Rectangles? Wrecked Angles? Open yer EYES, people!!

It seems that an important, yet often overlooked aspect of building hot rods is to take into consideration how the various angles and shapes all work (or DON'T work!) together to create the whole 'picture'. As over-used as the phrase "mock up" has become (thanks largely in part to hot rod and chopper based TV shows), it is still an important step in the building process. It allows the builder (and/or customer, etc) to see how things are coming together, and visualize just what the completed car, part or sub-***embly will look like when finished. It's a good time to make corrections, alterations or minor tweaks to get it "just right".

While certainly not the FIRST person in automotive history to mock up a car and establish lines with tape and a trained eye, Lil John ****era is the first builder I personally recall doing this in a couple of old articles relating to the build-up of his 32 hi-boy coupe and later, the fabled Stroh's Modified. Those "in progress" pics of the cars showing tape running the same angles that the hood would come to lay later showed the world how taking a few minutes to stop and LOOK while building could have a dramatic effect on the finished product by insuring that everything flowed together and that the whole car would demonstrate smooth, fluid lines and perfect proportions.

From some of what I see being built today, by both amatuer and professional rodders, and from some of the knee-jerk verbal reactions some clowns throw out at things...I often wonder if anyone ever stops to really LOOK at what they're doing? I mean, planning your ride out in your head is cool, and if you're lucky enough to have the artistic talent to transfer that mental image to either paper or scale model form, then you've got a valuable designing 'tool' to help you before the first tool touches steel...but that still doesn't mean that some minor (and major?!) changes won't be needed as work progresses.

Some things that I often look at when scoping out a car at a show, cruise or in a magazine feature are the ways that various shapes come into play to make (or break!) the total package. Now, you can spout off geometric theories and stuff all day long...but much of this comes down to subjectivity and individual taste, so it's impossible to declare something as "right" or "wrong" in any universal context...only what may be "right" or "wrong" in YOUR eyes.

Take rectangles, for example. In the 70s and even into the very early 80s, some rodders were taking cues from early pioneers of the rod and custom movement, and tried incorporating late model headlight treatments of the day into their contemporary creations. In that time period, many new cars featured rectangular headlights, and some innovative rodders tried them out on cars that they were building at the time. This was hardly new territory, as legendary builders from the 50s and 60s had incorporated quad lights and factory bezels into famous (and infamous!) rods and customs of that particular time period...and today you see "Porsche style" headlight treatments being applied to modern, contemporary rods. This isn't always a GOOD thing, I agree...but it isn't automatically "wrong", either!
Take Lil John's 32 hi-boy coupe. One of the things that really stood out on that car and made it look cool to my young eye at the time were the rectangular headlamps. I've heard people bad-mouth that idea as it applied to that particular car and others of the day, but I think they worked quite well with the overall 'feel' that ****era had going there. I still think that car would look "Right On" today if it rolled up looking exactly the way that it did way back then. Good lines and shapes are timeless in my book!

Deuces are unique, as I see them, in that they (along with 30-31 Model A Fords to some extent) fill a gap between the slightly more flowing 28-29 A-bones and 27 T roadsters, and the swoopy 33-34 Fords. The 32 has some subtle and some not-so-subtle rectangular features to it naturally, and I kinda thought that the headlights looked good on that car and a few other ground-breaking 32s back when. I have to wonder if them what criticize the look are really LOOKING at the car, or just spittin' out a knee-jerk reaction centered around the notion that "They had round lights in 32 and in the 50s & 60s, Man!"??? I think much of it has to do with a conditioned rejection of all things 70s rather than any true lack of love for the shape in the minds of many, but that would just be one man's opinion!

Another instance involving rectangles would be small block Chevy valve covers. I can't believe how many rodders miss THIS one! I guess it follows the same type of "automatic thinking" rather than opening one's peepers to LOOK at something that invokes such disdain for rectangular headlights...But many seem to ignore the fact that in some applications, those blocky sbc covers just kinda wreck the whole flow of things! The 33-34 Fords that I love so much really come to mind here! Seeing a small block Chevy in one of them always looked a little "off" to me, although some cars pull it off okay. I personally like the way that small block Fords look, and their valve cover shape just seems to fit the lines of a 33-34 much better in my opinion. (So long as you find or build a sbf cover that doesn't incorporate that hideous "***** dimple" that you see on so many 5.0 Mustangs and even, sadly, street rods running these engines! You know...that central upper bolt area!).

