Register now to get rid of these ads!

Art & Inspiration Proportions

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Ned Ludd, Sep 13, 2020.

  1. jnaki
    Joined: Jan 1, 2015
    Posts: 9,288

    jnaki





    Hello,

    Thanks for the correction, it should have said style. "This is a European style roadster and as such not HAMB traditional." My wife and I are watching several old English drama/mysteries on TV. We are seeing a bunch of old cars that had that style. Some may have been Duesenbergs that were imported for the extremely wealthy people on those "small" estates out in the English/European countrysides.

    Jnaki

    It is an American icon. It is just not a HAMB traditional hot rod.
     
  2. davidvillajr
    Joined: Apr 4, 2005
    Posts: 1,165

    davidvillajr
    Member

    I like it, but my eyes want more rear fender. Just a bit more visual heft in the rear fender area would balance it better for me, but, if you don't love Duesenbergs, there's something wrong with your soul. :)
     
    alanp561, Ned Ludd and VANDENPLAS like this.
  3. I'm a sucker for long hoods. Love 'em.
    But the nose high does make it appear a little massive, like a little bit of an old train, steam engine vibe.
    Drop the front a 1/2" and it wouldn't hurt to fill the back fender plus raise the back a hair with a 1" taller tire.
     
    Ned Ludd likes this.
  4. Pete Eastwood
    Joined: Jul 27, 2011
    Posts: 1,324

    Pete Eastwood
    Member
    from california

    The museum I work for has a Duesenberg Murphy Roadster , much like the one in the picture .
    I have a buddy who works at the museum with me , he & I have spent much time analyzing the car .
    We have come up with a number of small changes that would be subtle & most wouldn't notice .
    Of course lower the front , then drop the radiator down maybe an inch & take a slight wedge out of the hood
    Lose the side mounts . lose the luggage rack . pull the bumpers in .
    Lose the cowl lights . rake the windshield . Lower the head lights just 1 inch .
    Smaller tail lights , ( maybe the cowl lights with red lenses ! )
    there are several more , but you get the idea .
    It's stuff people wouldn't notice , until you park it next to a stocker & the " hot rodded " one looks better !!.
     
  5. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 5,025

    Ned Ludd
    Member

    Thanks for all the input, guys. What I'm hearing is basically that, apart from a few minor criticisms, it looks basically how it's supposed to look – and, of course, that it doesn't quite look like a '32 Ford roadster.

    Now, take a look at this one. Better? Worse? What do you think?
    1929 Duesenberg J.jpg
     
    motoklas and Hnstray like this.
  6. ^The original right? Hoods longer, rear is lower. Either way I think it was meant to be driven/observed with the top down.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
  7. If this doesn’t scream Hot Rod nothing does. IMHO
    9B3170CA-197D-4A98-A1C0-B5CE6FC25EED.jpeg 97F8FBAF-53E3-4536-A77A-3436D0255556.jpeg
    4CB80CED-BEB1-4096-B6EC-4C1A96EC596B.jpeg
    Factory hot rod of course....what a Duesy. ;)
     
  8. 2935ford
    Joined: Jan 6, 2006
    Posts: 3,843

    2935ford
    Member

    I want it! :)
     
    Ned Ludd likes this.
  9. Rickybop
    Joined: May 23, 2008
    Posts: 9,605

    Rickybop
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Whachya doin', Ned?
    Thinking about building one?
    Doing some initial designing?

    I've dreamed of building a Duesenberg type or European type car using a small roadster body but with a very long hood. I like that particular uneven proportion. Swept-back windshield. Low roof. Straight 8 at least. Maybe two V8s! 8 pipes out each side of the hood. Full fendered with running boards. Large-diameter wheels and tires. Big and long. But just barely enough room for two.
     
    Ned Ludd and VANDENPLAS like this.
  10. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 5,377

    indyjps
    Member

    I like it, the high hood line looks good as well as the extended 1/4 panel, that long wheelbase was high end at the time.

    Little things like tucking the bumpers tighter to the body, ditching the luggage rack, remove all the dangling bits below the chrome rocker molding would clean it up.

    If youre looking to replicate this as a build, a shorter 1/4 panel would make it sportier. Our eyes have adjusted to Ford proportions since we see them so often. Keep the long high hood.
     
