Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
21 - 40 of 54 Posts

Premium Member
Joined
2,576 Posts
Personally I think it is bland and generic, but not ugly.
If one were to criticize the Bolt, it would be more in line with the above than being "ugly".

You want ugly? Here you go:

 

Registered
Joined
400 Posts
Bland in that it looks similar to so many of the small hatchbacks on the road today; it blends in.



The emperor has no clothes, btw. I find the looks of the Tesla Model 3; especially the front end to be somewhat ugly; very unappealing; I think they could have done a better job there. IMHO.
 

Registered
Joined
8,823 Posts
I submit the Clarity.



The design must have been broken up into 3 sections, and the various designers not allowed to discuss what they are working on with the others.
 

Premium Member
Joined
2,576 Posts
Bland in that it looks similar to so many of the small hatchbacks on the road today; it blends in.



The emperor has no clothes, btw. I find the looks of the Tesla Model 3; especially the front end to be somewhat ugly; very unappealing; I think they could have done a better job there. IMHO.
I also find the Model 3's front end rather unappealing. And the side profile view is nowhere near as sleek looking as the Model S.
 

Registered
Joined
929 Posts
Every new car is ugly to some extent. At least the Bolt is blends in to modern traffic. Look at the examples above! There is much uglier! Personally I think the model 3 is way nicer looking than the Bolt, but I do enjoy the Bolt's extra head room. Even if I had to commute in a Clarity, "when I'm driving it, I don't have to see it" applies well..


I still think the Clarity is Ugly on purpose. That is the only possible explanation for that thing. Its a compliance car they lose money on, so its their way to limit demand. It would make them look bad if they couldn't supply enough. Man some of the Toyotas are bad too.
 

Registered
Joined
771 Posts
I'm not sure why that's an inconvenient truth. We've been able to get away with...
Technology has it's downsides. The mass produced ICE provided work in many forms. It allowed an unprecedented acceleration of industrial productivity, extended the geographic freedoms of individuals, and a host of other advantages. Sure, society "got away" with it's known downsides for some time. However, the negative repercussions, including poisoning of the atmosphere, God only knows how many human lives were sacrificed in order to conquer lands that the oil required for it was on, continuous military protection of these "interest", and the treasure in the form of taxes it takes to maintain its resources production. Had there been none of the downsides, there would be no practical need for EV's today. The truth here is absolute; we are indeed pushing for greater EV technology research, development, and adoption as a remedy for the downsides of a prior technology.

This doesn't mean that technology is bad. And certainly not in the case of EV tech as a mitigation of many of the problems that ICE has created. Technology is just not the cure-all for everything.

I think it's a bit of a double-edged sword. Reviews can be a good thing if they are legitimately meant to provide people with a better choice.
I was initially flummoxed as to what triggered your response here, then I realized that you are a YouTube reviewer. I would like to note that I purposely included this: "... in the absence of objective economic and environmental differentiators" in my statement. Your videos are objective overviews of the Bolt's functionality with very little subjective opinion. Which is very informative. Contrast this to the OP statement about writers suggesting the Bolt is "Ugly", which is an inherently subjective statement.

The deeper issue is why such a statement would have an affect on people. Although 1,000's of books have been written on the social implications of tribal conformity, I posit that such subjective statements are only there to create the illusion that one thing is better than another based on the perceived status of the person spewing it. If that elevated status is accepted in the society, that opinion will lead to a more generalized acceptance and desire of certain things (and an imposed standard of 'Beauty') as opposed to other things. Again, it's just the way the human behavioral river flows.

I submit the Clarity.
The design must have been broken up into 3 sections, and the various designers not allowed to discuss what they are working on with the others.
...know what?

I'm really liking the Clarity. It's primary mission objective is to allow for 95% less petrol consumption vs it's predecessor (Camry Hybrid), and allow for longer distance trips without an inkling of charging inconveniences and range anxiety. It is performing this mission with flying colors. It's exterior utility is a function of minimizing the Cd as you are aware, yet allowing for a very large (relatively) interior cabin. A by-product of its superior aerodynamics - which is also why it presents an ostensibly fugly exterior image - is that it is far quieter (my subjective opinion) than a Bolt or any Tesla at highway speeds. Which is really saying something considering just how quiet BEV's rae in general, and the Tesla in particular + there is an ICE running on long distance drives.

Compare the below with your image of the Clarity above. You can see that the Clarity takes its profile from the most impressive production vehicle Cd ever - 0.189 - limited series VW XL1, a figure which seems nearly impossible to beat. But...the trade off is an unappealing non-conformity to our current 'bias for beauty'.

