Vellum Venom Vignette: Restyled 2012 Nissan GT-R

by Sajeev Mehta

Published: July 17th, 2012

vellum venom vignette restyled 2012 nissan gt r

Christopher writes: Sajeev,Great analysis of the GT-R. Slow day at work, so I decided to cut a few inches out of the middle as you suggested (maybe more than just 2″…). Please excuse the crappy “MS Paint” editing and my poor editing skills… but I still think the profile looks so much better. Like a real super car. And it eliminates the fake fender vent!

Sajeev concludes:

One of the B&B’s counterpoint to my analysis was that the GT-R is massive and not especially pretty by design, compared to other vehicles in this class. Which is 100% true. But does that mean the GT-R should be massive like a CUV? Absolutely not! Thanks for proving my point, but you did take a little too much out of the middle. But still…

Your quickie redesign takes the GT-R back to the 4th and 5th generations of the Skyline GT-R: long, low and still pretty dumpy looking. That’s the way I like my GT-R. Welcome to The World of Proper. And, to wrap things up, here’s the original photo with your modified photo.

#GT-R #Nissan #Skyline

Sajeev Mehta

More by Sajeev Mehta

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 5 comments

Racingmaniac on Jul 17, 2012

I think the current GTR's nose just don't have that blunt-ness that the older ones are known for. They weren't supposed to be GT/Sportscar in the sense of a Z or something, but they are more along the line of more ordinary cars with muscle pills....R35 is kinda somewhere in between....

Like Reply
VQ37VHR on Jul 19, 2012

With all respect, this is plain wrong and not an improvement aestecially. The Skylines of yore were never meant to appear sleek. They were always rather bulky, but handsome/cool looking vehicles. I think the R35 better represents this than your rendering.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.