Mythbusters: an unscientific statistical analysis of rod building styles, circa 55/60

Key words.

 

Agreed. Love it or not, Tom McMullens car was a big influence, and you can see big resurgance in highboys starting around '67/'68, which when you take into account the time that McMullens car started getting ink, and couple that with the amount of time it takes to build a car and magazine lead times, makes sense. From what I can see, they really started to disappear from the scene in the early fifties, then re-appear in the late sixties. Fashions come and go. The whole point of this exercise is that if you are REALLY trying to build a "period" hot rod, it helps alot to know the fashion of the period you are building, and if you are building a car with an overhead and a fifties feel, highboys were not in fashion. And it contributes to the valid complaint that modern "traditional" cars all the look the same. If guys actually paid attention to what cars REALLY looked like in the period they are trying to emulate, the "sea of same-ness" issue would take care of itself. But everybody models thier "traditional" hot rod on a half-assed version of the Doane Spencer car, just like everyone models thier "period" custom on a half-assed Hirota clone.
The REAL point of this entire post is to get guys to look past the inaccurate "Spencer" virus (dont get me wrong, I LOVE the car, and it had a ton of subtle mods that most guys miss in thier version anyway, but its more of a forties era car that happened to stay around through the fifties), and see that you can build a truly "period correct" hot rod without contributing to the sea of black '28-'32 highboys on deuce rails, and unless you are building a 40's era lakes car with a flathead, you will be being more "true" to the era as well.

And I am glad finally someone said it about the 14's. All these guys frantically hunting for 16" '40 wheels for their otherwise '50's themed hot rods are missing the mark by a wide margin.

 

fg, I tend to like the mid to even a bit late 60s style. Not the new pony/muscle gig that was happening, but what the old timers were still doing. They were there, and they were more refined with that same classic style. I sort of like show rods too but they're not practical in most cases. The last few TRJs had several early 60s picture collections. I like that too. In particular there was a 40 PU, perfect stance, fat whites, really pretty paint with lots of white details and full wheel covers. Before I read the caption I knew it was a nice dark metallic green. To reference the pic for those who care it said "half ton will travel" on the back fender down low. There was also a near perfect 40 coupe channeled with the fenders raised and radiused. That's really kool shit to me. That one said "Shazzam" on it somewhere. That look hung in there for a while, and in many cases all that was added later was a new set of modern mags or something.

 

I really enjoyed reading this. I don't know how many people got pissed off, but I'm sure there are some who's idea of what traditional is all about got changed.
And I'm glad I kept all those 14" five spokes now

 

Rich, that line of thinking would kill 3/4 of the build threads here.

 

Fun thread..... at least for some of us... LOL.

While not quite old enough to have 'been there' (I'm in my early 60s), I picked up 'vintage' 50s mags (and had subscriptions to R&C and CC starting in 61) whenever I saw them and not every car you saw in the magazines was a masterpiece. Some of the cars 'worked', some didn't. While I've always been a custom fan, the number of butt-ugly ones always outnumbered the truly beautiful cars and by a wide margin.... in my opinion. As to the rods, same thing; some were 'right', many weren't, although you saw fewer messes. But again, this is personal taste.

I get the 'traditional' thing; a open wheel car with IFS just isn't 'right', nor is big billet wheels (on anything), EFI, late bucket seats, digital gauges, or any number of 'trick parts' that you care to mention. But for me, rodding has always been about originality and innovation, something the landmark cars almost always had. Whether it was to get a certain 'look' or improve performance (ideally, both). But as FG's analysis has shown, perception and reality rarely match.

The hard-core traditionalists seem to be wanting to send us to cookie-cutter hell, nit-picking details that may or may not be important to the overall 'feel' of a build.

 

Here's a shit-stirrer-How many were proud to sport surface rust?

 

The "traditional" view point here seems limited to a narrow spectrum of pre-35 Fords in the highboy/lakes trim. But, in the background of all those old lakes and drag event photos there are a huge variety of coupes, sedans and pickups. Most of us built what we found and there were few '32 Fords in my area to find. Looking through my collection of old magazines, aside from Hot Rod, there were a wide variety of makes, particularly for customs.

I've been around hot rods since the late fifties and only recently has the aged/patina look become desired enough for builders to fake them. I understand the attraction to the early-style non-fendered rods, but they were a small percentage of what was being built. Most people built the best they could with what they had or could find.

As far as what is popular by what is in the magazines I would imagine most of us have seen some great rides this summer that will never be in a magazine and some in the magazines we wouldn't want to ride in. History will always be skewed if your vision is narrow.

