Are looks important ?

SinisterCustom · Dec 1, 2012

Cirque du Soliel

VoodooTwin · Dec 1, 2012

31Vicky with a hemi said: ↑

I thought we were talking about stuff with holes vs stuff without holes and how those holes do or don't make it stronger.

Here's the sticky part though, do you want to include or exclude the " pound for pound" factor for strength ?
Click to expand...

Yup. As it pertains to building hotrods, as in brackets and stuff, I maintain that simply drilling holes into these components does not make them stronger. That's the post that I was reacting to. It didn't mention dimples or other reinforcements. Holes certainly make parts lighter and more appealing to most (myself included) and if done correctly, without weakening the component. But if you want to add dimples or gussets to reinforce those holes, that's a different animal and I agree it makes the component stronger.

31Vicky with a hemi · Dec 1, 2012

OK, so if plain holes can be added without any weakening, and those holes certainly do lighten the component by some measurable amount, then its fair to say that pound for pound a part with holes is stronger; pound for pound being the key .

So the function is to have an equally strong but lighter part ( pound for pound stronger) - the form is some pretty damn cool looking parts.

VoodooTwin · Dec 1, 2012

31Vicky with a hemi said: ↑

OK, so if plain holes can be added without any weakening, and those holes certainly do lighten the component by some measurable amount, then its fair to say that pound for pound a part with holes is stronger; pound for pound being the key .

So the function is to have an equally strong but lighter part ( pound for pound stronger) - the form is some pretty damn cool looking parts.
Click to expand...

Yes, in that respect, I agree.

lakeroadster · Dec 1, 2012

31Vicky with a hemi said: ↑

OK, so if plain holes can be added without any weakening, and those holes certainly do lighten the component by some measurable amount, then its fair to say that pound for pound a part with holes is stronger; pound for pound being the key .

So the function is to have an equally strong but lighter part ( pound for pound stronger) - the form is some pretty damn cool looking parts.
Click to expand...

No, absolutely not. Holes do in fact weaken the part. But if the part is not stressed significantly the holes won't be an issue.

That's the bottom line.

Ned Ludd · Dec 2, 2012

Zerk said: ↑

I've enjoyed all the posts on this thread, but this one especially stirred my curiosity. Where do the cars of Voison fit in the form vs. function question? They don't seem to be meant to have an "accessible" beauty, but they have something that quite admirably passes for beauty. Or a grace born of function that acts as a synthesis of beauty.
Click to expand...

Might it be that the appeal of Voisin's designs stems largely from the practicalities he had to face at the time? that they might have been atrocious if they had been capable of reflecting their underlying vision truly?

Apparently Gabriel Voisin and le Corbusier were friends, and even contributed design details to one another's work. Le Corbusier named his scheme to replace huge parts of Paris with ranks of dystopian tower blocks the "Plan Voisin". It is extremely fortunate that this never came to pass (Haussmann had done enough damage already ...)

But form and function? Voisin certainly favoured an early-Corbusian minimalist aesthetic within the constraints available to a small-scale manufacturer like Avions Voisin. It is these constraints that I should argue kept Voisin cars real, tied to actual function rather than "functionality" as an abstract ideal. The fender struts from the top of the radiator, the running-board storage lockers; all sensible stuff. One wonders at the "Cocotte", though: constructed decoration? Or frank ornament within the palette of techniques employed in the rest of the car?

Certainly Voisin was no Henry Ford. He did not have the economic reach for Fordism/Taylorism, and this redeems him: for unlike the American farm boy Voisin was an intellectual visionary, and thus might have been a monster, a thing of horror rather than a colourful eccentric for whom allowances are made, if he had had the power.

That said, it is a pity there was not the scope to express le Corbusier's more playful later manner, the "brutalism" of Ronchamp or the Unité d'Habitation roofscape, in automotive form.

