I honestly try to adhere to the less is more approach,simple and understated will always grab my attention. Restraint is lacking on some cars at the major shows,very much like a artist that has painted a beautiful landscape and then for some uncontrollable reason he feels the urge to paint a advertisement bill board to block out the vista? HRP
I realize this is no one's opinion but my own, and I'm not trying to stir up anything, but that car does not have it. It doesn't flow at all. Looks like RR to me.
so the look is also entirly dependent on the function? im a motorcycle guy and one thing i could never get my head around was the comicly large rear wheels on some bikes, it just looks wrong when ya start going past 200 wide on a chopper rear wheel, but on the upside it usually makes the fat ass on the seat look slimmer.
'It is a pretty structure, isn’t it? It makes you think of something stable, solid, well-linked. In fact it happens also in chemistry as in architecture that “beautiful” edifices, that is, symmetrical and simple, are also the most sturdy: in short, the same thing happens with molecules as with the cupolas of cathedrals or the arches of bridges. And it is also possible that the explanation is neither remote not metaphysical: to say “beautiful” is to say “desirable” and ever since man has built he has wanted to build at the smallest expense and in the most durable fashion, and the aesthetic enjoyment he experiences in contemplating the work comes afterward. Certainly, it has not always been this way: there have been centuries in which “beauty” was identified with adornment, the superimposed, the frills; but it is probable that they were deviant epochs and that the true beauty, in which every century recognises itself, is found in upright stones, ships’ hulls, the blade of an axe, the wing of a plane.' Primo Levi (on the alloxan molecule), The Periodic Table (Abacus, 1986), p. 179
This is my favorite thread on the HAMB. Just thought I would add that. Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
I think the idea of getting it out of the shop and looking at it from afar is so important. It also always amazes me how some people can't see things grossly out of whack; I bought a hoodless 29 A long ago, the builder had the deuce grill leaning ever so slightly forward at the top. I couldn't drive the thing until I fixed it. As far as factory designs, I love the '57 Ford, except the body colored headlight surround; just blows the whole deal to me. Or the tailheaviness of later Corvairs. (I know, it IS tailheavy). But a '53 Studebaker? hard to improve.
I like what you said mohr hp, you have to get it out of the shop and have a look see. How many times have we all got it right the first time? I'll be the first one to say, not me that's for sure. I dig your avatar to, love them Studebakers that year and 54.......
Good point. To truly get a good look at the car, you need to get it outside and have about a 50ft radius and be able to walk around it for a full 360 degrees. Take a good, long look from every angle, from every vantage point and from high and low. The obvious issues and flaws will show themselves if you study it enough.
pick up trucks are a good lesson in proportion because you can take a stock trucks and compare them in different configurations; compare a short bed 2 wheel drive, to a 4 wheel drive short bed [a little taller but just as short], then compare the 4 wheel short bed to a long bed and the "same truck" changes again....and then again when compared to a long bed two wheel drive.
Here's my story on that. When I decided to build my T Bucket, I knew I didn't have a lot of skills or money, but I had time. Time to dig out my old magazines and pictures from car shows. Knowing my limited budget, I looked for T Buckets that didn't look faddish and weren't a rolling billboard for a chrome shop. This is what I found. I knew I couldn't afford a 409 or any "cool" engine, but I knew where I could get a SBC for $400. I chose the chrome headers because they were shiny. A loss of focus due to budget and vanity. I intended for mine to be black and looked forward to teaching myself to paint, but when I got the body and it was in great shape, I left it in the white gelcoat. A loss of focus, due to convenience and laziness. I never wanted a white interior, but I wanted a full one. I actually started laying the wood, but gave up because it looked like it would take a while. I went with a cheap fabric glued inside the body. Man was I trippin'. Loss of focus due to laziness. I wanted steelies and blackwalls, but found a pair of Hallcrafts for $300. I bought the Hallcrafts because they were $1,000 new and $300 was a steal. Totally didn't care that they looked goofy on a Fifties themed build. Loss of focus, due to ego stroking. I went with a chrome Model A grill shell because....it was shiny. MORE vanity and another diviation. When she was finally done and before the wreck, this is what I had. Looking back, it's a mixture of styles and pieces that don't work well together. But I convinced myself it was okay. Probably because it was my first build. No excuse. And here she is as of late. After the wreck, I had a LOT of time to look at where I had screwed up. I sat down, got ALL my magazines back out and rethought every thing. Slowly she has evolved into a simpler styled T Bucket. She's not traditional or even Fifties themed. She's just clean. Which is what I wanted all along. Now, compare this picture with the first one and you can see how I'm almost back where I first planned. My car is a living testament to what Highlander said. Once you find an example or devise a plan for what you consider "right", STICK TO IT! OR, suffer my fate. As much as I liked the first rendition of my T Bucket, the wreck was the best thing that ever happened. See Fred's plan. See Fred deviate. See Fred fuck up. DON'T be a Fred!
