In taking a few photos of a recent-model Chevrolet Corvette Stingray, I was reminded of an article about its chief designer. Shortly after the C7 Corvette was introduced in 2013, Tom Peters participated in a question-and-answer interview with Cool Hunting writer Evan Orensten. It’s worth reading the whole piece, but right now let’s focus on the taillights.
Peters said that he ditched the traditional dual round taillights because they “made the car look old.” He wanted to make a design statement that was heavily grounded in leading-edge aircraft, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.
Those taillights, with their sharply jutting trailing edges, give the Corvette a menacing look . . . which seems to be a major design goal these days. However, I wouldn’t describe the Corvette’s rear as possessing the timeless beauty of a 1963-67 Stingray.
Peters seemed to be more interested in trendiness. “I always tell people go up there and stick their hand in the tail lamp,” he said in the interview. “Stick your hand in it. A lot of people don’t realize it’s so dimensional.”
So there you have it: The taillight has become a tactile experience — a veritable petting zoo on wheels.
I’m not one of those design fundamentalists who insist that a true Corvette must have dual round taillights. After all, it’s not like the car started out that way in the 1950s. However, I would suggest that an expensive sports car is not the place to test out every last gimmick that fascinates today’s 11-year-old boys — particularly if it’s non-functional and looks awkward.
You might point out — quite rightly — that the Corvette has always been more flamboyant than, say, a Porsche. For example, the third-generation Corvette (1968-82) had some pretty “loud” design features, such as the exaggerated fender bulges and ducktail rear end. It took some getting used to but, at least to my eyes, ultimately held together. After five years I can’t say the same about the C7 Corvette’s rear styling.
Yeah, but isn’t this as good as car design gets these days? Not really. Compare the Corvette with the rear design for the 2016-18 Chevrolet Camaro. Notice the family resemblance, such as the trapezoid taillight indents.
The Camaro has a much cleaner design — in no small part because it’s more subtle. Instead of sharp, Tonka Toy angles the Camaro has curves. And while the taillights look unusually three-dimensional, they aren’t gratuitously so like the Corvette’s.
It’s true that the Camaro’s rear is just as obese as the Corvette’s. Indeed, the 2016-18 Camaro has really bloated out compared to the first generation, which was produced in 1967-68. Even so, the Camaro’s behind has been adorned with a suit that is much better tailored than the Corvette’s. Perhaps this is the best we can hope for in an era where bloat runs wild.
SOURCES:
- Orensten, Evan; 2013. “Interview: Tom Peters and the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray.” Cool Hunting. Posted January 24.
- Old Car Advertisements; 2018. Chevrolet Corvette (1969).
- Wikipedia; 2018. “Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.”
OK, I love the ’63 Stingray, because I remember the impression it made on me in 1963. I first saw the current Corvette in maybe 2016 and liked it enough to take photos.. 21st century cars are mostly ugly, and by modern standards the current Corvette is a good looker.
There’s no question that the C7 Corvette’s taillights have been controversial since its introduction. I don’t particularly care for them, and much prefer the entire rear-end design of the C6. From what is probably a computer rendering that I’ve seen in “Automobile” magazine, it is possible that the mid-engine C8 Corvette may have taillights similar to those on the C7. I agree that the present design trend, particularly on high-performance cars, is the ferocious look. If a car doesn’t have a menacing look, especially the front end, it is considered weak and bland. I have a 2017 AMG GT as well as a 2018 model, and the main design change between the two is the so-called “Panamericana” grille. It is definitely aggressive looking, and while I don’t dislike it, it doesn’t have the elegance of the 2016/’17 grille. I am anxiously awaiting the introduction of the C7, since it will be a watershed event for Chevrolet and the Corvette. It will be interesting to see how it is received by the majority of Corvette owners. I know that GM is constantly on the prowl for younger buyers. Maybe the mid-engine configuration will be the magic bullet that has so far eluded it.
Oh damn, a writer who cites his sources? Nice! Welcome to the writing club, S. Salmi!
Besides bloat, other design factors come into play, involving a perceived need to be distinctive and also identifiable.
This dual necessity has resulted in some uglier styling themes than those on Corvettes. To me, a prime example would be Toyota’s “Dripping Mascara” look.
Isn’t Cadillac the one with the “dripping mascara?
“Peters seemed to be more interested in trendiness.”
