Art & Inspiration Stance: rake, drag, or slam?

The discussion in the Swoopy Cars thread touched on stance, and that seemed to me an opportunity. This is another of my opinionated rants about design minutiae, masquerading as a historical treatise, so here's your opportunity to go home early.

STANCE is not a traditional word in the world of rods and customs. I think I first heard it used about 10 years ago; certainly it wasn't used in the era most of us honor. It's a good word, though, describing the car's ground clearance, at***ude, and rolling stock all in one word.

It's no news that people concerned with the appearance of cars, designers as well as owners who mess with this stuff, like to make cars look like something they're not. Preferably something fast, like a rocket or racing car. In the era before WW2, this probably meant a taildragger airplane or a speedboat.

DRAG

Well, those two vehicle types (taildragger planes and speedboats) had nose-up at***udes, so there's a clue: designers of the cars we now call "swoopy" certainly borrowed something from that cl*** of vehicles, and designed it right into the body of the car:









American customizers, who first showed up before WW2 but really found their stride in the '40s, followed this lead by adding fender skirts and lowering the tails of their cars. The fact that it was generally easier and cheaper to lower the rear than the front surely helped this along. So, in the late '40s and early '50s, this sort of at***ude was the standard for the majority of Kustoms:







Currently, some historians of customizing ***ert that this is the only correct stance for a traditional custom, riding on skinny bias-ply whitewall tires. It's certainly true that this was a preferred fashion for that period and type of car, so this may be important if you're going for the Historically Correct Kustom Kar Prize, but it may not matter to everyone.

RAKE

Certain kinds of racing cars have benefited from running larger tires on the rear and smaller ones up front. Lakes racers commonly mounted tall rear wheels and tires to get a cheap gear ratio bump, and ran the smallest front tires to save weight (and, some thought, to reduce aerodynamic drag). Drag racers, who arrived a short time later, generally used big slicks on the rear for a better bite:





Even some GP and sports racing cars ran different sized tires front-to-rear, not that these had much direct influence on hot rodders:



And so, from around 1950 on, the fashion for street driven hot rods followed suit
-- bigs 'n littles. This has pretty much remained the same to this day, although the aspect ratio has varied; street rod guys have embraced wider tires front and rear, while traditionalists have stayed with the tall-and-skinny bias tires:







By the time I started driving in '56, the racer wannabe virus had spread to late model cars as well as legitimate hot rods, and this was not an uncommon stance around SoCal circa 1957:



It's interesting, as Ned Ludd has remarked, that the world's car manufacturers have now chosen this at***ude as the basic shape for a large proportion of modern designs. I could not have imagined 50 years ago that a production Cadillac or import would be offered with a big rake from the factory:





SLAM

Neither taildragging nor raked, the slammed car evolved in the late '50s, helped along by the citizens of Bellflower and the appearance of Larry Watson's work in the magazines. Hydraulics and airbags had not yet appeared, so this cl*** of car got by (carefully) with mechanical lowering and very little ground clearance:





Road racers have lowered their cars all around for decades, knowing that a lower CG helps with cornering and handling. But customs with this kind of stance have more in common with lowriders than they do with hot rods or road racers, since they are most at home doing "low and slow".

Bags, of course, make it possible to cruise at this height when profiling, and raised to a more practical ride height when actually going somewhere. But we're not gonna talk about that here.

G***ERS and other tall things

There was a period in the '60s when drag racers raised their cars up in pursuit of greater weight transfer to the rear wheels, with this sort of result:



I understand that this seemed like effective engineering at the time, but improved drag slicks have made this kind of stance irrelevant. I personally can't think of any cars that actually look better when raised to a tall stance, whether they are pretend g***ers, wheelers or donks, and since my mom told me if I couldn't say anything nice...

Let the opining begin!

 

What are we talking about? Is this thread for the people who dont know were the ride hight should be, or are you just stating facts?

 

Dude, did you read the thread or just look at the pictures?