    Ned Ludd likes this.
  11. stanlow69
    Joined: Feb 21, 2010
    Posts: 7,348

    stanlow69
    Member Emeritus

    Just convert it to this. But reshape the front of the door opening. And loose the door hinges. Scan0616.jpg
     
    302GMC, Ned Ludd and VANDENPLAS like this.
  12. seansverige
    Joined: Aug 21, 2009
    Posts: 9

    seansverige
    Member
    from Galway

    Hard to give relevant/specific feedback without knowing exactly what this is for: is this for a project? If so is it being designed 'outside in' or 'inside out', i.e. are the chassis & mechanicals defined or will they be sourced to fit the desired shape? If you have the freedom to do that, great; but hopefully a few broad stroke basics might help

    Couple of things to note generally: at this time car design (styling) was only just becoming a distinct discipline (Harley Earl established the Art & Color dept. in '27), and even then that was working within the constraints imposed by the mechanical package & contemporary technology. So yeah, some of stuff from this era is a bit clunky for reasons that might now be avoidable.

    Unfortunately your chosen source photo has a couple of problems (for your purposes): the VP is a little low - but the major problem is that this studio shot has been set up to minimise the hood reflection, which is not representative of it's form, or how it actually looks in the flesh under normal conditions.

    [​IMG]

    Look at the attached shot: note how the surfaces above the swage line mainly reflect sky, which is what the eye actually reads when estimating the proportions - not only disguising the height difference but making it look longer & lower overall. The effect might be more apparent if you squint (seriously), and this is far more representative of how it would look for real; therefore a higher than otherwise desired hoodline can be compensated for

    In stuff of this era, the hoodline is as high or higher than deckline; this is mitigated by the giving the hood a lot of crown in the top surface with broad, rounded shoulder. The rear is usually far more boxy in section, and in addition there is usually a feature line that runs the length of the body and ideally this is what we want the eye to actually read

    One thing I'm not sure is an artifact of the photo or your design is the rear end. Either way, there are a few problems (see 2nd image below)
    *The rear of the roofline intersects the chassis in ahead of the rear axle, making wheelbase feel too long at the back; compare to at the original - it pretty much passes through the rear axle, tying things together & helping give it a 'planted' stance
    *The external hood frame draws the eye, leading it back & down - again helping tie the front & rear together
    *B-pillar: the rake echoes roofline, intersecting even further ahead of the rear axle. Unfortunately in addition it also seems to diverge with the roofline; ideally you want them to converge to some point above the vehicle, but a backward rake on cars of this era just looks plain wrong so it's best to stick with vertical, which is neutral in terms of perception of rear axle position whilst still giving
    All combined, I believe this contributes to the 'two halves' perception

    [​IMG]

    (BTW the two tone paint job is no accident either: they were also used to enhance/accentuate/correct proportions in this period)

    Personally I'd analyse contemporary stuff to try to define not only what I like about this kind of vehicle but what don't like. Additionally I'd research anything I can find about the design [styling] process which would tell you want what the designers would have liked to do freed of mechanical / technical constraints - but that'll be a serious challenge for something of this era...

    HTH, sean

    PS Am I missing something or does the edited version look longer & lower... because you've made it longer & lower (which feels a little bit like cheating ;-P)?
     

    Attached Files:

    indyjps, Ned Ludd and VANDENPLAS like this.
  13. fortynut
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,038

    fortynut
    Member

    Steering wheel appears to be in the proper place. Ditto door handles, and in my mind a simple hop up on the running boards to drop myself in the driver's seat check the rear-view mirror, of which I see there is one showing. Maybe in the rarefied air of those who build their own perfections this one is ungainly, where I drive it would be perfect. Tall wheels to travel in deep ruts, those cowl light P-Wood would eliminate wouldn't run the battery down if I had to stumble back to find my ride after emptying my flask while howling at the moon. Yeah, it was designed for a time when most of us weren't gleams in anyone's eyes yet. The spare on the fender meant you could put your luggage out of harm's way if you were going to visit someone's yacht for a long weekend of partying. This was a rich man's car, and none of those who show up on this site have white flannel suits, two tone shoes, hair wax, and a roll of money to choke a horse in our pockets. To think why it was built as it is I suggest anyone interested read The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and focus on Gatsby at the wheel of this puppy. In some things form follows function. This one, being out of it's proper set and setting, may seem off to the eye trained looking at sleeker stuff. But, to me, it is a perfect compliment to a lifestyle that vanished because of the Great Depression, two world wars, and our tastes. I once met a gentleman who had worked at the Beverly Hills Packard dealership. He called on an older customer who had stopped buying his new Packards from them, and asked the man why he longer showed any interest in the new ones. The old man answered, "Now that Packard Motor Car Company produces a cheaper version of their cars that my chauffeur can afford to buy, I no longer see any value in owning one."
     
