Trucking Tuesday

"Bird" (Bird) 10/15/2013 at 11:07 • Filed to: None

0

52

Cue egotistical stance hate in 3...2...1...

KnowsAboutCars > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:10

1

I like stance

/ against all odds

EL_ULY > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:11

1

just imagine a stance Camry... people here would flip lol :]

Mattbob > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:13

0

Hate hate hate hate.

The only thing I don't like really is the messed up fenders. Are they cracked or something? That and how the body line doesn't meet up where the bed connects to the cab.

ColoradoTaco > EL_ULY 10/15/2013 at 11:14

1

what? Like this?

Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:15

0

Cue the egotistical bro-truck hate.

Bird > Bob Loblaw Made Me Make a Phoney Phone Call to Edward Rooney 10/15/2013 at 11:19

0

Purple was a nice choice for an accent color. Really pops against the dark truck,

Team6.1 > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:19

0

So much want. But for real. Track day/drift mini truck is near the top of my WTF car list along with Datsun 510's and Porsche 944s

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:21

3

because you asked for it to be cued up...

BTW, ego has nothing to do with disagreeing with that methodology... ego has everything to do with the only reason for people to do *that* to otherwise functional vehicles. Intelligence should suggest otherwise. Ego without intelligence is the only psychological reason I can think of for someone thinking that they should do that.

Yeah, because that guy just got done shining up his FLAT finished little truck with rough trim, and a bent bumper, and rough fenders, an ill-fitting bed to cab seam, that is scraping across the ground, causing all sorts of mechanical problems to the undercarriage.

But it has clean white wheels, and blacked out signal lights!!! As if they use signal lights in the first place...

I have no problem with a cool, but still functional amount of lowering, and the right ride height and angle can make a good car look great.

But I don't get defeating the functional purpose of suspension, for looks that end up being questionable aesthetics anyway.

And narrow tires on wide wheels, no matter how good or bad the wheels look, is ridiculous, and likely un-safe for the road use of those tires.

Even worse when the badly modified fenders slice the tiny little sidewalls to ribbons, and destroy the tires anyway.

The only thing touching the ground on an object traveling many feet per second, are four little bits of rubber at any given instant. IF ANYTHING needs to be handled safely, it is those little bits of rubber touching the ground. When it comes right down to it, those are the only "control surfaces" a rolling vehicle has.

It is like a rolling, strike that, scraping insult to intelligence, and speaks to the non-functional mental state of someone who would consciously choose to do things that purposefully ruin the functionality of that machine.

Form FOLLOWS function for a reason, because if form leads function... idiots turn form into something that destroys function.

A simply lowered and stylized truck still functions as a vehicle without damaging itself as a consequence. No problem.

An idiotic modification is one that causes a machine to function improperly and destroy itself in the process.

In the words of Austin Powers.... "Riiiigggghht.... idiot; yes....."

Bird > Team6.1 10/15/2013 at 11:21

1

Yeah, but a WTF is good every now then...

I kind of want a NASCAR truck chassis to run as a trackday car...old NASCAR chassis are an insanely cheap way to get a whole lot of racecar for your money....

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:22

0

I'm trying to figure out how hating on stance is egotistical...

EL_ULY > ColoradoTaco 10/15/2013 at 11:23

0

ay dios mio!

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:25

2

Stance is for little bitches. Lowriding, however...

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 11:25

0

Thanks!

dinobot666 > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:25

1

What does ego have to do with hating on stance?

Bird > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 10/15/2013 at 11:26

0

When you feel the need to call someone out because they're idea of cool isn't your idea of cool, that comes from ego.

Tyler's SVT Focus Hates Him > ColoradoTaco 10/15/2013 at 11:26

0

ColoradoTaco > EL_ULY 10/15/2013 at 11:27

0

Imo, it's actually cooler now that it has a little more "personality" if you will.

Bird > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/15/2013 at 11:30

0

Thanks for helping!

Nice truck!

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:38

0

Not liking stance is not being conceited, it's stating an opinoin.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 11:40

0

'BTW, ego has nothing to do with disagreeing with that methodology.' Just wanted to actually respond to this one point. You're right, you can not like it and that has nothing to do with ego. When people go out of their way to comment, that's driven by ego. When people feel the need to bash the owners of those cars simply because they don't like it, that's driven by ego.

I won't argue that there are some unsafe stanced cars. The majority are not. Just like there are some hot rods that are unsafe and a danger to others, the majority are not. Just like there are regular un-modified cars that are poorly maintained an unsafe. The majority of cars on the road are not. The truck I posted is not as unsafe as you would make it out to be. That truck has suspension travel, and is not into dangerous stretch and camber territory.

