-driver-photo-665895-s-429x262.jpg 2017-Elantra-56-exterior-sport-red.jpg 2017-ford-fusion-hybrid-first-drive-review-car-and-driver-photo-668222-s-original.jpg

What do you fail to achieve? The ability to have a high POV when driving in traffic. The ability to parallel park in tight areas. Room to open doors.

It all comes down to what is important. Better urban form factor, or better fashion sense. You cannot have both a high POV, small footprint, and 2012 Fashion Sense.

Note, all those cars would have been considered ugly at some point in history, and they will be ugly in 20 years. Fashion is not a fixed entity except for nostalgia lovers.

I thought the Ram Truck was cool looking when it came out. It was Ugly at introduction, but today, 20 years later, many SUVs and trucks have used it's styling cues.

I thought the 1984 and 1997 Corvette were sexy biitches when released. That was not a popular opinion

I thought the CTS and CTS-V were really cutting edge with their bizarre sharp edge styling. Ugly to many, today, nearly all cars use some of the Sharp Edge Cadillac cues.

But, I did think the 1965 Mustang was ugly, and still do today. That is not a popular opinion and Ford even retro'd it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
What Federal safety standard requires these points? Sounds like baloney to me - preventing body deflection, huh?

If they deflect anything, it's air. My guess as to why they are there: aerodynamics.
Search wikipedia on pedestrian safety. The notch in the air dam lessens the forces on the legs, reduced broken bones and ligament damage to the knee joint.
Did you know the hood has a crush zone of sorts for the pedestrian's head?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
Nothing Wikipedia said suggested that the two points had anything to do with pedestrian safety.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top