Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Noble713

Ummmm, MkIV Supra? If that car isn't beautiful and timeless to your eyes.....your aesthetic tastes are an extreme outlier....

I guess I'm an outlier then, because I think the MkIV Supra is about the worst of the Supra breed. Again, its very subjective.

I also like both the MK1 and MK2 MR2s (very different but each have their own beauty). I have an emotional attachment to the MK1, but if I was honest the MK2 is the better looking car.

I like the FT-1, but the front is too extreme. I suspect that will get adjusted by the time the make it to production. Not even 100% sure it meets regulations as it is.

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I guess I'm an outlier then, because I think the MkIV Supra is about the worst of the Supra breed. Again, its very subjective.

I also like both the MK1 and MK2 MR2s (very different but each have their own beauty). I have an emotional attachment to the MK1, but if I was honest the MK2 is the better looking car.

I like the FT-1, but the front is too extreme. I suspect that will get adjusted by the time the make it to production. Not even 100% sure it meets regulations as it is.

I thought I was the only one.
The Supra MkIV just looked bulbous and overweight to me - the RX7, and even the R34 in comparison, looked lean and mean.

The MR2 is still one of the most attractive cars.

From the Calty perspective, I do still find the 7th gen Celica to be a good looking car - perhaps not timeless though.

[Noble713]

Originally Posted by torqdork

You and the other kid are apparently ignorant of the fact that the most recently revealed McLaren, the 570S that has no active rear spoiler, was announced in New York after the 675LT was revealed in Geneva.

Two cars developed contemporaneously with reveal dates differing by <60 days. Which one has an active spoiler? The one with the higher performance envelope.

The Ferrari 488, also more recent and contemporary than LaFerrari, has no need for an active rear wing, either.

It's also Ferrari's entry level performance coupe. Look at their plans for the F12 upgrade:

2018 Ferrari F12 M Spied, Mid-Cycle Update to Bring Active Aerodynamics

Despite aluminum remaining the main element, the F12 M is expected to make use of carbon fiber to reduce weight. Ferrari has shown an increased appetite for active aerodynamics and since this is a V12 model, we can expect hydraulic power, not wind force, to activate these.

On a side note, the Koenigsegg Regera has an active rear wing as well.

As a former owner of a Mk. IV Supra TT Anniversary Edition, I was never impressed with the design, especially the hyperthyroid headlights and boy racer 3' high spoiler ruining an otherwise safe, vanilla GT coupe design. The N/A Mk. IV looked better balanced, IMO. The resale market seems to agree. I've yet to see any Mk. IV appreciate in value.

They haven't depreciated much, either. A quick trip to Ebay Motors shows several Supras sold in the ~$40k range. And for 15-20 year old sports cars, that's a decent accomplishment.

Like I said, each to their own, and if someone actually admires the C7 bodywork then it's understandable why they also like the overdone FT-1 prototype.

Maybe this is a generational thing. I'm 32 so I've grown up on stealth fighters, giant Japanese robots, and M4 carbines with Picatinny rails. Things with hard edges are sexy and aggressive. There are very few smooth, sweeping, curvy-designed cars that I like (FD RX-7 is one).

Times and tastes are changing. The 2016 NSX has no active rear spoiler. Same for the 2016 GT-R. Both of those are said to be FT-1 competitors should it make it into production.

Re: the 2016 NSX. One of the engineers spoke about the aero:
http://wot.motortrend.com/1501_2016_...#ixzz3YijnLk2Z

MT: Why doesn't it have some sort of pop-up rear spoiler? Active aero?
TK: “It’s simply that we chose to develop the product with the passive aerodynamics fully optimized. So we wanted to challenge ourselves to fully optimize the aerodynamics. Now, as I’m fond of saying, if you have your passive specification worked out well, you will discover the opportunities for active aerodynamics.”

In other words: active aero is still where you would go if you were pursuing absolute peak downforce, they just chose to aim a *LITTLE* lower and still get decent results passively. This is not an indictment of active wings as an obsolete technology, it's an admission that their design objectives were low enough to be met via other means.

[torqdork]

I prefer the SCAR rifle but this thread is already deep enough into the weeds.

Not sure if it's a generational thing either, but my idea of rolling sculpture at the same or better rumored price point of the FT-1 is the Jaguar F-Type Coupe 6M/T.

We can't all be Lewis Hamilton no matter how many aero devices are on our cars, so I'll settle for timeless beauty, mechanical grip and restrained aero restricted to less visually disruptive devices.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Noble713

.... Maybe this is a generational thing. I'm 32 so I've grown up on stealth fighters, giant Japanese robots, and M4 carbines with Picatinny rails. Things with hard edges are sexy and aggressive. There are very few smooth, sweeping, curvy-designed cars that I like (FD RX-7 is one).

Perhaps, and like most styles things cycle around so its interesting sometimes how things skip generations so that grandparents and grandchildren have more similar tastes than they do with their parents.


I grew up in the age of muscle cars, Stingrays, Countach's and the Lunar Lander, again more angular and such. Probably why I prefer the MK1 MR2 to the MK2, the C7 Corvette to the C5/6, and the earlier Supras to the last.