Bird > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 10/15/2013 at 11:41

0

You can have the opinion. It's the way that most people direct hate towards the owners of the cars that I'm saying is driven by ego. There's a difference between an opinion and hate.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:42

0

No, baiting that in the first-place is egotistical, and a bit arrogant.

And modifying a vehicle in a way that shows everyone else who sees it, that one thinks that their own sense of aesthetic taste supercedes the actual function of the vehicle AS a vehicle... can only be the remnant of rampant ego, without the check and balance of intelligence and knowledge of how a vehicle necessarily must work.

"I am so cool and important by just being 'me', that whatever I happen to want matters more than what actually works by the realities and requirements of engineering, let alone good aesthetic taste." - that is ego.

Thinking that such rampant ego is ridiculous is not itself egotistical.

EL_ULY > ColoradoTaco 10/15/2013 at 11:52

0

its fine with me, i use to build stancecars for my friends back in the early 2000's. Never for myelf since it wasn't my sorta thing but they gave me $ and parts and built away. This Cam is fine also, not my wheel choice but well done non the less

PatBateman > Bird 10/15/2013 at 11:54

1

"Egotistical"...

?w=529

Team6.1 > Bird 10/15/2013 at 12:10

0

The thought had never crossed my mind but that sounds like an incredible idea. Where does one go about purchasing said truck chasis?

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 12:26

0

Commentary is commentary. If you weren't inviting commentary, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place... and baited people by calling any contrary comments 'egotistical' and 'hate'. That is at least as inflammatory against people's motivations as any negative comments about people who make poor vehicle modification choices.

There is a difference between poor execution on an instance by instance basis, of poorly modified or maintained vehicles, compared to an idiom and style of modification that seems inexorably linked to just such modification as it's stock and trade.

Hot rods, street rods, sports cars, and other genres of automotive expression aren't defined as a style by being unsafe, and antithetical to proper vehicle function.

Stanced cars seem to be defined by the concept of defeating the proper function of a vehicle's suspension, on purpose, as the main qualification of 'being stanced.'

Tire contact with fenders, ridiculous camber angles, and poorly fitting tire and wheel dimensions, both with each other, and with the car.... and consciously causing chassis contact with the ground, is not proper functionality, even before getting to the aesthetic issues.

If a vehicle doesn't have those traits... they are likely not often referred to as 'stanced'. and are simply described as customized, or lowered, and likely not taken as highly popular among people who do portray 'stanced' as the functional deficits I just mentioned. Merely customized, or merely lowered on functional suspension geometry, with minimal, yet functional ride height, isn't going to get popularity at a 'stanced' car gathering, compared to more ridiculous modifications.

Ridiculous and unsafe is not the exception to 'stanced', it is the rule, and the goal of the genre.

To paraphrase a quote from Top Gun...

Iceman: You two really are cowboys.
Maverick: What’s your problem, Kazanski?
Iceman: You’re everyone’s problem. That’s because every time you go up in the air, you’re UNSAFE. I don’t like you because you’re dangerous.
Maverick: That’s right! Ice… man. I am dangerous.

Iceman: Maverick... It's not your flying, it's your attitude. The enemy's dangerous, but right now you're worse. Dangerous and foolish. You may not like who's flying with you, and they may not like you... but whose side are you on?

...only 'stanced' isn't as cool as Maverick, and I don't want people to die because of a stance-induced malfunction, or in the resulting car accident, at speed, like Goose.

Goose: The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.

My thinking is more along the lines of Viper.

Viper: Top Gun rules of engagement are written for your safety and for that of your team. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history. Is that clear?

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > ColoradoTaco 10/15/2013 at 12:38

0

Not beige enough.....

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 12:41

0

'Hot rods, street rods, sports cars, and other genres of automotive expression aren't defined as a style by being unsafe, and antithetical to proper vehicle function.'

It is true they may not have that reputation now, but if this was 1955, how would that go? You're driving a '29 Model A, no fenders, no hood,and a flatty with open headers swapped in. That's a car that might even get you a thumbs up from the cops now, but would that have been considered safe then? No, you'd be a hooligan. Even now lot's of states have regulations about fenders properly covering a vehicles tires. Seems often times those laws go un-enforced.

You're equating stance to unsafe. We just don't agree there. You will see many cars referred to as 'stanced' that are highly functional. There are many types of stance, like 'Meaty Stance', a stance often found on a more performance oriented build. Is it the best mod for performance, who cares? If they like it, go for it. A modified car is all about choosing your compromises.

V8Demon - Prefers Autos for drag racing. Fite me! > Mattbob 10/15/2013 at 12:42

0

Plasti-dip over some pretty serious body panel imperfections.

Bird > PatBateman 10/15/2013 at 12:43

0

e·go·tis·ti·cal

gtistikl/

adjective

1 .

excessively conceited or absorbed in oneself; self-centered.