 

I read it two times. I will do it once more

 

I wrote it to distinguish a**** the several kinds of modified ride height that hot rod & custom people do to their cars, and to invite discussion of those several styles. The older guys on this board already know pretty much everything I wrote; the younger guys may not.

In the last ten years I have built and driven one of each of the three styles I described. I think they can each look good on the right car, although I'm pretty much set on a low rake as the most comfortable look for me.

 

Good reading Tony and right on the money for So Cal I think I've
had several of each.

 

Yeah I understood your thread right off...I too like the low rake best..As a kid I use to cruise Van Nuys Blvd in a 63 Pontiac Grand Prix. Low to start with but I torched the front springs dropping the fron end to the bump pads. All my friends were getting busted for being too low, and me, I just drove right on by.

 

I miss the late '50s-'early '60s ... dozens of '50 Olds 88s, '49 Fords, & '54-'56 Mercs with 2 coils cut out of the front springs & 8.20s in the back.

 

Since I apparently have the floor to myself, I'll add an observation that surprised me a bit when I discovered it.

My shoebox runs the same size (215/75-15) tires all around, but I wanted it a little lower in the front. It has a Camaro clip stepped 4" where it joins the frame in front, and lowering springs and blocks in the back. The result was this:



I had never realized that the fender line of the shoebox tapers from front to rear, almost like an airplane fuselage. The result was that although there's 2" difference in ground clearance from back to front when measured at the rocker, the difference measured at the top of the fenders is less than an inch -- nearly level. Wasn't actually planned that way, but I was pleased with the way it turned out.

 

'50

Your car is absolutely stunning!

 

Yes! That's my '57 Olds in the original post: 2 coils cut in front, 800-14 and 900-14 tires.

 

I just looked at the pictures, there pretty.

Doc.

 

Great subject Tony.. and very informative.
The right ride hight can make or brake a car for sure.
There are plenty of samples that show great stance, and how people are goong to extremes to get just the perfect stance.
The wonderful thread on the recreation of the Junior Conway Shoebox is one that comes to mind. And people like Jeff Nepple who are spreading the word on getting the right stance for your Customs.
Its a right stance that can make a car look like going 100 mph standing still. Make it looks like an aggressive Hot Rod, or a robust lead heavy Custom Car.

And is it needed to discuss this some more like this with some great samples as Tony is showing....

Yes it sure is!!!!

As can be seen in the sample below. Forward rake with skirts just does not go together.

 

nice...I like this thread already. as for me, it depends on the car. I like 'em slammed for the most part, but I still love g***ers. too much rake kills it for me tho. slight rake will always look good.

 

Thanks for the comments, Rik, and thanks for the many photos I've borrowed from your archive. I've been remiss in giving photo credits to everyone, and I apologize. Hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes.

 

Looking at lots of pics, reading all the great Don Montgomery books etc. about the hot rods pre- and immidiately postwar, level stance was very common on hot rods.

Vic's wonderful '32


A year or a few after the more dropped front was the way to go. Doane Spencers great car again.


Early kustoms typical speedboat rake. Andril/Zaros '40 Mercs.


The cl***ic Milner coupe.



And the list can go on and on...
For me, the stance is very important for a car, no matter the style. Wrong stance for the style, breaks it.

 

ricster and 50 are spot on.. its ALL about the stance...

 

Great thread Tony. Thanks. Your memories, and opinions regarding "stance" are absolutely identical to mine...kinda scary. Curious to see where this goes with the "....but I saw this photo in an old magazine, here's proof..." crowd.

 

Great thread Tony--gotta love a raked '40.

 

Stance may have also been determined by the availability of manufactured dropped axles. Most pre and post war lakes cars had a fairly level rake determined by available tire sizes, however by the end of the forties dropped tube axles were becoming available over the counter and cars started to get lower. Custom trends moved quickly in hindsight, too. There was only a period of 5 years between the Hirohata Mercury and Watson's G****vine yet the two displayed totally different stances. By the early sixties custom cars were getting closer and closer to the ground. Hot rods and customs were evolving rapidly if you look at the actual time frame involved.