Again, this is just something that I think jumps out clear as a bell if you stop to LOOK at things, rather than just comparing what you "see" before you to the accepted standard without really letting your EYES take in the story.

Now, I'm as guilty as anyone of letting form follow function...just putting a car togehter so that it runs and drives reliably instead of sweating the details that can make or break the car's "look". Part of that stems from the fact that most every "hot rod" or other project vehicle I've built has had to serve as a daily driver first and foremost, so often times there just wasn't time or money available to build a stellar looking car. Another thing is that developing an 'eye' for this stuff takes time and practice. It doesn't come as naturally to some as it does to others...but the beauty of it is that it doesn't cost a dime to work on it and practice developing your eye! You can do it every time you gaze at a car! Try it sometime...really LOOK at a car and see what strikes you as "right" or "wrong"...and see what works in YOUR eye...rather than just quickly looking to see if said car follows the accepted 'norm' or not!

Visionaries like ****era, Brizio, Lobeck and others have a natural talent for this stuff, but the rest of us can work towards getting to their level by just taking the time to use our eyes (instead of our minds full of 'rules' and stereotypes) to see what we're doing, and what others have done. There's a lot to be learned and discovered if you just LOOK now and then. You'll notice good stuff and bad stuff...but it's what's good or bad relative to YOUR tastes that really matters!

This is but one important lesson to be learned from the work of the true leaders in the field, and it's a very basic first step, I think! So...whether you're working up an idea for your next project, or halfway through your current one...make it a point to LOOK at what you're doing often! Rectangles aren't always a bad thing, but wrecked angles can ruin an otherwise great car! Think about it...but don't don't let your brain out-think what your eyeballs tell ya!
Anyone got soem better pictures of this old 32??? I think it's a case of a car that was just done RIGHT...rectangular lights and all!!

 

Actions speak louder than words. I can talk (or type) all day, but until I put a wrench to a bolt it's all just babble.

 

I agree...

I was really disappointed to see pics of that car "Freshened up".

But they look like they are 2CV 6 lights to me, and if they are, it wouldn't be too hard to find a set...

 

This may sound smart A although it is not intended.

Is this simply an argument for pro-square headlights?

 

Although i agree with your evaluation of an artistic view on our projects. My eye says the rectangular headlights just doesnt fit the form on that 32. Good article Hack!

 

That's gonna leave a mark.

I could throw something out like but square lights just aren't trad, but I recall seeing a show car or two in the '60s with square lights. Those cars for the most part were all show and no go.

The truth is that I just don't like square lights, and I for one have had plenty of time to think about it.

Don't miss understand what I'm saying here, I've seen more than one car with square lights that looked alright, usually they seemed to squarish cars to start with, like say an olds or a buick. But I've also seen quite a few cars that didn't need them at all; an AD truck comes to mind or mayhaps a '55 Chebby.

Now here is a simple truth that should probably be thrown into the conversation not to be abrazive mind you, and this shouldn't be confused with the truth, its just a truth. I think that any builder will agree with me on this one also, form should always follow function.

Function doesn't need to be utilitarion at all. With a little thought and effort anything can be made pretty. Some of us don't see the need but that doesn't change the fact that a functional piece of machinery can be made to flow.

On the other hand to add something to a product just for the sake of adding it is just gingerbread. Perhaps artistic but gingerbread non the less.

Anyway carry on.

 

I'm not trying to answer for Fathack, but I took it to mean;

1) Think about your overall design , before and during construction.
2) Don't just mentaly visualize it, take the time to mock up your ideas.
3) Don't make decisions based on habit or tradition alone. (like square headlights)
4) Think about all the elements of your hot rod, and how they they look in relation to the rest of the car, not just by themselves (he uses the example of valve covers)
5) Formulas and rules of thumb are nice, just don't get locked in.

 

Hack.....I have the old magazines at home that have both the ****era '32 and the Stroh's modified.....during build-up...
I'll try and snap a few pics tonight and post 'em.

That Stroh's car was a really neat little car!

 

I'm not anywhere close to being the builder that most on this forum are but I can relate to what is being said here. It has forever chapped my **** when I see side pipes that don't follow the body/frame lines. Having your pipes at the proper angle should be one of the more basic steps in building.

 

Section A; that would include a Vega four-cylinder in a '49 Chevy with a gas can and a boat battery box strapped in the trunk?

