is "the look" more important than the driveability ???

I watched this video linked here...

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719771

( sorry for linking it, should it get deleted... it wasn't yet, at the time of my post )

& besides the "rat" word, I noticed how aweful the "vintage" car was to drive... the chop & channel made the driver slouch down to be able to see out of the car, I'd go as far as to say, reducing visability, not allowing for a comfortable driving postition...

so do you worry about driveability over looks, or do you put up with poor driver ergonomics, to get the look you are after ???

seems the gals dug the "vintage" car over the high dollar sports car, so obviously "the look" is important... just wondering how many put up with hard to drive poor driver ergonomics to get the look ???

being a bigger guy & at 6'2" I'm maybe better off with the roadster builds

 

Magnum,
You and I are going to be friends untill one of us checks out so I am going to give you some advice that will make that easier for both of us; form follows function my friend.

While I do believe that one can put up with a little bit of uncomfortable screw looks and make it function properly. If you want a smooth ride and not a show car if you make it function well it will always be smooth.

 

Some folks don't know any better, and they build rat rods.
It takes considerably more effort and engineering to get the look and ergonomics.
If the look goes too far it becomes cartoonish and behaves as such, including the drivers.

Why anyone would channel extra deep and then put the floor on top of the rails is beyond me. Lowering the floor pan into the frame rails takes more effort but that's how you get some ergonomics back into the car.

Lowering a car should be more than spreading the rear tires and dropping down between them.. it looks like a fuck up, miscalculated hot mess. Why would ergonomics be important or even an afterthought in a hot mess.

 

I've seen some RR cars that looked uncomfortable as hell to drive. Brake and clutch pedals at awkward angles, no head room, no padding on the seats, etc. For a hop around town it would be okay... on a 100 mile run somewhere, I'd be in traction after that. I'm 6' and 235 lbs, some people I hang out with are 6'4" and up. I'd want them to be comfortable in my car as well.

Bob

 

FLATTIE... I wasn't talking about my project really ( or particularly the "rat" cars, but on chopped & channeled cars, & I do think this is the right forum for that )... I have never driven a chopped or channeled car... the video ( while I assume not a good representation ) really looked uncomfortable to drive... I was wondering if the normal / accepted builders here really look at driver ergonomics at all, before a chop & or channel, or if the look is the motivating factor, & somehow the driver will shoehorn themselves into the car...

Thanks PNB... I'm not really a trouble maker honest just trying to learn... I assume there are lots of tricks to get these types of cars more driveable... I assume dropping the seat as low in the floor pan as possible helps... there must be some others ???

I can see where lowering the floor pan between the frame rail would help alot, so long as the frame rail isn't under your ass, or too narrow to work with... thanks for that insite

 

Like anything else with hot rodding, there are tradeoffs. For example, the truck I'm building is going to see the street. Problem is that I can't seem to stop having children and they all won't fit in it. So I know at some point it will see more strip duty then street duty. So I put solid motor mounts and ladder bars in it knowing that it will handle like shit and probably vibrate like a mother. But I'll make it comfortable to sit in and drive so that the trips that I do take are tolerable. But I agree with Porknbeaner that form always follows function. It has to be safe and in proper working order before it can be made "cool".

 

Bob,
I am only about 5'10" (actually almost 5'11") and weigh in @ 180. I am still uncomfortable in some cars. The Ravens '27 roadster comes to mind, hell my willys (think jeep) pickup is another. The willys is mine so I can change the seats which I plan on doing maybe this weekend.

Here is the deal when you build a car, as in custom build a car for you to drive, it should be built to suit you not every other Tom, Dick, and Emanuel that comes down the pike. That is why I am uncomfortable in the Raven's '27. He is only about 5'8" and we built the car around him.


Form is a real deal in our hobby but there are ways to make one comfortable and drivable without sacrificing form. I am not talking creature comforts here I am just talking basic usability. Sometimes you have to think real hard when you are building and others you just have to make concessions.

I have another friend here in town that owns a real sweet 30 coupe. He is 6'6". Instead of chopping it he did an east coast build with a mild channel and a Z on both ends, The front Z is actually along the foot board in the inside so it sticks out through the firewall as though he has a mega channel. He can see out real well, he is comfortable and with the flake green paint he always draws a crowd.

It is all a matter of what you are after and thinking out a solution to make it happen.

 

Personally i'm only 27 but i find the look/go aspects of a car more appealing, it's a hot rod not a custom/lowrider

I think a lot of my opinion have been formed by the 'go fast' aspect, after all the legend says that mickey thompson only had a welding lense to look thru on challenger and have you ever seen what it takes to cram into stu hilborns car??? No wonder he never raced the car after he got busted up in '48 or '49.

