Louisville Newspaper Article Today

A pretty good article in Louisville's paper this morning...have a read:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050823/FEATURES/508230307

 

good read. But man I get pissed when someone calls the Peter Beater a rat rod.

 

I wonder how much he want for one of his "ratrods"? 20,30 40 grand,doesn't that make it as bad as the gold chainers?lol BigDoug

 

Very nice article. Thanks for posting the link. Evidently Mark Coomes knows a bit about the hot rod world or did some good research. It's light years beyond the typical newspaper story. While the term "rat rod" may bug some people, we've got to come to grips with people wanting to label things and "rat rod" makes for better reading than "traditional hot rod". The story made the point very well that uniqueness, functionality and at***ude are more interesting than aesthetic and total dollar investment.

 

Cool article, thanks for sharing.

I can see Billy Gibbons cruising in that truck..

 

Whats a Ratrod?

 

Since you asked ...

 

^^^Hahaha...Gloves not included.

 

I dunno. In my eyes, the over use of the term "rat rod" and the use of phrases like "ugly is in on planet hot rod these days", "the uglier, the better" and "they're so bad they're good" kinda lumps this ****e in with the whole Ol' Skool Rodz ilk. These guys seem to be enamored with the same "ratroderrific" trappings as OSR, they just have better spelling, punctation and a better grasp of the english language.

 

I agree. The article describes cars with tuna can tail lights and coleman cooler battery tray. To me, that is rat rod and fits the OSR crowd. Stuff like the Peter Beater does not qualify IMO. Eyes of the beholder I guess.

 

Didn't mean to turn this into yet another Rat vs Traditional Rod discusion, I agree the terms in the article might offend some. The reason I posted the link was for those intrested to see a positive article written about our interests... sorry some missed that.

Goober got the point... "The story made the point very well that uniqueness, functionality and at***ude are more interesting than aesthetic and total dollar investment."

 

Part of Goober's statement is a somewhat of a contradiction (sorry Goober). How can at***ude be more interesting than aesthetic when it is almost entirely aesthetic that determines a car's at***ude? Certainly functionality is foremost, a car does not need to have shiney paint or super straight body, but it's builder should also strive to make the car look as good as he can with what he has to work with. A big part of what we do around here is about style. The article says "the uglier, the better". In my eyes, purposely building a car to be ugly is missing the mark completely.

 

its a good read and a good laugh

 

Sorry, Mike. I didn't contradict myself. Aesthetic is defined as "the beautiful", "pleasing in appearance", or that "which is pleasurable to the senses". While the writer of the article and many other people misuse the word, aesthetic does not mean the "look" -- it means "looking beautiful". The story answer's your question of "how can at***ude be more interesting" by relating numerous instances of people being much more interested in and crowding around the more humble rods.

As to "uglier, the better", that's out of context. The story is only relating what goes into the trend upon which it is reporting.

 

a primate is a rodent?

there's tuna in the tail lights?

and puke in a syrup can?

this article raises more questions than it answers