Art & Inspiration what makes a "beautiful" roadster? (senior project)

These Soutchick and Figoni/Falaschi cars (pictured above) are 'convertibles'- not roadsters. The Rod Hadfield 'SLOW 32' (above) is a car that sucks you in like a vortex at shows.
What makes a roadster beautiful ? A few notes..
BEAUTY is of course a human appreciation, and already it has been mentioned that ' static' is an undesirable trait in a hot rod roadster.

I personally see beauty here as a trait of vitality, of the living. So I have a hard time seperating high performance capability from a roadster of virtue. Put plain, it's gotta be quick and designed for driving - looks come second.

Lastly, I noticed that my favorite roadsters are Bugattis, and I note that they FEEL good. The grand Prix Bugatti 'office' offers a place in which the observant driver is able to perform thanks to perfect controls. There is a liveliness in the materials which transforms them, so that even at rest the cars have a quality of readiness.

Like the finest horses is a roadster beautiful- able and ready to- RUN!

 

What makes a roadster truly beautiful is something few of us garage monkeys are blessed with. Restraint.

 

Well said, friend. Well said.

 

This is a terrific insight and an awesome thread!

 

i think originally, it was luck. the equation was a 20's or 30's car stripped down with faster running gear. at the time, where they "beautiful"? i don't know anyone who was born in 1901 to ask. i'm guessing these were purpose built machines that through the course of 10, 20, or 80 years have become beautiful. in a different time or place with different finances, we might think differently. necessity is the mother of invention and sometimes beauty.
or maybe i'm way off base

 

road&#8901;ster/ [rohd-ster]<o> </o>noun <o></o>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt; width: 35pt;" width="35">
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 1. an early automobile having an open body, a single seat for two or three persons, and a large trunk or a rumble seat.<o></o>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o></o>beau&#8901;ti&#8901;ful / [byoo-tuh-fuh<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_14" o:spid="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" style='width:2pt;height:4pt;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square'> <v:imagedata src="file://localhost/Users/jackbutler/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image010.png" o:title="//sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png"/> <v:textbox style='mso-rotate-with-shape:t'/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->] adjective <o></o>

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt; width: 35pt;" width="35">
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 1. having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; delighting the senses or mind: a beautiful dress; a beautiful speech, a beautiful roadster
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o></o>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0.75pt; width: 35pt;" width="35">
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;"> 2. excellent of its kind <o></o>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="" border="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="padding: 0.75pt; width: 35pt;" width="35"><o></o>
</td> <td style="padding: 0.75pt;">

3. wonderful; very pleasing or satisfying.

OR..... If it gives you a "Chubby"..... it's workin! ......








</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <o></o>
<!--EndFragment-->

 

The forementioned statements comprise the basis for what makes a beautiful roadster /car . One issue not mentioned ,that I believe is equally important, is the enviroment the shape is presented in . The background will enhance or detract from the beauty of the form. Great beauty will shine through in most backdrops but the right background carries the same impact as any of the forementioned qualities .

 

There is a reason the Bill Niekamp Roadster won the 1st AMBR Trophy, and that reason is it was America's Most Beautiful Roadster at the time. I kinda think it still is.

 

No, I think you're precisely right.

Cars were built that, for various reasons, impressed people. Consequently their look began to mean something. To the extent that the look became something worth achieving it became, within its context, an instance of beauty.

Now, because the meaning of the look is well established the beauty of the car built to it depends on two things: 1. Is the look as such a good look? and 2. Does the design pull it off well? That is, intent and execution.

 

Thats why 32gal picked that Roadster to sorta clone

 

That may be so or it may be a marginal call, since they both have separate windshields with separate posts - besides which, the American definition may not be the same as that of other parts of the world, which, contrary to the prevailing view in the 50 States of the Union, do actually exist. You know, like the term 'football': in the U.S. it refers to American football, in Australia it may refer to Australian rules football - to the vast majority of the world's population, it means a game played with a round ball which you are not allowed to pick up and is predominantly played with.... you've got it - feet. But we could open up a whole can of worms with this one.....

