Excellent question. Gassers work aesthetically because the way they work mechanically is so intuitive. They have a high centre of gravity that causes their entire weight to climb onto the rear tyres on launch. The limited grip afforded by the period slicks requires large vertical movements, for which we can get a feel. Gassers are a sort of automotive jolie-laide in that their weird proportions are part of their appeal. They sacrifice all grace to the task of putting all their power down through relatively small patches of indifferently sticky rubber, and they perform the task in a very graphic way. This evinces a sort of seriousness, not beating about the bush, meaning business. Group B rally cars had something very similar going in a completely different sort of style. Expressed differently, gassers work aesthetically because they look like gassers. Gassers are cool because of the way they launch, which is also the reason they look the way they do. It's a perfect example of "beauty" deriving from a resemblance to an approbation drawn from other reasons - i.e. that gassers are dramatic and intuitively powerful and serious and generally cool. It is my belief that all aesthetic judgment ultimately works this way.
Great thread, I am working on a car that I hope when done has the look. Highlander, I like the perspective you point out with that Packard. Very interesting.
I don't know about "the Eye" but I know what I like. Most recently this caught my "eye". Love everything about it, or at least I was enjoying it too much to pick it apart. Really like this too, should've won IMO.
It is really simple. Traditional style always looks timeless. Anything else becomes a fad and fades away. The customs and hotrods I liked 40 years ago, still have the same "look and style" today. Sometimes folks try just to be too different and miss the bullseye.
All that supports what the idea of the thread was. In successful building, manipulation of shape and form is done often to achieve MASS appeal. As for The Parthenon, here's some good reading. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/glorious-parthenon.html I agree, but many would argue that "Traditional" is itself a fad. There are a LOT of 80's - 90's Street Rods that got a set of WWW's and a valve cover change to "fit in". The guys who built cars in the 50's and NEVER changed their style, were few and far between. A few of their offspring carried the torch and everyone should be grateful. But for the most part, IMO, most of the people building traditional hot rods and customs, regardless of how much research they've done, are doing it to be in on the latest thing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it's still a fad. Time will tell. And that last paragraph will probably get this thread side tracked. Back on topic, Brizio has been mentioned and is another perfect example of someone who has the eye. I have no idea what his process is, but most of his cars have "it". Does he put a lot of thought into it or is it just luck? Was it learned from a book or is it a gift? Is he sitting in his shop, late at night, using a sight glass and a level to drop his frontend a 1/16"? I think the average guy can come close to perfection, but it depends on how much time and effort he's willing to spend. I remember, when I was younger, what ever wheel was popular got installed on your car. Whether they made the WHOLE car look good or not. And that's what hurts guys today. I think a lot of us see what's going on, admire it and try to fit it into our build. That's usually where things go wrong. It may not be bad, but it's not "right".
Damn good thread Fred! And, one that is sorely needed!! I have to agree with the masses on at least one point, and that is timeless NEVER does go out of style! Doesn't matter if it's you hot rod or that little black dress your wife/girlfriend/both own, it always looks great. I think otherwise it becomes a kind of mass tangle of details to some extent. A biggie that is missed frequently these days is proportion. I think the Rat rod thing has done more to kill that notion than anything. Stance and wheel/tire size and placement is another huge deal too. Ever see a car that is just awesome in every detail but the rear tires are comically tall? Kills the whole thing right away. That's proportion... You mentioned in your opening post that a T-Bucket is a simple canvas for this sort of deal, and to an extent it is. But, in reality, it is one of the easiest to mess up simply because there is allot of ways to put one together. It can literally be any length someone wants theirs to be. It can be any height, any tires and wheels, any engine, etc. You've been in on some of the discussions on my thread about this, it isn't really THAT simple! The other thing that makes a T-Bucket hard, and to an extent other fenderless cars hard is what I have always called the "fill in the blank factor". When you start with a full fendered car, or a later full bodied car, things are going to be where you expect them to be. A wheel will sit in a fender a certain way, the wheelbase will be in a certain place front and rear, etc. With a less "structured" build, that stuff can be moved around to just about anyplace. Getting it right is mocking it up where you can step back and look at it for not just an hour or two, but days or even months.
Entasis is a great discussion, thanks Ned for the info. Here's a sketch laying out a method, of subdividing a 30* angle, and casting the upper segments diameters with tangentlines. I raised this in my book called Tales in Design, plan to publish in March-2014. Small pic of my recent build, a '31 Ford highboy
SOME Gassers look cool! I have another theory on this one... You can have so many things "wrong" in one place that they cancel each other out and become harmonious "right". I have never named this theory other than the "automotive chaos theory". A good example was a friends street bug years ago. If you walked up on it, it looked freakin' awesome! The wheels and tires were just the right size, we fiddled with the stance until it was just perfect (a shade higher than most of our cars at the time, 'cause was and is a big boy), the paint the perfect color, all the boxes checked. When you really looked at thought, the body work was pretty rough, the fenders didn't match (any one of them) the door gaps were terrible, the hood gap sucked and the tail lights were at different levels and the license plate wasn't straight on the decklid. Oh, the bumpers weren't straight either.... But as an assembled whole the car drew people to it like a moth to a campfire, and always looked great going down the road. It was as if the flaws were so numerous that they became harmonious in the completed vehicle, and weren't noticed until you really studied it. That is what mean about the automotive chaos theory, literally that so many things can be wrong that they add up to a very appealing finish whole. Gassers are a bit tougher than this because of some of the factors that I described above regarding wheels base and such, but to my eye most gassers are a compilation of many "wrong" looks to make that right....