Section B; You have to start at AMATUER to even work toward PROFESSIONAL. I think CLOWN is somewhere below the one completed build mark. If the red rubber nose and big shoes fit...

If I wrote a long-winded essay about Michaelangelo would it make me an artist- or just a long-winded fan?

 

the rectangle headlites were a stretch. i didn't like them. if you learn from your mistakes by now i should be brilliant.

hey hack thanks for the post. you give me more credit than i deserve.

lil john

 

If there had been rectangular headlights in the 60s, they would have been a lot more common on the trad cars. If they had been available then, they would be more acceptable now because there would have been a lot more design work done with them on older cars.

 

Elvis and Pic***o and Miles Davis and Frank Gehry all did stuff that hadn't been done before, and at first people ridiculed their work. Eventually their work was seen as revolutionary and important by their peers, and they became historic figures.

I think each of those guys would admit that some of the things they tried didn't work out, but if they didn't try new stuff, they would not have achieved their eventual greatness.

I'm still not a fan of Pic***o's, and I'm not crazy about Gehry's buildings, but I acknowledge their mastery in their fields.

I don't like Jake's '34 Fordor, either, but he's still one of the masters, just like Lil John.

 

That's it exactly!!

 

When you say mock up, the first thing I thought of was a smallish photo of Posie's "Thunder Road" truck in an old R&C. There was a lot of plywood and blue tape. You could see that things had been toyed with and rearanged. Nice to see people other than "Pro" builders thinking about this, too.

 

I'm fasting coming to the conclusion that paying somebody to turn my ideas into finished drawings that I can play with will save me time and money in the long run.

FYI: Per-Lux started manufacturing rectangular over the road truck lights in the early '60's. These were stainless steel and polished up like chrome. A few ended up on hot rods as they were different. Most ended up on Fad Tee's. BTW, that's the same Per-Lux that built the Petronics ignition system.

 

Gee, Jim...you have a magnificent way of being frank with people, dontchya?!

The car in question ended up with a V6 (you know, after I tried the Vega motor route), the battery was under the hood in a real tray with a functional hold-down, and the gas tank was a marine one that was cheap and did the job.

That car was also at least the twelfth project vehicle that I've put on the road myself.

Of course, none of that is relative to THIS post, but why let that stop ya?

 

Did someone say square headlights?

 

Give me a break, a lot of us have been "mocking up" for decades and never cared to be pro builders. Contrary to popular belief the term and the action didn't come about because some one figured out they could have a little car building soap opera on TV. What do ya think before 1-800 hotrod everyone just took a rake and s****ed some car parts together and called it a car.

 

Rectangular headlights are just flat out wrong on a rod, any rod. I'll take that to my grave.

I don't need to look at a car 'long and hard' to decide if it doesn't work. The way I feel about a rod is about my reaction to it. So much of the 'feel' of rodding is about the reactions we have. It's visceral, intangible, and transcends logic. (See my signature line)

There's a lot of stretching and twisting of traditionalism that goes on here, some of it doesn't work, but lots of it does, but one thing that doesn't work is rectangular headlights. Even an SBC valve cover has some curve to it, unless it’s a crude billet piece, and round headlights echo those curves.

The real reason rectangular headlights don't work for me is that the shape is unnatural. Squares and straight lines don't occur in nature very often. Curves and radii are the norm for anything organic, especially animals, and the window to the soul of any creature is the eyes. Eyes are not square.

We look at cars and especially rods as having souls. This concept has been discussed here as well. Since we imbue our rods with personalities and traits that belie the existence of a soul, an inorganic form on a soulful being is dichotomous. It just doesn't work. And it never will, not as long as my name's on the ***le.

 

I know about the "straight lines and squares don't often occur in nature" theories, but then again cars, hot rods included, aren't exactly hatched from eggs or grown from soil...they're machines.

Mechanical works of art that exhibit some angular qualities work in my book!

The headlight thing was just one small example I was trying to cite in saying that sometimes unconventional aspects lend a unique and interesting twist to things, and that we should really LOOK at something before sweeping it under some blanket, catch-all "rule" of form and style.

 

I must have missed those issues of "REDNECK RODDER".

Tell me again which size snow tires look best on your rods? All 4 corners or just on the back?

 

Oh common mike tell us how ya really feel.