I suspect I'd still prefer a car designed in collaboration with Antoni Gaudí, though

Ned Ludd · Dec 2, 2012

lakeroadster said: ↑

No, absolutely not. Holes do in fact weaken the part. But if the part is not stressed significantly the holes won't be an issue.

That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Or the part of the part, i.e. along the neutral axis of a beam, which is the part doing the least work. One needs to retain enough material to keep the web from being too slender, to ensure that the web doesn't wrinkle up and allow the compression component to push into the tensile component and thus destroy the effective beam depth. But a web that isn't too slender in cross-section will likely have surplus material in side elevation, which can be lopped out in holes.

Note that this only works in beams, i.e. members subject to bending. Drilling holes in pure tensile or compression members just eats into one's reserve of cross-sectional area or rigidity, respectively.

Hitchhiker · Dec 2, 2012

I think you are misinterpreting the saying.

First IMO the phrase "form follows function" should always be followed up by "ornament is crime"

To me the principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose.

Or in other words "Purpose and function dictate the form." "adding extra anything ruins it."

Moonequipt13 · Dec 2, 2012

fish3495 said: ↑

Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya

31Vicky with a hemi said: ↑

OK, so if plain holes can be added without any weakening, and those holes certainly do lighten the component by some measurable amount, then its fair to say that pound for pound a part with holes is stronger; pound for pound being the key .

So the function is to have an equally strong but lighter part ( pound for pound stronger) - the form is some pretty damn cool looking parts.
Click to expand...

Anything that uses tubing is a good example of this, can you imagine what a roll bar would weigh if it were constructed with solid rod instead of tubing?

Edsel58a · Dec 2, 2012

Looks are not as important as function. As long as you enjoy the ride.

Ned Ludd · Dec 2, 2012

Hitchhiker said: ↑

I think you are misinterpreting the saying.

First IMO the phrase "form follows function" should always be followed up by "ornament is crime"

To me the principle is that the shape of a building or object should be primarily based upon its intended function or purpose.

Or in other words "Purpose and function dictate the form." "adding extra anything ruins it."
Click to expand...

An example of the theoretical can of worms I mentioned before: what if a thing's function or purpose is ornamental? A painting, for instance: Picasso at his most cubist has all of that "functional" feel but the entire work has no function or purpose except a visual one.

Is the work justified? Is it justified to hang Guernica in the Louvre? in the Guggenheim on 5th Avenue? on the wall of the foyer of Lever Brothers? Or is the wall better off unadorned? Is it justified to reduce Three Musicians to an enamel cameo and mount it on a valve cover? on a radiator shell? on the horn button of a steering wheel?

All of a sudden the waters are murkier than you thought.

Short answer ^^^ what Edsel58a said ^^^

aaggie · Dec 2, 2012

I spent the best part of three days making a bracket to mount the electric fuel pump on my '40 Chevy. It sits under the car between the frame and tank and will probably never be seen by anyone but me. It is TIG welded and designed to protect the pump while having access to get to the line clamps and electrical connections for serviceing. It is epoxy primed and painted to match the car.

Maybe overkill or just a rainy day with an excuse to just work in the shop, I don't remember.

falcongeorge · Dec 3, 2012

themoose said: ↑

I guess any component that is totally functional and fills a specific need with no frills could be considered as "Pretty" if only for its simplicity of design .
Click to expand...

You got it.

BIG-JIM · Dec 3, 2012

Don's Hot Rods said: ↑

Depends on how good she can cook.

Don
Click to expand...

I don't care who you are...That's some funny shit right there!

ratamahata · Dec 3, 2012

I think it has to be a balance, and do not forget the economic factor, I think Henry Ford has been very successful with both the model T (put America on wheels) and With The first affordable V8 in the history. That's design

S_Mazza · Dec 3, 2012

Ned Ludd said: ↑

Might it be that the appeal of Voisin's designs stems largely from the practicalities he had to face at the time? that they might have been atrocious if they had been capable of reflecting their underlying vision truly?

