Chris Kennedy said:
Fair question:
First, many of the "stories" come from forums such as this, auto publications which periodically reported on the development/problems and redesigns on the C6 etc. I am hardly the only person who has followed all the ups and downs of this design, and others have read about or reported the same issues, too, so to that extent I am dependant upon, well, people like you accurately reporting the "facts". Given some time I could certainly put together a specific list of publications and references for you to confirm that the reports of the development of the styling design of the C6 indicate a pretty turbulent history, not one where some one individual held aloft an ideal and strove to transfer that ideal into reality, as Mr. Peters now claims. Do you want me to do this (several publications come to mind as I type this, e.g., Corvette Magazine, which reported styling-redesign delays after Bob Lutz came on board)? It will either show that Mr. Peters' recollection is, at best, faulty, or mine is faulty or based upon reported "facts" that were not true.
Second, I think, also, that the final product sort of belies the raptor fighter jet as the design model. That is purely a judgment call, but, again, I am not alone on this and debates on this Forum have centered on which cars the C6 resembles, not which fighter aircraft. Moreover, in earlier press releases GM was trumpeting the car's styling cues with previous Corvettes, with a dash of something unique---now Mr. Peters is touting fighter jets as the model. This inconsistent internal line is typically GM (not getting their story straight) and doesn't help credibility. Interestingly, I wonder what Mr. Peters took as his model for the Aztek----Godzilla?
However, the easiest and most accurate way to check on who is right and who is wrong is to run a basic "discovery" on GM. In other words, ask to review primary records as to who was assigned to the C6, when, all sketches, designs, responses critiques, changes, internal correspondence etc etc. Perhaps this will be an instance in which GM's public pronouncements are backed-up by their own documents. In other words, do the job that auto writers and publications should be doing to verify what they publish, instead of uncritically repeating the corporate marketing p.r. line. When people have done this in the past GM has routinely lost, and I see absolutely no change in their corporate attitude currently. I do these sorts of discovery requests for a living---why don't you contact GM and see if they will cooperate and provide this material if I put together a list?
--Chris Kennedy
There are several problems I have with your logic:
1. Information passed down through forums such as this, has a high degree of unreliability depending on the sources.
2. Who is to say that Corvette Magazine and others didn't pass on faulty information regarding Lutz, etc. Where do you think some of the car rags get their information from? Well, you're looking at one source right here, as well as I'm sure, Corvette Forum, Digital Corvettes, Z06Vette.com and all the other automotive forum web sites. In fact, in a lot of cases, the magazines will even mention that the information they are publishing came off the internet.
3. Other than I believe Corvette Quarterly, I have yet to read any other publications either online, or physical rags, that have conducted in-depth interviews with Peters and some of the Powertrain engineers.
4. You're basically calling Peters a liar, discounting everything he had to say and basing your information on what has been published in magazines which in several cases, comes from the internet.
To question the validity of what Peters has to say is one thing. To basically come short of insulting the guy is another. You're entitled to your opinions, but if you're going to flame the man and nail him to a cross, at least have more solid information than what you've read in magazines...
I'm not saying that Peters is or isn't 100% accurate, and I'm not saying he is or he isn't lieing. However, I'm willing to place much more belief on the words that come out of his mouth, and the mouths of GM Engineers, more so than what I read in some magazine. In my opinion, Hib Halverson came much closer to "the source", than a lot of the magazines have thus far.
For what it's worth, Dave Hill mentioned at a talk last year that Lutz had little input on the design of the car. Two other Corvette engineers I spoke with last year that had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the C6 basically said the same thing Peters said in the interview. So who's to say who is right and who is wrong.
Last but not least, is it REALLY that important whether or not the C6 was designed after an Air Force jet, a 747, or the Goodyear Blimp? So what if parts of the car have design cues from Ferrari, Audi, or Fiat....who really cares???
ALL cars have design cues that come from predecessors and the competition. If you really feel that you have the desire and the insight to initiate a massive wave of change in the field of automotive design, then consider getting a job in the field and then you'll actually be able to speak from personal experience and have better insight into why cars are designed the way they are, and in particular, the Corvette.
Whether or not someone likes an automotive design, is purely relative and personal choice based upon desire and emotion. If you find the design of the C6 to be of poor taste and not within your liking, great. Calling the designer a liar, and insulting him is basically the same as what armchair quarterbacks do. Everyone thinks they can play the game much better than the actual quarterbacks involved in the football game, but what they fail to see is that the perspective on the outside, is much much different than the perspective on the inside. Unless you actually work for GM, and you are in close contact with GM Design, GM Engineering, and GM upper management, you really can't put 100% emphasis on anything you hear or read that didn't come from the horse's mouth.
mike
