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

Whaaat? Are you guys saying that you don't like this?



I saw Terry Cook's S****E at a car show, raised on its bags and driving along. Although I really like that car, it looked like one of the hippopotamus ballerinas in Fantasia, driving along with its dress pulled up.

 

I'm sure you guys remember the black and gold flake flamed Merc,with the bottom 4" removed,so it could lay on the ground with the front bumper on the ground too. Looked stupid when the guy was driving it,about 8" off the ground!!! I remember the thread when guys kept photoshopping it,LOWER AND LOWER! haha!

 

This is a very interesting thread. I know it's been said but I agree it's very important that the stance of the car means at***ude and style that you're doing for. A kustomized 59 Chevy on a rake says something slightly more racy than if it were to just be slammed all the way around. I love seeing late great chevys lowered all the way around on the slightest rake for instance. The long sleek lines really show and so much attention to proportion makes these cars so beautiful. Awesome thread!

Maybe it's just me, but I think the most desired effect is when a kustom is on a gentle rake in which the front of the lakers just barely s****e the ground. Such a cool effect.

 

Is this a trick question? Because that looks a little like a European head light treatment to me. Maybe if it were a measly 3 inches off the asphalt, enough to cast a little shadow I could dig it. But I have to be honest, and bear in mind I'm just an Englishman who knows nothing compared to most of you guys, that car looks like a very, very cool cartoon. If it were to turn up in an episode of a 50s cartoon or comic book I would love it, but there's just something about it that looks like it wouldn't work in the real world.
I've just spent 15 minutes carefully phrasing my answer, (because I can't shake the feeling that I'm missing out on a joke here) but I guess the bottom line is no, I don't like it. If I just made an *** out of myself, please excuse me but I'm still learning
Paul

 

Stance is a BIG part of the over all look... I usually mock up what I'm doing first, then spend a couple of weeks looking and playing till I get the look that suits me.... Then proceed from there.... I don't think one "look" or another is better...its what fits the time line and car your building..


Rocky

 

Very *****in' thread. With regards to the slightly more popular f100s that I have been fanatical about lately, prefer low with a slight rake, but hammered
also looks cool and now am seriously considering a low key g***er!! ? Stance and wheels mean everything and as stated by many, we all have different and often odd tastes. I'm right in pile somewhere. Thanks again for the thread.

 

The body style of this ride says LOW.

 

That 61 is sharp.

 

I dig the black Merc that 50Fraud posted. The '61 is cool too, with the expection of the o-ring tires on the rear.

 

Tony-- No I don't like it

 

To me, this looks like a cartoon/joke car, or an exaggerated scultpure. Almost like the "fat cars," but with a different direction.

 

Sorry if my attempt at humor wasn't clear: I think the proportions of that Merc, including its stance, are ridiculous. It's a caricature of a lowered car, obviously undriveable in the frame-laid position. I don't know what it looks like when it's raised to a driveable height, but I imagine it would look like S****e did -- awkward.

 

O-RING TIRE...Thats a perfect phrase...I've never liked em...Along with 22" wheels makes a ride look like a Wells Fargo Stage Coach

 

Haven't been able to buy into any car that has a bigger side wall at the front tire and smaller at the back. Goes for width of tire to rim overhang too.
But again, just an opinon. You like what you like.

 

When most guys read "Poser",they think of a faker or someone pretending to be something they aren't. When I mentioned that I don't care for cars that looked "Posed",I mean that it looks one way when it's parked and another way when it's driving.

 

The Noble Merc is exactly what I meant by a "Posed" car when it's parked. I actually like that car,except for the headlights(but that's another debate).

 

My opinion is the Merc would look better with the front off the ground with a slite rake towards the front Think it would give it a long sleeker look.

 

I agree with you on this statement 100%. The rear tires should always be as big or preferably bigger than the fronts, both in height and width.

 

Has anybody suggested otherwise? I can't recall ever seeing a rod or custom with bigger tires visible on the front, except FWD drag racers.

 

No. Just commenting on this 61 Chevy. Although the rear tires are wider than the fronts, from the side, the front tires have a taller sidewall than the rears do. Reminds me back in the seventies when people would run 70 series tires on the front with 60 series on the rear. Had the same look from the side that the front tires were bigger than the rear. Not a good look. That's all.

 

Ah. I missed your point. I agree, the rear sidewalls should be at least as tall as the front -- but I don't care for rubber bands at either end.

 

Hey 50 fraud, I'm glad you chose ****s 40 coupe on your raked category, there couldn't be a better example!!

 

Least, we forget the daigo

 

I absolutely agree. One of the two nicest '40s I've ever seen.

 

I agree that the wheel/tyre combo on that '61 doesn't work. It looks like the aim was to have the same sidewall height front and rear. I've seen that before, and to my eyes it fails because the front sidewall represents a bigger proportion of the whole of the wheel/tyre ***embly than at the rear. Therefore the front sidewall looks too tall and the rear looks too flat.

There are two ways to go here, as far as I can see. Either the rim diameter is the same all round, and you let the difference in sidewall give expression to the different jobs the front and rear tyres are doing; or the ratio of rim diameter to overall tyre height is the same all round, so the front is a sort of scale model of the rear. The latter is more of a high-tech look and my preference is definitely for the former.

Generally, tyre height, tyre width, and rake all have to hang together. One formula that works in a wide variety of situations (even for a kustom on a level stance) though it's by no means a hard-and-fast rule is,
a) keep the height the tyres rise above the car's floor roughly the same all round,
b) keep the proportion of tyre height to width roughly the same all round, and
c) try to get the bottom of the front rim as close as possible to the (projected) line of the bottom of the sill, running board, or frame.

The implication of a) is that the rake is determined by the difference in tyre heights. The implication of b) is that, if you use the same rim diameter all round, the rear tyres will have a taller aspect ratio than the front.

My avatar is an illustration of how that isn't a hard-and-fast rule. The pre-war trials special "hunker" represents a completely different approach, which has more in common with traditional custom-bike practice. There the tyre heights and aspect ratios are the same all round and rim diameters and tyre widths vary within that envelope.

 

Ned, I _think_ I agree with your rules, but I'm not sure I understand them fully.
How does the Lanz Bulldog fit into your scheme?

 

Pick your poison.

 

Fork lift tires look stupid on a street car IMHO.

I'm betting there is an age factor involved in the different opinions expressed here. The Mercury looks like it was dropped from a 1000 feet with the tires folded up into the wheel well. The young guys love it the old farts (guilty) think it looks stupid. Different strokes. I'll keep spreading the gospel that I was taught in the 60s. I'm too old to change now.

 

I agree!
This car is a Low Rider. It needs Cragar Wheels & Higher Profile Tires. The rest of the car is COOL