That, my friends, is why we both love and hate designers. A trend is a passing fad. Timeless means that it stays relevant and attractive regardless of era. We buy based on what is trendy now, but whine that a design is not timeless. Poor designers, they have to come up with something different to get our attention, then we heap scorn on what they make because it doesn’t look like what we are used to. This applies to almost anything made, from clothes to cars to homes. I suppose it was a bit easier back in the period from the 50s through the 70s where the automakers tweaked minor trim changes annually, with updated versions every 3-5 years that allowed an evolution of design. Now, it is either retro or cutting edge, and neither really satisfy. I suppose Peters is fascinated by the tactile aspect of the taillights as there was really nothing new to say in his design that had not already been done, and he did not want to conform to the existing design when creating this new one. History rewards those who take things in new directions, but the here and now does not. They usually let the pioneer fail, only to be appreciated later.
Perhaps S. Salmi, you are hoping for the simplicity of design evident in this rear view of the 1972 C3 Roadster as a comparison to the current C7 rear? Note the simple rounded rear lights.
I am not a fan of the current Corvette at all, the convertible looks a little better that doesn’t say much. The current Vette just looks like a mish-mash of ideas tacked onto the body. Really it and some Ferraris resemble kit cars (and bad ones at that)!
Just hideous – and hard to clean all those negative areas – I bet that designer has never had to wash and clean his design!
I’m not a fan of the styling of the C7. C2, C4 (later), C5, and C6 yes. Function over form. The C7 just looks like it’s trying a bit too hard, I’d feel ridiculous in most versions/colors. I also don’t think it will age well. The best way to explain it is as if it wants to out-Lamborghini Lamborghini but in the meantime most Lamborghinis have adopted a chiseled form that if anything is more subtly aggressive than ever before, certainly since Audi took over.
The license plate of the headline car turns me off of Corvettes far more the shape of the taillight shapes. Personally I like the C7 overall, and I happen to like C3s the most of the old Corvettes, so maybe that’s why. I’m not smitten over the taillight design, but let’s be real, the only time the “classic” Corvettes went into a new generation with carried over taillights was the C2, which carried over the late C1 rear end refresh, otherwise if you consider that those previewed C2s and that the C2s owned them, the C1, C2, C3, and C4 all departed from their predecessors in one way or another, with the C3 getting a circle within a circle with inboard reverse lamps, separated by chrome, and the C4s going to one big red circle. C5 and C6 simply were uninspired carryovers of the big red circles from the C4.
IMO timelessness is a moving target, and definitely cannot be accurately judged when cars or anything else are still new. Ubiquity and familiarity taint our senses and most timeless cars and things as we now know them had a period of being old junk (remember mid century modern being the butt of jokes? I do!)And timeless design is based on what, exactly? That it could exist in every single era without raising eyebrows? Would a C2 not look a tad out of place in the origami period of sports car design? Or is timelessness simply based on whitewashing periods of time we just don’t like, therefore a design works flawlessly in the periods of time that undefinably “matter”?
The license plate points out the prime demographic for this car. As someone who recently joined the ranks of the retired I have observed people my age buy Corvettes and Harleys. There reasons are many, but all point to some sort of void in their early years that somehow (and fruitlessly) must be filled.
Matt, I absolutely agree with the whole second paragraph of your comment. Timelessness is a nebulous term and I don’t think a design has to aspire to it to be a good design. Some of the greatest designs in history have been very much a product of their era and, while iconic, couldn’t be placed in another era without looking dated or retro or kitsch.
And when people say “this design will age better” and it’s often a very conservative design like a new Volkswagen, I think, “Well, yeah, it takes fewer risks. But in 20 years’ time, it’s still going to look like a 20 year old car. Nobody’s going to think it just rolled off the showroom floor.”
Matt,
I think you’ve nailed it on the timeless element. Two perfect examples are the 1940 Lincoln Continental and the 1938 Cadillac 60 Special. Two “timeless” designs that are obviously not of this time. While we appreciate them always, we know that they are nevertheless dated.
These tail-lights will eat the C7’s AND the ’63 Sting Ray’s for lunch.
Period.
(click on it & weep …..)
Loose analogy here: It’s like they’ve outsourced the styling to Lamborghini – totally outrageous, flashy, maybe not always practical but makes sure you look, look, look. Earlier Corvettes were sort-of more like classic Ferraris: just as clear in their intent but more practical, more pure in their design, with less of the little-boy’s-toy about them.
Should I duck for cover?
I don’t remember those practical pure side pipes being an option on Ferrari’s like they were on C2s…
Ferrari Sidepipes?
?
Touche!
Putting your hand NEAR a Corvette is a good way to get in serious trouble, let alone sticking your hand INSIDE the body.
“What are you doing to my car?!”