    VANDENPLAS and Ned Ludd like this.
  14. 0NE BAD 51 MERC
    Joined: Nov 12, 2010
    Posts: 1,782

    0NE BAD 51 MERC
    Member

    I kind of chuckle at the remarks that it looks to heavy or massive . Have you ever seen a Duesenberg in person? Look at the picture of Clark Gabel in his coach built custom version. He was not the size of say John Wayne or Hulk Hogan but the car makes him look almost cartoonish in size to the car. As far as first impression I would lengthen the door {not the car} and reshape the back of the top to match the back of the side window opening. The rest is perfect high end 30's sport roadster, not a traditional hot rod. Larry
     
    VANDENPLAS and Ned Ludd like this.
  15. to me the body is perfect, the fenders need to be bigger and higher to make it look right.
     
    Ned Ludd likes this.
  16. fender should be closer to top of the head light or higher.
     
    Ned Ludd and Hnstray like this.
  17. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 12,355

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    I have been thinking all along that the front fender needs to be raised (or hood line/cowl lowered) to create a bit of ‘rake’. The front wheel/tire look massive and combined with front fender height, distort the proportions of the front (windshield forward) of the car.

    My opinion and $5 might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.....

    Ray
     
    tb33anda3rd and Ned Ludd like this.
  18. Ned Ludd
    Joined: May 15, 2009
    Posts: 5,025

    Ned Ludd
    Member

    Congratulations, @wraymen , well spotted! The second image is indeed the original. The first one I'd actually hacked about quite a bit: made the wheels and fenders 10% smaller, shifted the sidemounts forwards, shortened the wheelbase in the hood area. It wasn't an attempt at improvement; I tried to change the proportions in the general direction of a '32 Ford, so it ended up proportioned about like a De Soto or Buick of the era (though in so far as there is anything to attach scale to, obviously bigger.)
    1929 Duesenberg J edited.jpg 1929 Duesenberg J.jpg

    The idea was to test out an aesthetic theory I've had brewing, namely that conceptions of beauty are inextricably tied to our knowledge of what we're looking at. You could put it like this: beauty is resemblance to something good, i.e. to something you approve of for whatever reason. I'm not saying it is so; I'm wondering if the idea has merit in terms of usefulness as a way of thinking about aesthetics.

    This isn't anything like scientific method, but what I can take away is:
    • Guys who fairly know their Duesenbergs generally gave the hacked-about version a resounding thumbs-up, despite the proportions being closer to those of a upper-mid-market car.
    • Guys only peripherally familiar with early-'30s expensive cars pointed out that is wasn't anything like the early Fords the HAMB is all about, and I'm reading a populist angle which is completely valid and laudable, i.e. hot rodding is something for ordinary people and not snooty rich people. (I'm wondering though if part of the motivation behind the development of the mild top chop wasn't to emulate the proportions of upmarket coachbuilt cars which were certainly part of the landscape at the time. Hot rodding has after all always been about ordinary people's efforts to get some of that unobtainable stuff.) Still, how much of that is down to identifying the car as a Duesenberg, or "something expensive", despite it having been reproportioned more like something not all that expensive?
    • Guys with some design smarts have an acquired ability to set knowledge of what they are looking at aside and to "see like an artist" i.e to consider line, form, balance, etc. in the abstract. These are the guys who pointed out the discontinuity of front and rear, or considered the sidemounts, luggage rack, etc. to be distracting. But is that the whole picture? Isn't the meaning arising out of our knowing what we're looking at also part of the design? – not only the socio-economic stuff but also the engineering practicalities like the way the designer had to design around the straight line imposed by the middle hood hinge? The design becomes about a way of dealing with engineering, a way of making things, a way of working with materials. Is it fair to think of that as compromise? A modern designer would have reached for a gentle curve and left the practicalities to the production engineers, and it would have been a dead giveaway rather than an improvement.
    Just some speculation. Workable?
     