Very interesting topic, fun to read along. The two things I've noticed that ruin a car build for me, is 1. Forcing a part onto a car outside of the period of the build because it was neat looking or "it's what I had laying around". Often side mirrors, steering wheel/column, seats, or wheels/tires. Lots of slick 50's customs running around with those awful 80's looking "aerodynamic" body color mirros on them, or early rods with high back headrest bucket seats that look like they belong in a 91 Grand Am. The second thing that ruins it for me is one-uppsmanship. "If a rubber rake with 6.00 and 7.10 tires look cool, then I'm going to run 4.50's and 7.50's. If a 3" chop looks good, I'll chop mine 7". 4" lowering looks sweet, so I'll make mine tight to the ground." The best rods and customs, even the super wild Rothian ones, still use a healthy dose of restraint, where appropriate. To me, that's a big part of having "the eye".
Sometimes the eye squints, tries to like a change from the picture behind it. And like Fred was saying about his has happened over and over again in every city or town that a rodder lives in. Squablow, you too made some good points. There's certain things that bring out the "I'm done..." when I look at cars. Now in posession of a 65 GTO I've started looking at every one that I can. I get picky, well anal really, about certain things that MUST be in place. When they're not it jades my whole take on the car. When I see a Grant wood wheel in one I immediately get a feeling of "cheap" or "poser" because the real thing is close to $500 and those can be had for as little as $90. So if they went cheap in the area where 92.5% of the people looking at the interior go 1st, where else was it cheaped out? Same thing with wheels and tires. I hate smoothies on just about anything, and knowing they're only $45 less than an OEM style chrome wheel, well there it is again. Most times I won't even stop at a car I tend to like when it has those damn blade lookin wheels with the phony screws around the edge. These are cars where the eye is completely disrespected for the sake of some extra beer money. Details make or break anything and those are just some of my peeves, some of the things that chap my ass just a bit. I know it's not my car and they're out there having a good time. I also know that there is no "right or wrong" when you're building something. But there are things that stand out and will separate the top tier cars from the rest. I also know and respect the fact that not everyone wants a top tier car, and in fact some actually detest them. I can't fathom that personally but to each their own. Under my soon-to-be 61 Belair, there has to be a 15 X 8 wheel with a 4 1/4 back space, or whatever an 8" Vette style rally wheel is. I've followed many an "X Frame" Chevy, both stock and modified. The standard wheel spacing makes it look silly, look like it's on one of those dollies that wreckers used back in the day because they're tucked in so damn far. I had the rally wheels, 2 of the wide ones, and they fit like they were designed for it. My "eye's picture" sees the car with OEM chrome wheels and wide whites. Now I know exactly which backspace I need so the eye was right in that regard. Small detail with a high impact on the final look.
Don 56 posted a pic of J.J. Barnhardts 32 the gold coupe. I pm'd him and he didn't know the color, does anybody know or have a way to get ahold of JJ? My 55 chevy would look good with that color. Sorry for the hijackThanks all. Lippy
before i had children and a loving wife , i used to spend a few hours at the end of the day just looking at the work piece, from close and afar, its amazing what solutons you would find to problems just by relaxing an kickin back an lookin. maybe some good music and a brew or few.