I think we all know that a lot of people have an "eye" when it comes to customs and even hot rods, where Style reigns supreme. But I think a lot of drag racers really had the eye too. Probably because they spent a lot of time building customs and hot rods before they got into racing! Some of these cars were beautifully sculpted.
I used that a ton when I was placing things on the front end. Never realized it was a common practice. Pretty cool
Nope. As stated, that's not my T Bucket. It's close to what I like, though. Mine is lacking in what I consider good proportions and finish. Some things I did due to budget and skill level. But it's also not finished.
Well Fred, quit fucking talking about it and do it! There is nothing on Skips car that is so expensive that you can not take your neat little T to the next level! If all else fails find another cop to hit you and run em through the wringer for a build budget!
I've got things in the works for this year. That was one reason for this thread. I've got plans and ideas and I'm going through the process of research and development and wanted to get others thinking about the process. A couple items have been acquired, but I'm taking my time. If you've looked at my album you can see the progression. Slow, but steady and always upwards.
Much of what's going on in this topic almost boils down to a kind of discipline. Martial arts are a discipline, hardcore custom guys view it as restraint, hot rod guys tend to make sure certain things are "just right" and you see those same elements on every build that trips your senses. I think where the discipline applies is sticking with your personal vision of the finished product. It can get skewed easily, and 1st thing that mullers up the process is unsolicited input. You have a close friend or colleague that offers his/her opinion. Human nature forces you to consider it and it might move the project or shift the focus. It's not malicious, actually quite the opposite. I've seen it happen just on an engine build. Watched one undisciplined racer move his SBF build 5 different times based on someone's input or the latest magazine article. He never finished it. It happens in restoration too. You can get a dozen different interpretations of "what was", but if you're well researched and confident in your knowledge and experience you don't need those opinions. That's the tough part, the discipline and dedication required to make it "right". It can get really bad when you're doing work for someone else. They have a demand, and even if you know it's wrong or technically won't work you have to walk a razor sharp line when trying to express it without cutting your feet in half. Perhaps the "eye" is sometimes a better judge after the fact. That after is where we can find inspiration, technical info, fresh ideas, even color combinations you previously never thought were possible. Next...
You're not the only one! An article in the March 1957 Motor Trend discusses the wedge concept. Of course that's because Chrysler was really pushing the 'Forward Look' hard at the time. Pretty good looking cars IMO, even if some folks don't think '59 Plymouths have "it." But is there any doubt that the concept works, and has always worked? How many times have you snapped your neck to take in a simple car with the right wheels and a rubber rake? How many times have cars in the background of a photo caught your eye more than the subject? PS - If anyone wants insights "from the horses mouth" about Chrysler styling during the late '50s through the '60s, take a look at this thread.
PS - If anyone wants insights "from the horses mouth" about Chrysler styling during the late '50s through the '60s, take a look at this thread.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the link . What an interesting first hand insight to the world of the styling department at Chrysler in the 50's .
Ya, I took a bit of umbrage at the "59 Caddys have it '59 Plymouths don't" comment a couple of pages ago. Not by a long shot! Just a personal thing, but I find '59 Caddys about the most over decorated, ugly assed things ever built, (the '60 was sooooo much more appealing...). The '57-'59 Mopar anythings were Virgil Exner fifties at their finest!
The EYE. Some guys have it, some guys don't. A lot of it has to do with planning and execution, and this is where it seperates the two camps. People who "get it" will spend the time to research, do their homework, look at other examples, and lay awake at night thinking about the small details. The guys who don't "get it" just slap stuff together with no regard as to how that part will look in relation to everything else on the car. This is why you sometimes see kustoms with ugly billet wheels, a car with a blower sticking out of the hood with a stock width rear tire, a fenderless roadster with the same size tire on the front and rear, a chopped car or truck with a stock ride height, etc. Some guys just don't get it..... As Chip mentioned earlier, I also agree that the Rat Rod phase did a lot of harm to the "Eye Theory". Rat Rodders, for the most part, were more interested in the shock factor than any kind of tasteful style. That's why we saw cars with tractor grilles, rusty jagged metal, farm tools, and barbed wire. Was it clever? I guess. Is it timeless? Hell No. I think what seperates some cars from others is: *Ride height/Stance *Wheel choice *Tire size/Proportion *Fit/Finish *Integration (how well it all works together) *Attention to detail *Color choice *Staying with the same intent/idea/theme for the entire project (no mismatch) A car doesn't need to have a ton of dollars thrown at it to be stylish and timeless. Quite the opposite, actually. The cars where the builder spent the time sweating the details are the ones that stand out. Tucking a bumper or reshaping a part doesn't cost any more money, but it takes time and proper execution. A lot of guys think that it's a wasted effort to spend 20hrs getting a bumper to fit perfectly. If you have "The EYE", you will be able to spot a poorly fitting bumper from 50ft away. Or a wheel that's not centered in the wheel opening, or a chop that's crooked, or a terrible door gap, or a tire that's too short or too tall. Some guys have it, some guys don't.
Stated perfectly. If you don't notice that most cars have nagging details such as these, then you probably don't have the eye.
This is a great topic...and related to the damage that computer aided design has done to automotive styling. The plastic flares on new pickups? Take a second look and you'll see that the radius of the wheel arch is constant. No one with a pencii added that little flair of human touch to make it right. Hundreds of hours were expended by draftsman/designers on the little reveals at the rear of the quarters of a deuce, and the elegant wheel openings on, for example, that 57 Plymouth. Nice thing about rods and customs is that there's no "latest computer app" for good design...it's the last place where the EYE really counts. Thanks for posting these great insightful comments, everyone.
The Jalopy Journal