Apparently Gabriel Voisin and le Corbusier were friends, and even contributed design details to one another's work. Le Corbusier named his scheme to replace huge parts of Paris with ranks of dystopian tower blocks the "Plan Voisin". It is extremely fortunate that this never came to pass (Haussmann had done enough damage already ...)
Click to expand...

That's the equivalent of when your wife looks over your shoulder and (completely innocently) says, "Yech. Why does it look like that?" At first, you get mad, then you realize she's probably right, and you go back to the drawing board.

Ned Ludd said: ↑

An example of the theoretical can of worms I mentioned before: what if a thing's function or purpose is ornamental? A painting, for instance: Picasso at his most cubist has all of that "functional" feel but the entire work has no function or purpose except a visual one.

Is the work justified? Is it justified to hang Guernica in the Louvre? in the Guggenheim on 5th Avenue? on the wall of the foyer of Lever Brothers? Or is the wall better off unadorned? Is it justified to reduce Three Musicians to an enamel cameo and mount it on a valve cover? on a radiator shell? on the horn button of a steering wheel?
Click to expand...

Good questions. You have probably heard the saying, "Leisure is the basis of culture," part of a philosophical discussion by Josef Pieper. (http://angeluspress.org/Leisure-The-Basis-of-Culture)

To me, that refers to the point in your life when you sell most of your cars and half your tools and spend most of your time making ends meet. Then your kids move out, the wife's Accord doesn't need brakes for a change, and you suddenly realize you have free time again. That's when you decide to build something just because you like it.

ratamahata said: ↑

I think it has to be a balance, and do not forget the economic factor, I think Henry Ford has been very successful with both the model T (put America on wheels) and With The first affordable V8 in the history. That's design
Click to expand...

Good point! Do we really need pristine chrome? No, but we like it! Still, I would rather have a running car with nasty chrome than a pretty one stuck in the garage because I spent all my money on trim work instead of an engine overhaul. Now when the money frees up and cost is no object ... then we start to see some neat stuff! (Or that's when the "gold-chainers" come out, depending on your point of view. )

themoose · Dec 4, 2012

After reading the posts on this thread it became apparent to me how intertwined the rolls of form and function really are. Not only are they reliant on each other but in some cases the function of a component actually changes due to the evolution of its form. Take for instance a radiator cap. In its earliest incarnations its sole purpose or function was to allow access to the coolant in the radiator with a very simple form. As time passed it took on an additional purpose of also offering a place to display the cars logo or mascot with its form becoming much more ornate and finally it evolved to the point where its only function was to offer a point of distinction that represented a particular brand of car. In cases like these does form follow function or is the opposite true?

Az scooter · Dec 4, 2012

In the Form follows function debate, take the old school Hot Rod's that had "Mag Wheels" Remember those? They started using them because they were lighter, which meant better acceleration and braking. In very short order, it became cool to have them on any clap trap beater that was rolling down the street.
Now it has gone to a completely new level, and the wheels are an important part of the design process, whether it be steelies, or custom wheels. I would be willing to bet that many of the people on this forum have non stock wheels on at least one of the vehicles that they own.

falcongeorge · Dec 6, 2012

lakeroadster said: ↑

What? Let me say that is total B.S. The holes definately do not make it "stronger". If that were true every bridge you ever saw that was made from i-beams would have holes cut into it.

The facts are, based on the actual loading of a given i-beam, the web doesn't neccesarily have to be continuous. That's why cutting holes in the web can be a good way of removing weight without a significant reduction in strength.

The one thing we can agree on however is a drilled I-Beam looks awesome.
Click to expand...

I dont mean to keep picking on you, but a piece of flat stock with flanged or "belled" holes will have more torsional rigidity than a piece of flat stock with no holes.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093371_1993093371.pdf

falcongeorge · Dec 6, 2012

Rickybop said: ↑

Incorrect. "Form follows function" does not mean that function is the exclusive consideration. It means that function is the first consideration...then form follows. The limitations of the form are dictated by the function aspect.
Click to expand...