As for my projects i have a channeled '27 roadster to cram my 6'1 220lbs shape into, and i'd cram my ass into anything else that goes fast just for the kicks, but then again i beat anything i own within a inch of it's life. Screw drivability, after all how far do most of the street rods drive? (ive seen that 1st hand)

 

Shaggy,
A race car (think land speed or drag race here) only has its occupant in it for about 5 or 10 minutes.

Anything that I build is built with going cross country on a moments notice in mind. I have built some cars and bikes that were pretty uncomfortable when I was a young man and still took them cross country many times on a moments notice. The more experience I got the more comfortable I was able to build my cars and bikes. I don't build land yaughts if it won't make the trip in record time I don't bother with it.

 

Hot rods have often been less than perfect comfort. They were, traditionally, built for a purpose, built for increased speed. Customs, on the other hand, were traditionally built for looks. Comfort and drivability again may get sacrificed for the desired look. As the two terms became mingled over the years, many people built old cars that "looked like" hot rods, but weren't actually built for the racing, just for the look. In fact, some people actually started building 4-doors and considering them Hot Rods.

All that said, I personally drive a '55 Studebaker pickup. They have little leg room, Sofa like seats, stiff suspension, no anti-sway bars. So lots of body roll. Works OK for drag racing, or LSR, but will never ride like a sports car. Given that I'm 6'5", there's very little comfort, even though the body has not been chopped or channeled. Yet, I've driven it across the country about a half dozen times. So lack of comfort isn't exclusive to extremely modified vehicles.

 

I just wanted to clairify... I used to race stock car ( dirt track ) & alot of competition jeeps & ATV's over the years, so I understand pushing the edge, & some of the discomfort that goes along with high performance... but I'm old enough now, that I'd also be in traction, if I had to drive something with the driver ergonomics displayed in the video, from my house, the 120 miles or so, to back to the 50's show ( for example )... yet even though my stock car was not street legal, to put 120 miles in it, would have been "fun"

so I'm not looking at pillowy softness, just basic driver ergonomics in a build... that's what I was curious about...

 

Looks.

If I wanted to be comfortable I'd buy a lexus, or mercedes. So would anyone here.

It's always looks that's why there's people here for these cars. Just some people are more comfortable with being less comfortable. Some people need a high roof line, lots of leg room, A/C. Some people don't and just want an extreme hot rod. Especially those who built their cars when they were young and more so then ever it's looks over how loud/hot/back breaking it is.

My father has a '33 ford truck that's chopped/channeled/z'd. He's smaller guy like 5'8" and has to stuff himself in there. But he built it to his vision, what they used to do when he was young and was ok with making concessions on comfort. Some people aren't.

 

Form Follows Function (IMO, of course)

 

No.

 

When I first built my roadster I used a 99 Caravan center seat. It was about 5 inches off the floor, in order to do that I had to add 4 inches to the roadster top I had. It was O K to drive but looked stupid. So every time I looked at the car I didn't like the look. So I cut the extra 4 inches back out and made my own seat and it sits on the floor, the leg room and head room are pretty good and when I drive it it's pretty comfortable, and I really like the way it looks. The only hard part is getting in and out, ( and that's because I'm 64 and 200 + lbs ), once I'm in it's all good So for me it's looks first and then comfort, keeping in mind that you're not going to get to comfortable in a Model A roadster. I feel I've reached a happy medium. Here's a before and after shot.

 

I can't imagine building a car I wouldn't want to drive.

 

I wouldn't want to drive something that looks bad. Fortunately not hard to achieve in our world.

 

. is "the look" more important than the driveability ??? [/B ]

If one is building a car, then drivable should be #1 on the list; since the definition of car is centered on driving. Also it should perform well in its intended purpose be it grocery getter-daily driver on public roads, or land speed racing on closed track. As fun as it might be to drive a funny car or sling shot dragster down main street, it just won't work well.


My car “looks “ like it has a 2" channel due an anti-section and the chopped 3" in addition to the factory 1.5" shorter, looks even more drastic. It has a 6" windshield center height, 9" windows, yet there is a generous 44" floor to headliner. My silverado has 47“ and my grand prix has 42.

On initial mock up, there was only 37" F/ headliner, looked like it needed more chop and was 18" off the ground.

 

That might actually be the key... I love to drive, doesn't matter if I'm cruising, racing, or pounding the interstate... I just love to drive, can be a super plush Caddy, or a full blown drag car... just let me behind the wheel... anything I've built in the past was versitile enough to compete in as many venues as I could ( so I could drive more styles or times ) so I'd need some ergonomics

... I can understand there are some that just like to show, or just like to race, or just like to cruise, all of which would have different ergonomic requirements...

I guess I don't think I'd personally want to drive "that rat" for too long, but just the same I'd love to drive it once

 

this is wat seperates the a good builder from a driveway builder. A

 

A car is suppose to be taken on the freeway and where ever u want to go. You should be able to be hard on it, thrash it, and then drive home to take ur lady to the drive ins in it.