 

Yea, and they rejected any "for sale" ads that didnt fit with thier idea of what was cool... I'm so tired of this hackneyed BS about the magazines "distorting history", I am going to go back and re-do the whole thing, separating the stats from feature articles from the stats from the ads and "readers write" section. I know it will do nothing to put a stop to this idiotic whining, but at least it will totally discredit what the whiners have to say.

And Richard, I didnt even see any surface rust in the "readers write" section...

 

"Yea, and they rejected any "for sale" ads that didnt fit with thier idea of what was cool... Sorry I ripped your rose-coloured glasses off and stomped on them...Well, not really, I actually kinda liked it..."

Perhaps I do not understand your satire.

No rose colored glasses here. My point was that many have an unfounded impression of what people built and drove prior to 1964. Thanks to reproduction of bodies and frames there are a lot more "traditional" builds now.

As far as ripping of anyone's glasses maybe they should be your's as I do not see any pre-64 rides on your profile. I drive mine daily.

Sorry to be negative but your response seemed uncalled for.

 

Very good survey and a lot of research done. While it is limited by your sources, it does establish the obvious. A LOT of what's being called traditional is compromised by what was being done local by the old timers and warped by the ideas of the present builders. That's what I got out of it.

Falcon, I wish you would have been able to get more done by regular guys, but you were limited by old want ads in a magazine. It's still probably fairly accurate. Unless an 80 year old hot rodder, who was also a traveling salesman for Kodak, took pictures and wrote everything down, surveys like this are probably the best we'll ever get.

But it's easy to see one thing. What was popular on the streets was dictated by what was at the local drive in, not necessarily the magazines. The magazines were polluted by bias and the need to sell copies. They often featured cars that had stuff their advertisers sold. It's easy to spot nowadays.

The "traditionalist" has a lot of work to do and I always love it, when I see it, but a lot of guys claim the title falsely. Like I've often said and thought, just because Bubba did it at A&W in Boise, Idaho, doesn't mean everyone was doing it. And if everyone was doing it, how would he even know? How many people drove all over America, looking to spot trends? Very, very few, if any.

Last thing, for the "this is how it was" crowd. A lot of guys drive fenderless and call it "way it was', but from what I've seen and read, didn't guys drive to the salt or lake, THEN take off their fenders? Logically, doesn't that mean they had fenders on, while driving around town? My cars fenderless because I like the look. It's MY vision. I'm not a traditionalist and never claimed to be. I'm just an admirer. It's more fun to sit back and watch the posers dance and you've got the juke box jumping with this thread.

Here's to more research.

 

"just because Bubba did it at A&W in Boise, Idaho, doesn't mean everyone was doing it. And if everyone was doing it, how would he even know? How many people drove all over America, looking to spot trends? Very, very few, if any."

I would like to make another comment... but this says it all! Well... except for this combined with memory loss!

 

My guess is that you didnt even bother to read the FIRST POST, let alone the thread. Since you clearly cant be bothered to even read the thread before posting, at least read the content of THIS POST, including the bolded sections of the five quoted posts above.
Your bitch about the editorial direction of the magazines distorting the information contained in this survey is INVALID for the above noted reasons. The For Sale sections and "Readers Write" sections were including in this survey to NEGATE any editorial bias, as I pointed out in the first post. Those two sections of the magazine are immune to being distorted by editorial direction, and made up roughly 50% of the sample. If you had even bothered to read the first post, you would have read that, and you would have "understood my satire".

The fact is, the stats from the "for-sale and "readers write" section will show pretty much the same balance as the feature articles, which goes a LONG ways to dis-crediting this standard HAMB bs about the magazines distorting history once and for all. I am so tired of reading this BS on the HAMB and seeing it get ANY TRACTION WHATSOEVER that I am going to go back and break out those stats seperately.

By trotting out this hackneyed standard issue HAMB response without even bothering to READ THE THREAD, you are insulting me, and my efforts. If you want to dis-credit this, at least make the effort to ACTUALLY READ what I have posted, and give me the credit of putting some effort into your critique. Call me a jerk but as far I am concerned, critiquing a thread without reading it (I know its HAMB standard practice) is "uncalled for".

I would strongly suggest that, before you respond, you AT LEAST read the FIVE earlier posts I have quoted here. Reading the balance of the thread might be an idea as well.