The "eye" needs this, be it aesthetic or technical. Some call it "fresh eyes". Back when I was doing back half and cage work I'd stop when it was all fitted and tacked in. Walk away completely for 5min and come back with a coffee, a milk crate and a fresh lit smoke. I'd sit there and critique the job strictly by eye. More often than not I'd end up on my feet walking around it, looking at it from a different perspective, to see if looked "cool" as well as be stout enough to do the job. Once in a while I'd find that one of the rails could be moved an 1/8 one way or the other. It got to where I could see the drive shaft offset required purely by eye. I'd move a main hoop back a bit at the top so it would flow with the rest of the car. Too late for all that once it's burned in for good. Being in a hurry can cause a "black eye".
I really like this thread. As for my personal thoughts when i build something, i just always try to make it so that not one single item strikes you. Build it so that the whole package works together and nothing dostracts from that. Dont know if thats the "eye" or not, but simple and understated normally works. Tony
Note how the line of the lower edge of the running board just clips the bottom of the front wheel rim, and how a line connecting the tops of the front and rear tyres is parallel to the running board line. This is the definitive big-'n'-little stance. It's a rule of thumb I noticed years ago. Look at all the cars that sit best (in conventional hot rod terms) and you will find that this rule applies, though in the best cases it is set up intuitively. I suspect that, if one were to go and look, one would find that the ratio of tyre width and height is roughly the same between front and rear.
I do agree about sitting and looking at a change before making it permanent. I've gotten in the habit of leaving things alone when I'm not sure what the best way to handle a problem is, and usually the solution will fall into my lap, no need to force anything. On the other hand, This is a good quote, probably very true of us right now. Reminds me of some other HAMBers quote "I too like to overanalyze things until they're no fun". Maybe we're putting way too much thought into this. Still a fun read, though.
Usually when this type of thread pops up people start submitting their own cars thinking they are exactly what the thread is talking about, so many are so far off the mark I just shake my head. So far in this thread nearly all the examples really hit the mark. Nice to see people getting it. Sometimes when I'm perusing the classifieds here I see some nice high dollar cars, but they were built in the style of the time ... 80s etc. I cant see anyone paying the big bucks for a car that will need a total redo. If these people would have spent the same time and money building their car in a more traditional "timeless" theme they would have been cool then and cool now and probably sell their rides a lot easier.
This thread holds a bundle of wisdom; in how to follow through in design of your car. Ned, the lines depicting proportion on the gold deuce, concerning rubber rake...All this was difficult to find after the early days had ended, and muscle cars became the focus. I usually try to keep three things in mind; Proportion, Resonance, and to allow Intuition, free rein. Highlander's stepping back process is sometimes the best thing to do.
When I was building my pickup I had spent many hours day dreaming about what I was going to do,I agonized over what I considered trivial things at the time but when I put those small pieces into play some worked,,others didn't and the didn't show up in the finished? product. I sat and stared at the truck with out fenders and knowing that my original plan called for fenders I spend the better part of two days just eye balling the look and came close to forgetting the fenders. I have always liked what I like to call the "STINK BUG" look and the exaggerated rubber rake along with fenders that rap around the tires. This look doesn't work on a lot of cars and I have proven that on more than one occasion. I also would like to point out that this is one of the best and most thought provoking threads in quiet a while,very insightful. Thanks Fred. HRP
I wasn't going to say it regarding that gold 5W that's been show a few times already, but I have to. Does the hgt of the deck area bug anyone else? For some odd reason, maybe only the color or the camera angle, but damn it looks "ass heavy" to me. Like too much above the rear fenders. I even looked at others and it doesn't stand out like that photo shows. Love the car overall but that detail hits me wrong, and it has since the 1st pic. Quick edit, Looking at the pic in post 3 of this topic, what does the "eye" see? http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=339220
No matter what type of car I'm looking at I look for the overall flow of the lines. Nothing wrecks that flow more than a missing hood. Just go back to page one and scroll through the posted photos and note how many cars have full hoods. That is a race car, Bonneville LSR look to me. Bob
Possibly the color & angle,,personally I like the gold coupe but it might have something to do with the chop..the coupe in the link you added is not chopped. HRP
The Jalopy Journal