I have always interpreted it to mean that if you make a piece as functional as possible in the purest sense of the word, as strong as it NEEDS to be, as light as it CAN be, and as simple as possible, then by its nature, it WILL be beautiful. In other words, mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity. A Miller is beautiful as a CONSEQUENCE of its purity of design, and any gingerbread, crap or ornamentation would detract from that beauty.

31Vicky with a hemi · Dec 6, 2012

mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity.

Damn I wish I would have said that !

31Vicky with a hemi · Dec 6, 2012

mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity.

Damn I wish I would have said that !

31Vicky with a hemi · Dec 6, 2012

mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity.

Damn I wish I would have said that !

divco13 · Dec 6, 2012

Depends wither, I am wearing my Rolex or not.

.

Zerk · Dec 6, 2012

falcongeorge said: ↑

I have always interpreted it to mean that if you make a piece as functional as possible in the purest sense of the word, as strong as it NEEDS to be, as light as it CAN be, and as simple as possible, then by its nature, it WILL be beautiful. In other words, mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity. A Miller is beautiful as a CONSEQUENCE of its purity of design, and any gingerbread, crap or ornamentation would detract from that beauty.
Click to expand...

This is a great summing-up. It reminds me of the Robert Heinlein quote about organizations:

"...Wyoh looked baffled. "What do you mean by 'correct organization'?"
"Functional organization. How does one design an electric motor? Would you attach a bathtub to it, simply because one was available? Would a bouquet of flowers help? A heap of rocks? No, you would use just those elements necessary to its purpose and make it no larger than needed--and you would incorporate safety factors. Function controls design..."

I'm still finding my way on this particular subject. Objectively, some solutions work better than others, others look better. They aren't always the same, so there's room for variance until you reach the "perfect" level

S_Mazza · Dec 8, 2012

falcongeorge said: ↑

I dont mean to keep picking on you, but a piece of flat stock with flanged or "belled" holes will have more torsional rigidity than a piece of flat stock with no holes.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930093371_1993093371.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not because of the holes, it's because of the bells. You changed the shape of the part.

Kripfink · Dec 8, 2012

Of course looks are important, otherwise we might just as well all drive a prius!
Paul

Jimbo17 · Dec 8, 2012

The question are looks important?

Someday do you someone to purchase whatever it is you have?

Everything you do can either add value or deduct value of any object.

Jimbo

117harv · Dec 8, 2012

I agree with much of what has been posted, but for myself and many others i'm sure the final shape/look/design is closely related to the tools at hand.

When I design brackets, braces, mech. linkages etc. I decide how much $$ and or time I can throw at it/them and is it a focal point that helps to enhance the overall look. I try and give it the most eye pleasing design that fits within the area that the piece or pieces will be used, weight and strength are added in to the design too of course.

Are looks important....most definently!

Zapato · Jan 4, 2013

31Vicky with a hemi said: ↑

mechanical beauty is a natural consequence of functional purity.

Click to expand...

looking at any warbird confirms that statement.

Log in or Sign up

Are looks important ?

SinisterCustom
Member

from METHaway, WA

VoodooTwin
Member

from Noo Yawk

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

VoodooTwin
Member

from Noo Yawk

lakeroadster
Member

from *

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

Hitchhiker
Member

from Edison, Washington

Period-correct Hot Rods of the 30's & 40's

Northwest HAMBers

Moonequipt13
Member

from Edmonds, WA

Edsel58a
Member

from Medina County Ohio

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

aaggie
Member

from Porter, Texas

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

BIG-JIM
Member

from CT

ratamahata
Member

from Argentina

Los Coches Suaves - Solo Los Que Hablan El Espanol

Argentina rodders

S_Mazza
Member

from Pennsylvania

themoose
Member

from Connecticut

Connecticut HAMB'ers

HAMB Old Farts' Club

Termites and Bowties

Primeval Chevy Disciples

Az scooter
Member

from Arizona

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

divco13
Member

from New Smyrna Beach Florida

Divco Milk Truck

Zerk
Member

from L.B.N.J.U.S.A.