“Fondling the taillights. It’s a required design exercise.”
I think the taillights are the least of the worry design wise. Ever since the C6 the Vette has become more and more of a Technicolor clown car.
The C4 and C5 were attractive cars. The C6 was to be just a mild reskin of the C5 but they ended up plumping up the ass and adding those god awful headlights. It looks like they cribbed the headlights from the 94-00 Mitsu 3000GT
I have a good friend that has a 2017 Vette which mostly hangs out in the garage and it is a monstrosity.
I’m enjoying some of the new taillights I’m seeing at the moment. Haven’t seen the C7, but the Mustang’s come to mind where the transparent outer housing is a completely different shape to the coloured inner housing. So long as the illumination functions correctly, I appreciate this sort of approach to the rear lights. It’s when the fussiness extends to overwrought metal or faux-venting that I start to look away.
Speaking of menacing… angry birds edition.
I guess I’m getting old because the styling of almost all the new cars does nothing for me. When it comes to the Corvette, my favorites are the 57 & 63 split window. The only thing the newer Corvettes have going for them is the build quality. It’s light years ahead of the early models.
The only thing the current Corvette has over the older ones is build quality? I’m pretty sure not. How about performance, handling, stopping, safety, emissions, efficiency, technology…
Very interesting analysis. Styling is just very subjective. To me, clean and functional is best and timeless.
I always liked the early C4 Corvettes. A nice clean break from the C3, yet unmistakably a Corvette. And one of the best looking Corvettes to my eye.
Same here. The other generations each have their good points, but this model’s clean design is hard to beat.
Now, if I could just find one for sale in my area with a manual transmission.
Add me to the list of admirers of the C4. They get better all of the time.
Interesting reference to the F-22 – Peters seems to refer to the YF-22, the prototype for the F-22. He could have equally referred to the F-35 JSF, there is a family resemblance, except for the angular stealth characteristics of the Raptor’s design.
Nice writeup! I too was impressed by the use of a list of sources, I have struggled with that at times myself in the few writeups I have done on this site.
Thanks for sharing.
Controversial, I know, but I find the C3 to be the most over-the-top Corvette. The bulging fenders are just a bit much for me. But I didn’t grow up with Corvettes around and I probably saw a used C4 before I saw a C3, and the C4 is trim and crisp.
The C5 went a bit OTT but I find they really have presence. The C6 seemed like a very conventional evolution of the design, a bit visually smaller and a bit neater at the back but not a design that really moved the needle.
I’m glad the C7 shook things up and didn’t just lurch back to retro design cues. That was always something I was worried about Chevy doing with the Corvette, further limiting its appeal to, well, old men. The C7 is a bit OTT in some of its details but I like it: modern and aggressive and doesn’t look out-of-place next to other exotic cars.
A C7 in Lime Rock Metallic with a saddle leather interior is probably my dream Corvette, although I most definitely appreciate and admire the iconic design of the C2.
I’m not a Corvette person myself but one statement caught my eye. The mentioned family resemblance to the Camaro.
I agree Corvette styling has been across the board over the years but NEVER to my knowledge could it have ever been compared to the Camaro before.
If I was paying top dollar for “America’s only sportscar” I don’t think I would be happy to have it mistaken for its half price little brother.
I absolutely hate the C7 design. It looks incredibly cheap, plasticky and tacky with gratuitous vents and angles all over the place. The rear is by far the worst, with that giant black area and the running mascara taillights.
The image projection is that of a senior citizen desperately trying to appear hip and cool, but without understanding what that is anymore.
Very much hoping the next version focuses on being timeless, rather than trendy.
I’d have to agree that I’m not thrilled with the latest Corvette styling. Is it just the angle, or does the rear of that top shot look like an angry beaver? The licence plate is the buck teeth……
Edit: the angry beaver is still there, but is it also space age? Or is it just Space Invaders?
Aaaaaggghh, they’re coming for us!!!
I’ll go on record as a saying that the C3 is way more of a clown car than the last 3 generations of Corvette. Mitchell beat ZAD on whether style beat engineering, but the last few have swung the pendulum over.
For me, form follows function. The C7 is the first Corvette to get real rear turn signals even on the domestic (US/Canada) version, so on top of thinking their design fits well with the rest of the car, I like ’em just fine.
