Register now to get rid of these ads!

The Stance

Discussion in 'Traditional Hot Rods' started by J.Ukrop, Mar 21, 2014.

  1. haychrishay
    Joined: Jul 23, 2008
    Posts: 948

    haychrishay
    Member

    Times 3
     
  2. grazy
    Joined: Jun 21, 2008
    Posts: 223

    grazy
    Member

    I have always wondered how in the hell some people can put piles of money into cars and they look horrible and another guy rolls in with a low buck car that just hits you BAM it's got a perfect stance and that gotcha factor that you can't help but stare. Being cool is never cheap or easy otherwise everybody would be cool.
     

  3. Thanks man, I appreciate that.
     
  4. fortynut
    Joined: Jul 16, 2008
    Posts: 1,038

    fortynut
    Member

    My take on low is simple. I worked for Doug Robinson at Horsepower Engineering for a time. (And yes, he does live up his monicker as 'The Rocket Scientist'). Doug was using a wind tunnel he fabricated that used a 440 volt motor with an airplane prop to test changes on a scale model of the new roadster he was building for Bonneville. He explained that the height of a car is what air sees passing through it. The lower it sits, the less the car is 'seen'. This fact came to light when Chrysler was developing the Airflow. Other forces come into play that factor into tweaking, or streamlining for speed. Lowering and reducing size has been a tried and true method Racers have used for many years. Anyone who knows even a little bit about Dry Lakes Racing is aware that the Deuce roadster was discarded in favor of A's, then T's because they were smaller, could be made to sit lower, and went faster in the roadster class. Not getting into other areas of Doug's theories that are the result of extensive reading, and experimentation; and with due respect for his secrecy --- that borders on paranoia, I learned that what works for dry lakes racing translates to the street. When done for a purpose. (I also think hot rods that raced at Muroc and El Mirage are one reason lowering a car came into fashion. What they created as race cars looked cool and as a result were then done to street jobs.) It certainly sparked something in people's brains and has continued to do so. Carl
     
  5. C. Montgomery
    Joined: Dec 18, 2003
    Posts: 1,010

    C. Montgomery
    Member

    I freaking love that car.
     
  6. Wow^^

    I thought they went faster just because they were pointed down hill .

    [​IMG]

    Just kidding :)
     

    Attached Files:

  7. scrap metal 48
    Joined: Sep 6, 2009
    Posts: 6,075

    scrap metal 48
    Member

    That^^^ is a great look....
     
  8. MERCURYGUY
    Joined: Jul 30, 2009
    Posts: 2,145

    MERCURYGUY
    Member

    No question about it that stance rocks
     
  9. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,906

    need louvers ?
    Member


    Absatively! And, a large part of the reason my Plymouth sits the way it does. Less air going beneath the car also translates into less turbulence and lift down there too. I can say proudly that my car runs completely out of aerodynamics at 140, but damn it's a fun ride to that point!
     
  10. ChanceDean
    Joined: Feb 7, 2014
    Posts: 152

    ChanceDean
    Member

    Billies '33
    ImageUploadedByH.A.M.B.1396035987.011567.jpg
    This international isn't actually lowered it just had about 3,000 pounds of aluminum in the bed!
    ImageUploadedByH.A.M.B.1396036021.733753.jpg
    This is my dads '32 truck I used for senior pictures in high school. I think the stance on it is pretty damn perfect!
    ImageUploadedByH.A.M.B.1396036162.149584.jpg


    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  11. Olderchild
    Joined: Nov 21, 2012
    Posts: 476

    Olderchild
    Member
    from Ohio

    Stance dose make or brake the look of any car and well stated by every one here what kills the stance for me is tire side wall to rim ratio in other words those 21'' wheels with rubber bands for tiers or 15'' wheels with 10''/12'' of side wall (not good at tire sizes) but you can get the picture it just the proportions of the rim to side wall that will kill it for me, even if the stance is right
     
  12. I think these are great examples
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Both very different but equally cool.
    Notice the A is just running aprons. That's a great look when done right.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Mar 30, 2014
  13. 50Fraud
    Joined: May 6, 2001
    Posts: 9,877

    50Fraud
    Member

    I came to this thread late, and read through it completely, expecting it to cover a real variety of stances from the OP's drag racing-inspired rake to nosebleed gassers to taildraggers and frame-layers. Nope, everybody has stayed pretty close to the OP's rake, with minor variations.

    Here's what I chose in 1957:

    [​IMG]

    Here's what I chose in 2007:

    [​IMG]

    ...and what I'm choosing now:

    [​IMG]

    Other than getting a little lower in back, I guess I haven't changed much in 50 years. I never really got into the stance of the OP's Galaxie, 'cause it always seemed like I might want to go around a corner sometime.
     