 

Registered
Joined
329 Posts
Am I the only one that thinks the Model 3 is ugly?! It's nice from the rear and sides but from head on the front reminds me of a bull-nosed frog or an ugly sting ray.

Anyways, my wife and I love the look of the Bolt though I also love hatches. Ugly describes the other "practical" EVs - especially the Prius Prime, old and new Leaf. The Bolt is a combination of practical, good looking, and affordable.
 

Registered
Joined
579 Posts
...a bull-nosed frog or an ugly sting ray.


Beauty is in the eye of the species. :) The Musk species says "I don't need a grille, so why have one?"

shotel's remarks about our reactions being governed by the unfamiliar are spot-on. I remember as a kid, I didn't like every new Led Zeppelin album, until I'd listened to it a few times. They innovated from release to release, taking a risk.

Besides Bollts, bicycles and boats are part of my life and are both excellent examples of rigid conformity to accepted modes. The MacGregor sail/power mashup is exemplary of an iconoclast designer monmaniacally pursuing design goals at the necessary expense of looks. The result is a boat that can sail OK compared to something like a "traditional" full keel slug, but also pull a skier and which is almost universally mocked except by appreciative owners who don't care what other people think of 'em. It does look a little bit like a full-face motorcycle helmet from certain angles but it hits both objectives quite squarely.
 

Registered
2021 Bolt Premier
Joined
5,597 Posts
Technology has it's downsides. The mass produced ICE provided work in many forms. It allowed an unprecedented acceleration of industrial productivity, extended the geographic freedoms of individuals, and a host of other advantages. Sure, society "got away" with it's known downsides for some time. However, the negative repercussions, including poisoning of the atmosphere, God only knows how many human lives were sacrificed in order to conquer lands that the oil required for it was on, continuous military protection of these "interest", and the treasure in the form of taxes it takes to maintain its resources production. Had there been none of the downsides, there would be no practical need for EV's today. The truth here is absolute; we are indeed pushing for greater EV technology research, development, and adoption as a remedy for the downsides of a prior technology.

This doesn't mean that technology is bad. And certainly not in the case of EV tech as a mitigation of many of the problems that ICE has created. Technology is just not the cure-all for everything.



I was initially flummoxed as to what triggered your response here, then I realized that you are a YouTube reviewer. I would like to note that I purposely included this: "... in the absence of objective economic and environmental differentiators" in my statement. Your videos are objective overviews of the Bolt's functionality with very little subjective opinion. Which is very informative. Contrast this to the OP statement about writers suggesting the Bolt is "Ugly", which is an inherently subjective statement.

The deeper issue is why such a statement would have an affect on people. Although 1,000's of books have been written on the social implications of tribal conformity, I posit that such subjective statements are only there to create the illusion that one thing is better than another based on the perceived status of the person spewing it. If that elevated status is accepted in the society, that opinion will lead to a more generalized acceptance and desire of certain things (and an imposed standard of 'Beauty') as opposed to other things. Again, it's just the way the human behavioral river flows.


...know what?

I'm really liking the Clarity. It's primary mission objective is to allow for 95% less petrol consumption vs it's predecessor (Camry Hybrid), and allow for longer distance trips without an inkling of charging inconveniences and range anxiety. It is performing this mission with flying colors. It's exterior utility is a function of minimizing the Cd as you are aware, yet allowing for a very large (relatively) interior cabin. A by-product of its superior aerodynamics - which is also why it presents an ostensibly fugly exterior image - is that it is far quieter (my subjective opinion) than a Bolt or any Tesla at highway speeds. Which is really saying something considering just how quiet BEV's rae in general, and the Tesla in particular + there is an ICE running on long distance drives.

Compare the below with your image of the Clarity above. You can see that the Clarity takes its profile from the most impressive production vehicle Cd ever - 0.189 - limited series VW XL1, a figure which seems nearly impossible to beat. But...the trade off is an unappealing non-conformity to our current 'bias for beauty'.


The GM EV-1 had a Cd of .19, the lowest of any *production* automobile. Ever.
 

Registered
Joined
771 Posts
The GM EV-1 had a Cd of .19, the lowest of any *production* automobile. Ever.
Guess that depends on what ones definition of "production" is:

The features of a production vehicle or production car are mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public.
~ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_vehicle


As I recall, the EV-1 was only rented (leased) by consumers. There were 1100 or so manufactured? Whereas the Volkswagen manufactured about 250 of the XL1, and consumers could actually purchase it and own it forever without the potential for the manufacturer to forcibly repossess and then destroy the vehicle. How did you feel when your last EV-1 was taken from you and crushed like a piece of stinking garbage by GM?