It seems there’s no clear consensus on whether the attached was real or somebody having a laff at the expense of people all wound up and peeved about the C7 Corvette’s uncircular taillamps, but either way…here y’go:
Ohhh, I wanna that kit but please with amber turn signal indicators! 😉
I suspect there’s a broad range of ages commenting, but for Americans of my generation, around 60 (which might be quite a few of us) the C2 and C3 Corvettes were icons of our youth, and difficult, for me at least, to judge objectively. If one can in fact judge styling objectively. But to me, the C4 and to a lesser extent C5 really are timeless. The former brought the Corvette look into the present, with no gimmicks, and the latter continued that theme, though to my eyes the bloat started then. I’m sure the C7 is a fine car, but aesthetically for me it’s a cartoon, even more than the Camaro. Interesting comments, thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and to the OP for starting the discussion.
Can’t say as I’ve ever been much of a Corvette lover (although I once had a new 1985 for all of six months). In my dream garage, I suppose a last C1 (1962), or C2 (1967), both with a 327 would be fine.
But, after that, I’d probably just get a new, base C7 with an automatic in whatever they’re calling medium blue these days, goofy taillights be damned.
Seeing the range of posts here remind me of what has happened in the Porsche community for decades. When the 911 was introduced, horrors, the world had just ended, or so the Porsche community first thought, since how could the beloved 356 be replaced by this impostor. Over time the 911 became as loved as the 356.
When the 914 was introduced in 1969, obviously the “bastard” 914 with, “God forbid”, a VW engine, was greeted with derision for not being a “pure blooded” Porsche–“an ugly VW-Porsche–don’t make me vomit”, some said “Why didn’t they make it beautiful like the 904?”,-but decades later the 914 has been accepted as a worthy car. In fact the 914 is a car, now accepted as a “real” Porsche known to bring real smiles and affection, especially for autocrossing. Who would have guessed that this would happen after years of derision, scorn, and rejection. The previously unloved bastard child has now been welcomed home, and accepted as part of the family.
When the newer (circa 1974) bumper standards caused a change from the long hood 911’s to the short hood, larger bumpers, again there were howls of protest that eventually subsided, and these short hood, big bumper cars have been long accepted as Porsche air cooled pure bloods.
Each new Porsche, when there has been fundamental change has been met with opposition, even derision, but eventually acceptance. Take the first generation water cooled cars the 996 version of the 911, it was long thought inferior to the air cooled 993, even though dynamically 996’s were better cars. Oh those headlamps, “ugly”. They are now finding the love that they deserved because they are a great value proposition, great driving cars, and the IMS bearing flaws are relatively easily fixable.
In general people are traditionalists resisting change when it deviates from the “known”. These new C7 Corvettes have their visual pluses and minuses for some, but dynamically they are the best Corvettes ever produced, with unbelievable performance especially for the money, and predictably will be recognized as such, and even loved, by the Corvette community years later. This will be much like the Porsche community overcoming its aversion to change from the “traditional”. Remember most people hate change.
I’m older, some even would say “old”, and I personally especially like the early chrome bumper C3’s especially the 1970 high compression 350/350 Roadsters, followed by the C5’s, but like my initially begrudged acceptance of each new Porsche generation or model, I am beginning to accept this newer C7 Corvette for what it is and what will be recognized in the years to come, another great Corvette. Drive one, don’t base your opinions only on appearance, and you will predictably, and inevitably smile.
So be like the older members of the Porsche community, get over it, and accept this new C7 for the real “state of the art” improvement that it is. If people can accept the “less than beautiful” 914, like I have, then accept that eventually people will come to accept the C7 with some of its stylistic deviations. The taillight assemblies will likely predictably grow on us as a new styling language, a new direction in the Corvette evolution.
GeelongVic, not VeelongVic
Leon is correct, IMhO: “I think the taillights are the least of the worry design wise. Ever since the C6 the Vette has become more and more of a Technicolor clown car.” Does he really mean a C7?
That retrofit round tail light kit is the only body kit, for a Vette, that HELPS the car, looks wise!
Even the simple oval shaped taillights on my C5 (and the clean, flowing body surfaces) look very smooth and elegant compared to the boy racer hacked up styling of C7. NOT a gr8 pc of GM Design history……..:(:( DFO
Those tail lights have generated more controversy on Corvette Forums than the Political Forums. There just doesn’t seem to be any middle ground- you like them or you don’t.
The C6 renewed my interest in Corvettes, so you can probably guess where I sit on this.
In full agreement with the writer
That Corvette just shouts kit car, or body kit to me, good design is timeless not trendy
It looks halfway decent in Black. That’s the only color I’ve seen where my initial reaction isn’t “ewwww.”
“You can say whatever you want about Ford cars, long as you say it twice an hour!” –H. Ford (or so it’s said).