 

Here is an example albiet not traditional. In the '60s a very tall basket ball player brought a brand new MG coupe to the Ol' Man (on a trailer). It looked kind of funny in the garage but the Ol' Man said it was going to pay the rent for a couple of months. Now this really tall fella wanted to drive this little clown car. What he neded up with was a little coupe with no back seat and the original buckets sunk into the floor and move to the location of the original back seat.

Now a more or closer to traditional solution. One summer in the late '70s I was working as shop manager for a fella in South Central Missouri. A fella brought a '34 Coupe in with a blown injected olds. He was pretty tall and had trouvble working the clutch etc. Which is pretty important when you are trying to go 1320 ft faster than the shorter guy in the same type of car. There was no place to move the seat to so the options were to build him a rumble seat or build him an extended toe box. Toe box won of course.

Both examples were less about being comfortable and more about making it drivable.

Comfort can be a realitive term on most cases. I think that if I get there and I can still walk I was comfortable, I haven't had a working heater since before I joined the HAMB and drive year around. I still think that the windows down in the heat is just fine. This last spring I put A/C and power brakes in a lincoln vert because that was what comfortable was to the fella that owns the car. Comfort is a difficult term to define.

 

What video?

 

"Be true to the car" for sure!

Like a Woman in 6" heels we're somewhat "Fashion Slaves" to our Hot Rods and Customs. To get "THE look" we have to make exceptions and sacrifices but, just because a Hot Rod or Custom looks great, doesn't mean it has to have seating and a ride that's uncomfortable.

I've cruised in cars that sit a couple of inches off the ground and ride like a dream and cars that sit eight inches off the ground and ride like they're on rails-any slight bump has you feeling the suspension hitting the bump stops.
It takes some dedicated effort to build in suspension travel and create comfortable seating utilizing dense foam, etc. That's what seperates the pros from the hacks.

Age and your physical size and condition: That's another factor. At 22, I would have rode a buckboard suspension to look cool. Now at 52, I'm taking into consideration how I'll feel the next morning (!) after a long distance run ridin on rails.

 

There are compromises, you need to find one that works for you.

In the last couple years I have driven cars (mostly OT) that were great looking, but a bugger to get in and out of... That said, once in the driver's seat, not too shabby. I decided these were hiway cars, or cars for just cruising.. when you weren't going to have to keep getting in and out.. The Bricklin was like that. along with Gull wing doors, getting into it was like putting on a pair of pants... The end result though, you just have to decide if folding yourself in half is worth the end result. you need a certain amount of comfort, or all the cool looks in the workld will not make it a fun cruiser.

 

I've rode in some cars that looked cool but were not really comfortable. one of my friends has now put together a 50's ride his r++ r++ stays parked. his heavy channeled car was a grind on 200mi one way car show run. sucks bending your neck to see every stop light, or try to look out before on coming traffic.

On my current car I knew my 2 young boys would be coming a lot so I used boat grade vinyl on the seats, knew we'd take long trips so OD was put in. running 75 at 2200rpm in comfort seats bring smiles.

 

Good answer! I like that.

As an aside, a while back I had the pleasure of sitting in a classic hot rod that I've loved ever since I saw it featured in the little books back when I was in high school. It has been and still is one of the iconic hot rods of all time, IMO. But I was surprised at how cramped and uncomfortable it was to sit in, sitting basically on the floor, with legs straight out in front, pinched in by a beautiful but oversized 50's style steering wheel, and leaning forward so my head wouldn't hit the roof. Hard to see out of, too. I wouldn't want to drive it too far, but if it were mine, I wouldn't change a thing. Kinda uncomfortable but way too cool!

 

Thinking more about it, it's a confusing issue in my opinion.
Someone once said anything that serves another purpose other than being art, cannot be art. So if you alter a car enough that you can't drive it, I suppose then it could be art, then "the look" is more important. It's not to say that skilled builders are not artisans in their own right, and I do believe that a functional car can contain art. A custom paint job, pinstripe work, beautiful upholstery work. There is no functional reason to do these things, you do it for the art of it. So if there's no reason to chop a top so low that you can barely see where you're going from a functional standpoint, so does that make it art?
So I guess what I'm saying is "the look" can be equally as important, but not more so, on a functional car.
I think hot rodders by nature do tend to sacrifice some function for form. While I didn't do any alterations to my car to make it more appealing to anyone but myself (and this is a discussion I had with several of you good folks here a few years ago), I did things like put a rowdy engine in my car, loud pipes, lowered suspension, etc. All these things probably decreased the functionality (or at least comfort and driveability) as far as the average person is concerned. Many people don't get why we customize at all, and as much as we try to say it doesn't matter, I think we all want people to dig our cars, even if you didn't build it seeking anyone's approval.

 

What about drag cars? I think they're an even bigger case where "the look" clearly follows function. A dedicated drag car can't do all those things, but it's no less a car and no less functional. It's the INTENDED function that matters.