  19. grumpy65
    Joined: Dec 19, 2017
    Posts: 920

    grumpy65

    Slow day Dawie ??????
    ;)
     
  20. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 5,377

    indyjps
    Member

    Spot on
     
  21. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 5,377

    indyjps
    Member

    @Ned Ludd, I like it. A car proportion Briggs Myers test? :)
     
  22. Hnstray
    Joined: Aug 23, 2009
    Posts: 12,355

    Hnstray
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Quincy, IL

    @Ned Ludd ......Your theory surely has merit, but I believe there is also some long standing notions that the human eye/brain have an inherent trait that tends to favor certain proportions over less ‘graceful’ characteristics. I seem to recall reading about the ‘Golden ....(something)...’ that humans of disparate cultures recognized and incorporated in their creations.

    Stated another way, it’s no accident people tend, in the majority, to approve of certain designs. And that is what leads to popularity and, in some cases eventually, to be considered Classic or Iconic status.

    By now it is probably obvious, and I freely admit it, that I do not possess enough knowledge of this subject to fully articulate the concept. But I think you do and understand what i am referring to.

    Ray
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2020
    indyjps, wraymen and Ned Ludd like this.
  23. fortynut
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,038

    fortynut
    Member

    For those who demand the very best. There is the Golden Mean, a ratio of 1.62 to 1. You might with some ingenuity apply this to the proportions of the original, though I add it to the discussion only to remind everyone that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A trained eye, it would be reasonable to assume, therefore sees things differently than one that lacks an informed understanding of the principles of esthetics under which masterpieces are both created and appreciated.
     
    VANDENPLAS, Ned Ludd and Hnstray like this.
  24. That was fun and very interesting. Still not sure which category I fit in but maybe that’s part of the experiment. How much of our perception of beauty is governed by peer pressure, the media and advertising? I would say a lot. Does it continue to grow with each new generation? I hope not.

    (I feel like a kid fresh out of law school having a round table with five Perry Mason clones) :);)
     
  25. I’m not disagreeing with you by any means. Just some thoughts.
    Who determines if it’s a masterpiece?The informed? The untrained observer?
    Maybe a little of both coupled with a good amount of the passing of time. I believe it was pretty rare for a work to be judged a masterpiece at the point of creation. The “informed” were probably the harshest critics especially if the work was something new or different. Which car is the best, one that was judged by the trained eye or the people’s choice? I assume it’s the judged one. I can’t be certain though, myself being one of the least informed.
    :(
     
    VANDENPLAS and Hnstray like this.
  26. fortynut
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,038

    fortynut
    Member

    In the first case I meant the artist. In the second case I mean those who take the time to educate themselves as to the historical precedents that have always been considered aesthetically pleasing. Art does not exist in a vacuum. One must attend museums, read the literature and history of whatever it is they are going to make pronouncements. As to automobiles, what you know about the past informs what you see in the present. The styling of automobiles has been with us since their inception. Designers and design studios put their stamp on 'the look' from the very beginning. As consumers this shaped not only what the public bought, but in how the automobile was perceived and accepted. I mean after all , Bugatti, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Porsche and so on have the same number of wheels, an engine, and so on as a Yugo or Edsel. But, to be honest, simply judging them by their looks we all know the ones that are the most attractive. I know it's a clumsy example but my point is that we are all human and inside all of us is the seed of discernment and preference for 'that which pleaseth the eye'. As to how you train yourself to understand what you see in the nuances depends on your motivation to improve your understanding of things other human beings who have done this explain visual esthetics.
     
  27. indyjps
    Joined: Feb 21, 2007
    Posts: 5,377

    indyjps
    Member

    Since we're getting into the theory side of proportions. Is there info on how the cars we gravitate towards as ideal, break down for proportions.
    1932 - 1934 ford, 1937 Chevy, 1940 Ford, 50's Merc

    Is there common proportions similarity on wheel placement to roof to hoodline, door to wheel. Whatever criteria makes sense from the better informed.

    It would be interesting to see the ratios on a 1932 ford 5 window, or a 1940's ford that could be applied other vehicles as people chop and substitute parts to pull a build together. The vehicle could be larger or smaller and still follow the proportions that are most appealing.
     
    Hnstray and Ned Ludd like this.
  28. BrerHair
    Joined: Jan 30, 2007
    Posts: 5,005

    BrerHair
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Thank you Dawie, for doing your part to raise the discussion bar. Verrry interesting . . .
     
    Ned Ludd likes this.
  29. BrerHair
    Joined: Jan 30, 2007
    Posts: 5,005

    BrerHair
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Now there's a cool gig, hanging out in that museum. Reminds me of a great quote I read just last week from above-mentioned @fortynut from another thread:
     
    Ned Ludd and VANDENPLAS like this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.