The point of this thread however is seeking input for a thesis on beauty - whether it is a roadster or a 'convertible' (American) or 'convertable' (British) may really be a little pedantic. 'Open two seater' - how does that grab you?

 

Flow really is the key for me. And that does not necessarily mean like an Art Deco French type body (although i do enjoy most of them) it means smooth and uninterrupted. That has been my problem with quite a few of the GNRS winners of late - awkward lines especially where the hood, cowl, and frame come together on this years and two years ago's cars.
Like it or not, Boyd really understood this as does Chip. They may apply it to a billet style that some on here don't like but they got the concept - just carried to the extreme.

 

..........

i think it will be hard to beat our HAMB cars & girls ! this roadster & its owner are the best in my mind ................. steve

 

I think Pete Chapouris said it best when Jimmy Shine built that 32 Roadster to compete against Barry White from SRRC. Two completly different types of builds and Pete said that what will set So Cals car apart is the attention to detail, leave all the bumps and hinges and stuff on the car and make it all perfect. So Cal does traditional style and SRRC is a Street Rod shop, both " beautiful " cars but different styles. The AMBER award most often comes down to detail. Not my cup of tea, I like to drive em, but to each his own.

 

a truely beautiful roadster is one that is EXACTLY the way YOU like it. it's that simple

 

To me a beautiful roadster is the one you can't stop looking at. Everytime you walk by it you have to stop and look at it again. For me its usually a full blown traditional roadster. Like someone else said, a roadster built with restraint. Its gotta have the "right" parts, attention to detail in the right spots but not overly refined. Basically a roadster with a completely timeless look. Was it built this year, or 50+ years ago? Those are the ones I get into.

 

..The point of this thread however is seeking input for a thesis on beauty - whether it is a roadster or a 'convertible' (American) or 'convertable' (British) may really be a little pedantic. 'Open two seater' - how does that grab you?[/QUOTE]


Thanks Weasel; 'Open two seaters ?'- .. The popular focus is, evidently, visual beauty. I'm Perhaps confusing 'wonder' with 'beauty'.

 

I'm late to this party but I'll add a thought. It seems the first generation of real hot rods just before and immediately after WWII had the same spark that many parallel first generation events have in common. Genius. A parallel that I think illustrates what I'm trying to say would be the movie stars of the 1930's and '40's. They were first generation with no one to teach them and no one to copy, and many of them were simply geniuses at their craft. Some luck, some happy coincidence, but genius beyond what all the copiers have today.

So supply the raw materials, some really inspired designs from Detroit, some sunshine (sorry east coasters, I'm from the dry lakes 'hood), and some guys with the right combination of time, talent, dollars, and genius, and we got the most beautiful roadsters ever.

It's interesting to me that when GM had a gajillion dollar budget for Harley Earl to assemble an army of design artists, Ford was still relying on a back room and some guys that unarguably were geniuses.

Most of what we see now, me included, is copying someone elses spark of genius. There are exceptions. Some extreme bright lights. Like this guy. That's just one example of someone that has caught my attention who has the spark to create something out of nothing.

 

Sadly the original thought is getting watered down with past examples of Deuces and track Ts. To be expected I guess. A beautiful roadster can be so many things or so many different things. Beautiful roadsters started before some of your parents were even born. What comes to mind for me is Ray Dietrich, Howard Darrin, Harley Earl. Some above mentioned that but the idea for something beautiful is beyond the mainstream idea of a Deuce hiboy or an A on Deuce rails by so n so many decades ago. Certain things work to stimulate the senses. I could show you a Packard, a Duesenberg, a Rolls Royce, or indeed a Delahaye, every one beautiful for as many different reasons as their styles encompass. How hard do we laugh at the "beautiful roadsters" from the late 80s and early 90s? Were they not beautiful or did they fit the time. Time or timeless styling is what makes things not only beautiful but truely classic as well. Maybe more later. I'm working on a Beautiful 34 Packard roadster right now.

 

I'm with him in that attention to detail and no matter what build style or era you do the build for the car stays exactly on theme.

A lot of the roadsters that we bring up, hash around, discuss or study for our own builds are cars that were originally built in the 40's, 50's or 60's but were very well detailed and stuck to one theme.