Perhaps GM felt that it's design was to UGLY for mass adoption?

Let me add that it doesn't matter much what EV has the best looks, Cd, or range...what matters is that consumers can freely purchase them with the ultimate goal of easing the downsides of the ICE unintended consequences. IMO, GM is not to be applauded for it's EV-1 fiasco. Society would have been better off if GM had simply continued to produce, and make available for sale the EV-1...even if the cost to the consumer were high in order to make a profit on each vehicle.
 

Registered
2021 Bolt Premier
Joined
5,597 Posts
Guess that depends on what ones definition of "production" is:

~ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_vehicle


As I recall, the EV-1 was only rented (leased) by consumers. There were 1100 or so manufactured? Whereas the Volkswagen manufactured about 250 of the XL1, and consumers could actually purchase it and own it forever without the potential for the manufacturer to forcibly repossess and then destroy the vehicle. How did you feel when your last EV-1 was taken from you and crushed like a piece of stinking garbage by GM?


Perhaps GM felt that it's design was to UGLY for mass adoption?

Let me add that it doesn't matter much what EV has the best looks, Cd, or range...what matters is that consumers can freely purchase them with the ultimate goal of easing the downsides of the ICE unintended consequences. IMO, GM is not to be applauded for it's EV-1 fiasco. Society would have been better off if GM had simply continued to produce, and make available for sale the EV-1...even if the cost to the consumer were high in order to make a profit on each vehicle.

We, as a group, gathered over a million dollars of actual checks and submitted them to GM. My thousand dollar check was in there with Jay Leno's, Alexandra Paul's, Ed Begley Jr's, Bill Nye's, and a host of other's. We essentially begged GM to not crush the vehicles, and instead sell them to us. We included a template for a total release from liability that we would sign. No deal. The cars weren't the only things that were crushed.



GM claimed that because their R&D on the EV-1 was well North of $1B (with a "B"), each vehicle was worth over $1M. I liked to tell friends that I had $2M of cars in my driveway.


The good news is that when we took delivery of our 2017 Premier, it had the fingerprints of the EV-1 all over it...
 

Registered
Joined
579 Posts
The thing I keep wondering about the Bolt: are the drooped LED daytime running lights an intentional thumb in the eye to BMW and i3? Could such an impulse filter through to an actual product?

And, do the designers of the Bolt and the current Honda Fit blanch when the realize they've been unable to differentiate their cars until they're in their cone of central vision?
 

Registered
Joined
761 Posts
I know what ugly is, as a former Miev owner. "Looks like a pregnant roller skate" was a common comment. I bought the Bolt (2) because of it's blending of style and functionality. (I'd still be waiting for a TM3 for two years if I went in that direction). And it would be small sporty-looking car with little functionality. I do nominate the i3 with it's two toned paint job as the newest ugliest car...
 

Registered
21 Sienna "Sparkollz" 22 EUV "Titinsky"
Joined
1,666 Posts
I know what ugly is, as a former Miev owner. "Looks like a pregnant roller skate" was a common comment. I bought the Bolt (2) because of it's blending of style and functionality. (I'd still be waiting for a TM3 for two years if I went in that direction). And it would be small sporty-looking car with little functionality. I do nominate the i3 with it's two toned paint job as the newest ugliest car...
Ah, poor i3 鈥 apart from the weireardoors (= weirdo rear doors) the i3 would be cute enough to be a $35K, 240-mi EV, in other words IMO its real problem is not the looks but the price and the range.

Rabid, evangelical, proselytizing brand loyalty is a curious thing, in a class with "unboxing" videos on YouTube.
It's either brand loyalty, or too many people with zero knowledge of the subject matter,
On another forum, I remember reading lamentations of a self-proclaimed "tall guy", who complained about the sordidly crammed Bolt interior - comparing to that of the TM3, of all cars. The Bolt, he concluded, is just a "Spark with a battery".

I once suggested to insideevs.com to introduce a monthly fee for the forum members, which should help with their budget and, also importantly, weed out the "alternatively competent" posters with too much time on their hands.
 