 

Depends on the era...Montgomery's book "Hot Rods of the Forties" shows lots of street scenes (probably close to 40)...a quick scan shows that (of the cars actually pictured on the street) only 3 do not conform to the pre-35 Ford highboy roadster ideal; 2 coupes with full fenders and a channeled (fenderless) 26-27 T - and damn near every car runs a deuce grille.

George's research shows that in just a few short years, trends can change radically...IMO, a car should be built with an eye toward the 'standard' of a particular era.

 

I agree, but how would someone get the "standard"? Getting the "standard" seems to be the problem and the rest is confusion backed up with hometown validation.

 

"IMO, a car should be built with an eye toward the 'standard' of a particular era."

What about this era? We have everything to draw from.

Got your period, correct?

The power of a coma!

 

That's a good question...I'd say this magazine survey is a good start (albeit probably not perfect). Atomickustom said it well...the magazines featured what we can probably assume were the most desirable rods of the time. That may be as good as we'll ever get.

At least you fans of the 50's have magazines to look to - try researching the late 30's - mid 40's...yikes!

 

It's late and I'm having trouble figuring out what you're getting at...can you rephrase the question?

 

Yeah...OK, I'll go slow fer ya.

 

Nope, no coma here

I was asking for clarification on the following query; "What about this era? We have everything to draw from."

But I think I know what you're getting at...didn't you once say;

Can't really say that we have much to talk about if that's your point. I disagree (respectfully) with your entire premise.

 

Ya know something brother, I chose not to bring up the first time you mis-interpreted my question. But you bring up your answer over again like you are the only one who gets it.
Read it again if you choose. I understand where you got your survey info from. I read it, completely. I simply was referring to coverage by magazines by trendsetting builders, not coverage of average Joes building on budgets with what they had available.
Readers write and classifieds are not what I consider coverage. People send that stuff to mags- mags don't seek them out. Your survey was not in question nor was your method.

 

I did say it. History shows it to be as true today as it was "in the day".

I stand on tradition, but not on those who do not. My "bullshit" statement was aimed at the disrespect shown to those not subscribing to a particular tradition.

I appreciate your respect, and agree to disagree regarding a traditional view of hot rods.

I don't like to be constrained by any particular point of view. I am close minded when it comes to being anything but open minded.

 

Okay everybody! Group hug!

 

Awwwwwww. Feel better now ;~)

 

"By trotting out this hackneyed standard issue HAMB response without even bothering to READ THE THREAD, you are insulting me, and my efforts. If you want to dis-credit this, at least make the effort to ACTUALLY READ what I have posted, and give me the credit of putting some effort into your critique. Call me a jerk but as far I am concerned, critiquing a thread without reading it (I know its HAMB standard practice) is "uncalled for"."

Calm down... I did not try to discredit you or your survey. I have read this thread from the start and re-read it twice.

My point was in agreement with your assessment in regard to the accepted form for "traditional" verses what was really going on.

But, as others have noted in this thread, using one source for the survey may not be accurate. The preponderance of fendered California cars may be due to
the fender laws enforced at that time. Certainly each editor defines the content of the publication as well as the letters published. This is not to demean your efforts. I get it - you looked at all the photos in all the issues you own to generate the statistics.

 

Ok, so in reading the thread, did you miss the fact that roughly 50% of the data was drawn from the "for sale" and "readers write" sections, and my purpose in using cars from those sections to make up my sample, or you feel that they were rejecting ads and letters based on editorial direction? In other words, do you feel that my assertion that the cars in "for sale" and readers write" sections are free from the sort of decisions that would dictate what was or wasnt feature worthy is incorrect? Not a pissing match here, I am asking you to support your (and others) position re: the editorial position of Hot Rod magazine artificially shaping the sample I am working with.

 

That was epic. Bra-vo!

 

We seem to be witnessing a bit of a Roveian meltdown on some peoples part over the differences in perception versus fact.....

I don't get why bringing up fender laws has anything to do with this; is the perception that the only reason many were running fenders is because of the laws and all these owners secretly wanted to go fenderless? Seems like a real stretch....

And the other thing that struck me is the majority of the fenderless cars are from the 'east', supposedly the bastion of cycle fenders.

 

In my experience contributing to various publications they certainly define what they want to feature. The letters sections are published with as much discretion as the editorial content. I do accept the "for sale" examples are probably statistically viable as they are paid ads.

I learned a long time ago to take magazines with a grain of salt. At any given time there are media favorites who get more coverage, those willing to work on magazine projects for the publicity, and the goal of selling the advertisers products. Magazines have often gone on editorial tangents to feature such things as go karts, vans, muscle cars in an effort to garner readers.