  14. I think the stance on the pink one is just perrrrfect:D:D
     
  15. slammed
    Joined: Jun 10, 2004
    Posts: 8,151

    slammed
    Member

    Level is not stance. Rake or stance has a line to blur. The front is lower than the rear. Tucking tire (when fenders are used) properly, side wall height and width of wheel/tire combo make or break the deal.
     
  16. Dave Mc
    Joined: Mar 8, 2011
    Posts: 2,163

    Dave Mc
    Member

    Even my Dog knows the proper Stance
     

    Attached Files:

  17. sweetdick2
    Joined: Jul 15, 2011
    Posts: 170

    sweetdick2
    Member
    from new jersey

    I believe the nose down stance got it's start when guys started dropping Big engines in old coupes. Ex a big olds in a 41 ford the springs weren't up to holding the extra weight and the front end sagged. Later on when drag racing look caught on the slicks were always taller giving the front end rake...I don't mean nuttin by this I'm just sayin
     
  18. Stance : its actually a word that has its origin and use long before cars were inventend.
    1592 actually. Pertaining to placement of the feet and mostly for golf , a centuries old game. Around 1956 it was first used to describe a political veiw on issues. Instead of "where to you stand on taxation" a black and white question, it was posed as "what's your stance on taxation" to solicite the gray area and general attitude or emotion behind it.

    Somewhere , they started using "stance" to describe how a car presents itself. Cars have different attitudes or stances just like all golfers , or batters, or linemen or martial arts masters have different stances. The golfers stance is similar across the sport and it is a stance, however its quite different than the lineman's stance.

    To say a cars "stance" is Xxx and something different is not a stance is kind of silly. It's sort of like the football player telling the golfer he doesn't have a stance.
     
  19. ChanceDean
    Joined: Feb 7, 2014
    Posts: 152

    ChanceDean
    Member

    Stance?
    ImageUploadedByH.A.M.B.1396274902.705047.jpg


    Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!
     
  20. scrap metal 48
    Joined: Sep 6, 2009
    Posts: 6,075

    scrap metal 48
    Member

    Why is that ^^^ car standing on it's head???
     
  21. wicarnut
    Joined: Oct 29, 2009
    Posts: 7,453

    wicarnut
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Agree, the "Stance" makes or breaks the "EYE" or as I call it the "Look". Kool Car, I would not run 4" wide tires on a 4000# 63 Ford as a street car, NO stopping ability at all, that's to the point of being Dangerous, IMO. Same "Look" could be attained with a little better choice of front tire/ wheel combo, again my opinion. The "Stance" changes with car type, Do not think one formula fits all. Just a "old Timer" rambling on this morning. John
     
  22. arkiehotrods
    Joined: Mar 9, 2006
    Posts: 6,452

    arkiehotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    My golf stance really sucks.
     
  23. 53mercury
    Joined: Dec 2, 2010
    Posts: 95

    53mercury
    Member

    One more version.

    [​IMG]
     
  24. Larry W
    Joined: Oct 12, 2009
    Posts: 735

    Larry W
    Member
    from kansas

    That's my ride back in '62. SWEET!!
     
  25. Gary Addcox
    Joined: Aug 28, 2009
    Posts: 2,433

    Gary Addcox
    Member

    I am going to ask the question even though y'all will probably make me stand in the corner, but what is a hoser, besides someone who washes off service station drives ? Thimk you !
     
  26. 50Fraud
    Joined: May 6, 2001
    Posts: 9,877

    50Fraud
    Member

    Hafta find a Canadian to ask about that one.
     
  27. Gary Addcox
    Joined: Aug 28, 2009
    Posts: 2,433

    Gary Addcox
    Member

    fortynut, you hit the nail on the head. 'Nuff said !
     
  28. Texas Quake
    Joined: Jul 3, 2009
    Posts: 34

    Texas Quake
    Member

    My roadster has a nose up view.
     

    Attached Files:

  29. tfeverfred
    Joined: Nov 11, 2006
    Posts: 15,792

    tfeverfred
    Member

    Yea, but that's aerodynamics. Not the same as stance. Well built gassers have a certain stance, but they are FAR from aerodynamic. I'm sure your friends work is great and it reads like he's done his home work, but that's aerodynamics.

    The average STREET hot rod is a brick, as far as aerodynamics are concerned. Hot rodders dropping the nose and getting a rake is almost as comical as it is cool. But it's a look we love and always will.

    We laugh at the Tuners/Ricers with their wings bolted on the trunk and all those crappy body kits. but they laugh at us with our little front tires and fat rear tires. Both of us have taken, what's actually a science, and made it comical. I'm fine with that.

    Stance = PROFILE.
     

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.