Registered
Joined
5,054 Posts
Technology has it's downsides. The mass produced ICE provided work in many forms. It allowed an unprecedented acceleration of industrial productivity, extended the geographic freedoms of individuals, and a host of other advantages. Sure, society "got away" with it's known downsides for some time. However, the negative repercussions, including poisoning of the atmosphere, God only knows how many human lives were sacrificed in order to conquer lands that the oil required for it was on, continuous military protection of these "interest", and the treasure in the form of taxes it takes to maintain its resources production. Had there been none of the downsides, there would be no practical need for EV's today. The truth here is absolute; we are indeed pushing for greater EV technology research, development, and adoption as a remedy for the downsides of a prior technology.

This doesn't mean that technology is bad. And certainly not in the case of EV tech as a mitigation of many of the problems that ICE has created. Technology is just not the cure-all for everything.
The only issue I take with your position is that electric vehicles actually predate internal combustion vehicles. Vehicles of all types were invented by humans because, well, we're lazy. By nature. By design. The most successful animals in nature are those who expend the least amount of energy to survive. It's hard coded in our DNA.

Electric vehicles were an incremental improvement over the horse and buggy. Then along came a fuel with energy density orders of magnitude greater than what we could do with batteries, and it enabled our laziness better than anything else that came before it. But as they say, there's no free lunch.

But now we're accustomed to this lifestyle, so to your point, we now need to focus on improving EV technology. Not because it's actually necessary, but because we are now accustomed to a new level of laziness.

I was initially flummoxed as to what triggered your response here, then I realized that you are a YouTube reviewer. I would like to note that I purposely included this: "... in the absence of objective economic and environmental differentiators" in my statement. Your videos are objective overviews of the Bolt's functionality with very little subjective opinion. Which is very informative. Contrast this to the OP statement about writers suggesting the Bolt is "Ugly", which is an inherently subjective statement.

The deeper issue is why such a statement would have an affect on people. Although 1,000's of books have been written on the social implications of tribal conformity, I posit that such subjective statements are only there to create the illusion that one thing is better than another based on the perceived status of the person spewing it. If that elevated status is accepted in the society, that opinion will lead to a more generalized acceptance and desire of certain things (and an imposed standard of 'Beauty') as opposed to other things. Again, it's just the way the human behavioral river flows.
Thank you for your feedback about my videos. I wasn't necessarily triggered, but yes, I wouldn't do what I do if I didn't think I was being of actual value. I think I missed your point of (maybe I'm still missing it) substantive versus sensational reviews. The former I think of as education; the latter are, at their core, yellow journalism.
 

Registered
Joined
401 Posts
Beauty is certainly in the eye of beholder, and the big screen that sticks out of the dashboard of the model 3 is in my opinion super ugly and worse than that not very functional ...just begs to be broken. Beauty is also being able to test drive a car and make sure you like the actual car. For me I think the Bolt is cute, but what is even better is a good functional space in the car. Plenty of room for passengers and with the seat down plenty of room for cargo.
 

Premium Member
Joined
2,576 Posts
The GM EV-1 had a Cd of .19, the lowest of any *production* automobile. Ever.
Guess that depends on what ones definition of "production" is:

The features of a production vehicle or production car are mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public.
~ https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_vehicle


As I recall, the EV-1 was only rented (leased) by consumers. There were 1100 or so manufactured? Whereas the Volkswagen manufactured about 250 of the XL1, and consumers could actually purchase it and own it forever without the potential for the manufacturer to forcibly repossess and then destroy the vehicle. How did you feel when your last EV-1 was taken from you and crushed like a piece of stinking garbage by GM?


Perhaps GM felt that it's design was to UGLY for mass adoption?

Let me add that it doesn't matter much what EV has the best looks, Cd, or range...what matters is that consumers can freely purchase them with the ultimate goal of easing the downsides of the ICE unintended consequences. IMO, GM is not to be applauded for it's EV-1 fiasco. Society would have been better off if GM had simply continued to produce, and make available for sale the EV-1...even if the cost to the consumer were high in order to make a profit on each vehicle.
It wasn't just GM crushing cars. ALL manufacturers that brought out ZEVs back in the early 2000's promptly ceased production once the hard CA CARB mandate was eased. They just didn't crush their cars in as prolific a manner as GM. And the EV-1s were never the property of the drivers. GM owned them from the start, as they were all leased.
 

Registered
Joined
8,823 Posts
...know what?

I'm really liking the Clarity.
Me too. Then again, I drive a Prius. I'm not above driving unattractive vehicles, as I view them as appliances designed to accomplish a task.

Some might see a vehicle as an extension of their personality, but I'm not inclined that way. Never cared much to fit in when in elementary school and care even less as an adult. I may have been born old.
 
21 - 40 of 54 Posts
Top