Everything adds to the package an nothing overpowers or dominates the package.

Case in point, on almost every "Me too" thirty two highboy you see it has that big ugly Moon tank sitting out in front like a pimple on a prom queens nose that dominates the front of the car and distracts from the whole package. It serves no purpose but because Tom had on on his car they have to have one on theirs even though it isn't hooked up to anything. The car disappears behind the tank and you never really notice the car at first impression.

 

I've read this whole thread and heard nothing specific. There is formula that if not followed you loose beauty points.

Stance must be a little lower in front. More if you want a racier look. but never lower in back.

The engine if shown must be level or following the line of the frame and body. Never leaning back. Things sticking up high no mater how racy looking detract from beauty.

Windshield must be laid back. A little or a lot depending on how racy you want it to look.

Grill shell must be a little lower than the cowl or even lower if you want it more radical look as Grabowski and I. But never even or higher.

Headlights should be beside the grill. The farther forward or back of it you loose beauty.

As mentioned before one little thing like wheels not sitting right in the wheel wells can blow it for any car. Remember an inch here or there is a lot.

I'm sure there are more pieces to the formula. If anybody can think of any post them.

Look at the beautiful roadsters depicted and see if I'm not right.

Sorry if I have offended anyone but I just couldn't keep quiet any longer.

 

You can break many, if perhaps not quite all, of those rules. It depends what you want to achieve, and there are in all cases provisos and caveats.

You can run a level stance, for instance, if the wheel/tyre diameters are right for a level stance.

You can run an upright windscreen if it isn't too high.

You can run headlights in front of the grille if the grille is set back a bit on the frame.

etc. etc. etc.

But what you describe defines a type, which comes back to my theory of beauty as resemblance to an established model - which itself might have come about from completely non-aesthetic considerations. But there are many types, many models.

 

I'm still not quite sure whether you are joking ?

 

I can stretch to a non-functional Moon tank between the rails of a 32 because it has its basis in a historically functional use but I'm not sure I can come at a suitcase on the front of a hot rod....no matter how functional

Pete

I think we are done now

 

I like this one....

 

Some of these are interesting "styling " exercises but I'm more into traditional stuff.

 

Lets narrow down the definition of a "roadster". I was always under the influence that it was a 2 seat open car with no fixed side glass. Read no "roll up windows". Side curtains only if youre lucky. If I remember correctly the last true production roadster was made by Plymoth/Dodge. Like '49 or '50. I remember seeing one for sale at Hershey a few years back. Some of the stuff on here is beautiful, but not truely "roadster". Just my opinion.

 

And don't forget lots of cash!

 

Again great responses guys!

I am getting a ton of insightful facts, opinions, and thoughts. Can't wait to here more.

50Fraud - Excellent! Thanks for the breakdown. Great insight. So much to gain from what you said. I printed out what you wrote and have it posted in my studio space, so i can keep looking at all those topics when I am sketching up ideas. The eleven commandments to Hot Rodding!

Harley Gene - "A car that when seasoned hotrodders walk up to it, they can't help but crack a smile" Well said!! short and to the point. Its true that the car has to have the builders own personal unique touches to it that make it stand out from the rest, but allowing everything to flow, and keyword,"functional".

striper - I like what your saying, about vitality. I totally agree. A car that posesses character through the talent left behind, such as welds left to be seen. not trying to hide aspects but let the beauty of the build be seen. Great stuff!

Slimegreeeeeen - "What makes a roadster truly beautiful is something few of us garage monkeys are blessed with. Restraint."
Definitely!

jim galli - "They were first generation with no one to teach them and no one to copy, and many of them were simply geniuses at their craft. Some luck, some happy coincidence, but genius beyond what all the copiers have today." Now thats a thought, and a great one at that. It is definitely true that many of us are looking at what has been done in the past, and "copying" that in our projects, but is there a way that we can look into the past to see what they were doing/thinking and elaborate that in current projects today? I checked out the thread "so lets chop a 40..." and he definitely is an exception. Thats some awesome stuff going on there.

the HIGHLANDER - "Time or timeless styling is what makes things not only beautiful but truely classic as well" well said.

 

Man simple your heart skips a beat when you see it !!