S_Mazza
Member

from Pennsylvania

Kripfink
Member Emeritus

from Finksville,England

Jimbo17
Member

from West Coast of Florida

117harv
Member

from Medford Oregon

Zapato
Member Emeritus

from Brush Prairie,Wa

1952-59 Ford Social Group

Share This Page

Archive

Atomic Industry

Support

Subscribe

Log in or Sign up

Are looks important ?

SinisterCustom Member from METHaway, WA

VoodooTwin Member from Noo Yawk

31Vicky with a hemi Member from cleveland ohio

VoodooTwin Member from Noo Yawk

lakeroadster Member from *

Ned Ludd Member from Cape Town, South Africa

Ned Ludd Member from Cape Town, South Africa

Hitchhiker Member from Edison, Washington Period-correct Hot Rods of the 30's & 40's Northwest HAMBers

Moonequipt13 Member from Edmonds, WA

Edsel58a Member from Medina County Ohio

Ned Ludd Member from Cape Town, South Africa

aaggie Member from Porter, Texas

falcongeorge Member from BC

BIG-JIM Member from CT

ratamahata Member from Argentina Los Coches Suaves - Solo Los Que Hablan El Espanol Argentina rodders

S_Mazza Member from Pennsylvania

themoose Member from Connecticut Connecticut HAMB'ers HAMB Old Farts' Club Termites and Bowties Primeval Chevy Disciples

Az scooter Member from Arizona

falcongeorge Member from BC

falcongeorge Member from BC

31Vicky with a hemi Member from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi Member from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi Member from cleveland ohio

divco13 Member from New Smyrna Beach Florida Divco Milk Truck

Zerk Member from L.B.N.J.U.S.A.

S_Mazza Member from Pennsylvania

Kripfink Member Emeritus from Finksville,England

Jimbo17 Member from West Coast of Florida

117harv Member from Medford Oregon

Zapato Member Emeritus from Brush Prairie,Wa 1952-59 Ford Social Group

Share This Page

Useful Searches

Archive

Atomic Industry

Support

Subscribe

SinisterCustom
Member

from METHaway, WA

VoodooTwin
Member

from Noo Yawk

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

VoodooTwin
Member

from Noo Yawk

lakeroadster
Member

from *

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

Hitchhiker
Member

from Edison, Washington

Period-correct Hot Rods of the 30's & 40's

Northwest HAMBers

Moonequipt13
Member

from Edmonds, WA

Edsel58a
Member

from Medina County Ohio

Ned Ludd
Member

from Cape Town, South Africa

aaggie
Member

from Porter, Texas

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

BIG-JIM
Member

from CT

ratamahata
Member

from Argentina

Los Coches Suaves - Solo Los Que Hablan El Espanol

Argentina rodders

S_Mazza
Member

from Pennsylvania

themoose
Member

from Connecticut

Connecticut HAMB'ers

HAMB Old Farts' Club

Termites and Bowties

Primeval Chevy Disciples

Az scooter
Member

from Arizona

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

falcongeorge
Member

from BC

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

31Vicky with a hemi
Member

from cleveland ohio

divco13
Member

from New Smyrna Beach Florida

Divco Milk Truck

Zerk
Member

from L.B.N.J.U.S.A.

S_Mazza
Member

from Pennsylvania

Kripfink
Member Emeritus

from Finksville,England

Jimbo17
Member

from West Coast of Florida

117harv
Member

from Medford Oregon

Zapato
Member Emeritus

from Brush Prairie,Wa

1952-59 Ford Social Group