|
| Views: 188 |
Comments: 0 |
Favorited: 0 |
|
|
Added October 17, 2007
kruvasan
 |

to kruvasan
|
a film short from coprorate:'GM's Operational 'Shark' introduced...Warren, Michigan'from an interview with Larry Shinoda, by Wayne Ellwood, 1995:It's the 'Mako Shark II', designed by Larry Shinoda under the direction of GM Design head Bill Mitchell.The were several core design elements which were common to both the non-runn more
a film short from coprorate:'GM's Operational 'Shark' introduced...Warren, Michigan'from an interview with Larry Shinoda, by Wayne Ellwood, 1995:It's the 'Mako Shark II', designed by Larry Shinoda under the direction of GM Design head Bill Mitchell.The were several core design elements which were common to both the non-running and running models, of course. The basic design included the chopped roof, hinged roof panel which raised to permit easier entry, the sharp-edged fender lines, highly styled front clip, hood bulge and upswept tail. There were lots of other gadgets thrown on the car as repeats from Mako I, including the prism-type periscope rearview mirror, the pop-up brake flaps, James Bond retractable bumpers, and the louvered rear window treatment. When the car was converted to Manta Ray the louvered window concept was dropped in favour of the more conventional sugar-scoop arrangement.Now, going back to the inception of the Mako Shark II, I think that it is fair to say that the design for what turned out to be the 1968 was not so far locked-in that public reaction to this show car was not going to have some effect. In fact, even as we were drawing the two of them there were perceptible differences in the sharpness of the lines and the exaggeration of major features like the wheel bulges. There was certainly no shortage of reaction in the automobile media to some of the 'added' features that Bill had requested even when some of it might have been just a little short-sighted. But that's the purpose of some of these cars. The public reaction has to be interpreted, you don't just take it at face value. People, by and large, tend to think 'right now' while we are supposed to think 'in the future'. As I look back on the articles which have been written about the cars 20 years later, I see a lot of retrospection. The authors now recognize the fact that some of the original criticisms were off-base, the core ideas have been realized.
|