I gonna have to guess that the square headlight is not the intended purpose of the original writter if this piece. Nor do I think that anyone with any common sense would expect you to make engine choice based on the shape of the rocker cover.
I think the whole square headlight thing just came about because Little john ****era's car was available. Actually if you look at the pics it appears as though the point to be made is the masking tape traceing the hood lines so he could see if he wanted to raise or lower the top of the grill shell.
Anyway I think the original focus of the article was to show how one might think a little bit before jumping in and half ***ing it.

As far as square headlights its not in the least inovative these days they have already come and gone. Some forms of stylization are timeless and some just fade away.

 

You oughtta look them up...they might be hiring!!

 

Oh, I understand the whole "plan your work and work your plan" concept. That's a guiding principle when it comes to the art of rodding. And there is an art to it. I think the sqaure headlight thing is the easiest example of what I'm talking about. They just don't work. Not to say new things shouldn't be tried, that's indeed how innovation comes about. I agree with Hack that you have to think about these things fully before you execute the idea.

Yep, I've seen my share of '*** first' work when it comes to slapping a car together. We all have. Some of us have even done it. I agree fully with the concept that you have to work from the end design and that the design needs to be planned fully before the first cut of the saw or turn of the wrench.

 

That's pretty much what I got out of it, just was left wondering "Is this all being said as justification for square headlights? and hence by following steps 1-5 do we arive at square headlights?"

My steps usually go something like this
1. Build it drive it for a year
2. cut it up fix all the "what was I thinking?" it and put it back together

Maybe I am just a shallow fish swimming in the deep waters of intellectual car builders!!

 

Naw Bro you're just the fish that gets old instead of in the pan.

One of the things I tell a lot of guys if they get one that's an easy on the road is to drive it awhile and decide what needs to be done to it. I personally think if you don't have direction to start with its the best way to go.
Of course you could always buy a driver and then post one of those what should I do to this car posts. That way you could end up with one that I like instead of one that you like.

BTW I just went out and put some tape on Wilbur's old hooptie, I'm thinking I'm gonna shoot right down to the wrecking yard and snag me some projector beams out of a Beemer and throw at it.

 

I'm reading this all and shaking my head - I gotta back oldcarmike on his philosophy. As far as Hack's re****al about how "cars aren't hatched from eggs or grown from the soil .. they're machines" I just ***umed that one of the things so many of us on here like so much about old cars is their organic look and flow and natural animal presence. Hell, I don't have the purdy vocabulary to wax poetic on what I mean, but it is an inherant appreciation of what looks and feels right. Point fingers and laugh all you want, but the golden rule of nature holds true in all things of "beauty" and "perfection". We instinctively know what is right and wrong about any object we gaze upon. Shouldn't the objects we create emulate those same properties of perfection present all around us?
In other words, square headlights on an old car is just plain wrong. Fin.

 

Yeah, I have to agree with all of this. I'm the same way. I don't need to look at something all day to decide if I like it or not. It's an instant gut reaction, like POW! That's cool! or POW! That's beautiful! If something is kind of ugly, it might take me a while to study it to figure out why it's ugly, or it might take me a split second to decide it's just plain **** ugly.

Sometimes you just know something's wrong looking at it, but you can't quite figure out why at first, so then it does make sense to stare at it a while until you figure out why you don't like it so you can fix it until it pleases you.

I also was never a fan of rectangular headlights. I like things with curves and curved lines.

I think another thing that makes or breaks the look of an old car is whether it looks aerodynamic or not. If it looks more like a brick building than something that's going to be flying along at hundreds of miles per hour, then it just seems like a static object. A lot of the cars that look nice to me are the ones that look like they're moving fast just sitting there. Something like a flat square headlight just looks to me like something that's going to have trouble pushing through the air. I think headlights do give the car sort of a personality, and it seems like the designers in the '30s really understood that well. One of my favorites is the late '37-'39 Lincoln Zephyrs and '39 Fords with those cool molded teardrop headlight lenses. It's really a shame when somebody removes those and replaces them with something not as cool.

Another headlight thing I don't like is when they put late model giant plastic Mercedes headlights or Mazda Miata tail-lights onto late '30s cars. They just don't fit and they detract from the looks of the whole rest of the car.

 

I like to use the ****ogy of a women here. They are soft and sometimes curvy...put some square ***s on 'er and Hackster will be in love!

Really though I think Hack was trying to explain the whole out of the box bit...just used to much of an example with the square headlight thing.