[rlpaul]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Perhaps, and like most styles things cycle around so its interesting sometimes how things skip generations so that grandparents and grandchildren have more similar tastes than they do with their parents.


I grew up in the age of muscle cars, Stingrays, Countach's and the Lunar Lander, again more angular and such. Probably why I prefer the MK1 MR2 to the MK2, the C7 Corvette to the C5/6, and the earlier Supras to the last.

Eh, I dunno. I find a '71 Hemi Cuda, or a '67 Stingray to be gorgeous.

I also find the MKIV Supra to be quite attractive, or say a DB7. Both fairly bulbous cars there (in comparison. At least to the Plymouth...).

On the other hand, while I find Koenigsegsgsdkgjsldghsd's (sigh, I hate trying to spell that) to be 'cool' looking, at the same time I think they're ugly

I can appreciate both the flowing lines of a '66 E-type just as much as the hard edges (and boxy/angular appearance) of an '86 Testarossa.

It all has to flow together. If it doesn't flow, doesn't matter if its organic, angular, sharp, or whatever. Then its just ugly.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by rlpaul

It all has to flow together. If it doesn't flow, doesn't matter if its organic, angular, sharp, or whatever. Then its just ugly.

I think that may be the key as well. Again, its all in the eye of the beholder. I do like my share of "swoopy" cars, but it has to be just the right look.

[torqdork]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think that may be the key as well. Again, its all in the eye of the beholder. I do like my share of "swoopy" cars, but it has to be just the right look.

Agree with both of you, it's about perceived styling balance.

I appreciate balanced angular designs too, like the TR mentioned and designs that capture the best elements of both like Lambo Miura, Ferrari Daytona and split-window Stingray.

Still, my preference for road cars both from a design and driving dynamics standpoint are curvy F/R coupes or roadsters. There's something about the voluptuous long hood/short deck school that seems timeless to me that started with the first car to capture my attention when seen live, an AC Cobra.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Perhaps, and like most styles things cycle around so its interesting sometimes how things skip generations so that grandparents and grandchildren have more similar tastes than they do with their parents.


I grew up in the age of muscle cars, Stingrays, Countach's and the Lunar Lander, again more angular and such. Probably why I prefer the MK1 MR2 to the MK2, the C7 Corvette to the C5/6, and the earlier Supras to the last.

I never really knew why recently I've had less desire for angular cars. I dare say that my old E30 M3 that's now doubled up could be considered angular. I blame the sale sometimes on the old roommate who couldn't believe I paid 15g's for it, in a negative context. There were times I didn't think it was that great looking but I could easily make up looks equally or more, with a good storyline. Even though I had Countaches and Porsches with fins posters as a kid, I guess I was still pubescent.


The angular designs I cannot disrespect. It reminds me of when our hockey team once paid a California studio a million dollars to design a new jersey and logo in the 80's. You can see the theme in building architecture as well when you travel or browse around.


Going to the Jaguar dealer later today, but an ethics professor of mine once said in a lecture that you never see angular designs in nature ever.
Go against nature?

[daiheadjai]

Originally Posted by torqdork

Not sure if it's a generational thing either, but my idea of rolling sculpture at the same or better rumored price point of the FT-1 is the Jaguar F-Type Coupe 6M/T.

That's not fair!
I can't imagine anyone who can find the F-type unattractive...
If they were blind, maybe - but once they hear that exhaust note....

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by synchromesh

Going to the Jaguar dealer later today, but an ethics professor of mine once said in a lecture that you never see angular designs in nature ever.
Go against nature?

Guess he never looked too closely at rock cliffs, crystalline structures or even snowflakes?

I do love Jags, and most Astons. They have contrasting curves, rising and falling. So, I guess it depends on the application. It's the ones that look like melted soap bars that just don't do much for me.

[synchromesh]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Guess he never looked too closely at rock cliffs, crystalline structures or even snowflakes?

I do love Jags, and most Astons. They have contrasting curves, rising and falling. So, I guess it depends on the application. It's the ones that look like melted soap bars that just don't do much for me.

Oops, I was in bit of a rush but I recall now he must of referred to 90 degrees square and it must have been microscopic or something. At that time I was daydreaming about e36 m3's and next year's 996 911, I guess Saw the guy one time shopping at the supermarket instead of an organic food market. Things that make you go hmmm.


The F-type was pretty amazing today He obviously wanted to arrange a test drive with the nice one(Coupe R) in the showroom. 700W stereo looked to be British made(heard they make some of the best) and seats fit well on my smallish frame compared to the C6 Corvette.


Entire data base history showed not one 6 speed manual sold or delivered ever! Told the guy needed to research the ZF gearbox and he clued in that, 10-20 grand, in options meant much more to me than a typical buyer he sells to.

[torqdork]

I was hoping for a report on the F-Type S Coupe V-6 S/C 6M/T, my pick of the litter on paper. My dealership doesn't have any either. Did they give you an ETA?

[abraxis]

Comparing F-type to the Supra now? Yeah, something elementary school kids would do during recess. Toyota is not chasing 55 year old golfing dentists.