 

I guess it's all down to opinion really,but here's mine, for what it's worth. Maybe it's my natural British reserve, but I don't like extremes of anything. As my interest lies with the late 50s and early 60s Kustom, I like sensibly lowered cars and trucks with a very, very slight rake, just adds that little bit of aggression that says "yeah, I may look pretty, but I can also give you a run for your money too!" But one thing I have noticed recently on here, is what I consider to be an unhealthy obsession with putting everything "in da weeds". I just don't understand why on earth anyone would want a car to set so low that it looks like it has broken suspension. To me, this low rider thing should be kept for late 60s early 70s land yachts. I just don't think it works on earlier material than that. The G***er thing I understand on track cars but is not a look I like for the Street. I guess to me the most important thing is that the wheels should fill the wheel wells nicely. But please remember this is coming from a guy that never "gets it" until what ever "it"is no longer "it." Does that make any sense, or is it just the ramblings of a feeble mind?
Paul

 

I can't read but the pix are killer.
MY $.02 ....I LIKE STANCE.

 

Yeah,but there's a big difference between a car's "stance" and "posing" a car at a show. I would think the stance would be when it's on the road,''driving height". Lots of guys "lay frame" or slam their cars when they park at a show,or dump the *** or tail,but that's NOT how they look when driving. I don't care for the "posed" look when a car is parked.
I like a rake,on a Hotrod...
Slammed look(low-n-level) for a '60 style Cruiser...
Tail-dragger look for a Custom...

 

Hey,

The term "stance'' isn't one I recall when talkin automobiles until of late. It's more of a term I'd expect to hear when judging livestock, probably the work of some ''metro'' automotive journalist who also penned words like "makeover'' & "freshen up "! I really wish that someone would drag these terms back over to the '' Martha Stupid '' site and leave them there to rot.

'bout thirty plus years ago when the US ''guvment'' got into the automotive design business with required fuel economy standards, designers were tasked with comming up with designs unlike never before. The engineers told the design department produce designs that create less wind resistance and thus drag. Lighter curb weight per vehicle plus shapes that produce less wind resistance (drag) = better fuel mileage.
They found that if they dropped the nose of a vehicle (rake) just like racecar designs had done for years, less up lift was created under the vehicle and better aerodynamics resulted. Better "aero" designs lead to better fuel economy. We went from the "aero'' era of design to the ''pissed off origami'' look as seen on so many asian vehicles & new Caddys. The ''pissed off origami '' look kinda has some "Razor edge'' vibe, as taken from English coachbuilt designs from the thirties to me, but all these late designs depend on rake, & slam or more correctly lower center of gravity (CG) to work.
The "drag'' or g***er look sounds cool in theory, but if you have ever driven one on the street or strip, ya know they are much like a menopausal woman, ya never know what direction they're headed.
I don't get the ''slam'' thing, and probably never will, a vehicle sitting on its' rockers looks ''wounded'' and in need of help, not kool! I never saw ''Hydros" on a street vehicle prior to 1970 & never bags on a real kustom, not a traditional one.

" Life ain't no Disney movie "

 

I like a slight rake or a level stance with moderate lowering.

What I hate - really HATE - is bagged cars that just bellyflop on the ground like a fat guy who can't get off the couch. Looks totally unnatural to me.

 

Ditto. By the way, congrats on the feature in "Cl***ic Trucks" magazine. The Kart is one of my favorites.

 

Bad Bob took the words right out of my mouth. All the posers at car shows with their bagged units are just that posers. When they drive them they look really funny. My roadster is low, really low, and it rides nice. It has a great "Stance" I put a lot of work into making it that low and to be able to function at that height. It is not a poser.

 

This reminds me of Milner telling Holstein.... "Oh no sir, no sir, its 12 1/2 inches regulation size...now its been checked several times, you can check it if you like sir"

cl***ic..

 

You, sir, are far too kind.
Paul

 

Is "level" considered a STANCE???