I'm referring to the people who post hate that comes from the, 'your car isn't cool because it's not what I think is cool' attitude. Does that fit the definition?

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 12:54

0

I think you and I are using two different definitions of the word 'safe,' and we need not revisit a time long ago to discuss it.

Most modified cars are not padded cells on wheels, and no, probably aren't the most objectively least risky cars on the road.

I am not talking about reducing potential risk of what could happen out of the blue, by happenstance.

I am talking about not having a car that EATS ITSELF due to bad modifications, and that induced damage causing real effects of diminished control, or catastrophic failure at speed.

I have already said that I don't have a problem with lowered or otherwise modified cars that stay within the envelope of remaining functional, and not chewing themselves up as they move.

But that S2000 is sitting there, with the tires touching the fenders.

Any time that car rolls, the fender lip will abraid the tire sidewall, and cause damage to the tire. Any suspension range of motion left will only make it worse under suspension compression.

FENDERS DON'T TOUCH TIRES FOR A REASON. CHASSIS DOESN'T SCRAPE ON THE GROUND FOR A REASON.

As that part of the tire gets weaker, the tire's pressure will cause it to deform, and become unsafe, and likely to blow out.

If that car has a tire blow out on the street due to the much, MUCH higher likelyhood of tire damage, and the driver loses control, and takes out a family car, it is still an accident caused by modifications that were negligent at the least.

Ridiculous amounts of camber can also destroy tires fast. Scraping on the ground can grind and weaken the metal at points where the suspension mounts to the chassis. If the car's suspension falls apart because it has been ground away, that is also due to negligent modifications.

Compromises in the most basic safety of a road-going vehicle, are compromises too far.

And worst of all, if even a SINGLE bad accident happens due to one of these badly modified, unsafe cars, and makes headline news... the government will get a hold of it as they always love a way to make themselves relevant for protecting the public's safety, and they'll likely bar ALL sorts of car modifications as illegal, and ruin things for the rest of us who aren't negligent in our modifications, because that is what government does.

Those are far more literal and material consequences than being called a 'hooligan' based on cultural attitude.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 12:58

0

That attitude would mean that art would not exist in this world.

From that standpoint, one could argue anyone who modifies a vehicle is egotistical. Why do you get to decide aesthetic taste? No one has any right to tell me what to find beautiful. Why do you get to decide what function an object someone else owns should be used for? That's where I'm coming from. Lot's of people in the car community take the position they have some inherent right to decide what is or isn't aesthetically pleasing, or what someone should or shouldn't do to a car they own. They don't have any right to speak negatively about a person modifying a vehicle to their taste. I'd like to see that attitude change. You'll get more people to do things well, rather than half assed, if the person commenting isn't a dick about explaining why something may not be a great idea, or how it could be done to a higher standard.

Yes, I was absolutely baiting. The comments would come either way. So yes, I took the offensive, rather than the defensive position.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 13:06

0

'Any time that car rolls, the fender lip will abraid the tire sidewall, and cause damage to the tire. Any suspension range of motion left will only make it worse under suspension compression.'

How do you know they're rubbing? Have you seen this car? Just because it's that low doesn't mean it's rubbing.

As I said, I agree there are unsafe stanced cars. There are poorly modified cars in every genre. I would love to see that change too.

As for your argument about tires blowing out under more pressure, doesn't that also apply to people running low pros on super stiff suspension? Regardless of fender gap? You're creating an increased risk... By your argument stiff springs and low profile tires are extremely dangerous and no one should be modifying there car that way.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:11

0

A: Art doesn't cause people's death out on the road, due to induced failure.

B: You have little ground to stand on when criticizing other people for negative commentary, when you baited negative commentary by calling anyone with any other opinion than YOURS, to be egotistical, and a hater. Those terms were used in a derogatory context by you, before the first comment was made.

If you think nobody should be negative toward what you happen to like... you have no ground to start the conversation with negativity toward anyone coming in to the conversation.

Putting yourself instantly above anyone else coming to this discussion is the height of egotistical behavior, as if your preference is superior to any other alternative preference, regardless of reasoned dissent.

Art...

If you want art... make it a stationary installation, and don't put other people at risk.

'Art' that causes damage or injury to others is not art, and there are consequences for negligence and disregard to the others around you. You don't live in your own little bubble without consequence.

I haven't even attempted to tell you what you should find aesthetically pleasing, and only my first post above describes what I find aesthetically dis-pleasing.

Almost all of my argument has gone to the point of functional issues, and why aesthetics FOLLOWS function, and shouldn't lead it.

Anyone with the right to speak, has the right to speak negatively. You don't have to bait it. you don't have to listen to it. You do have to bear the consequences of negligence, if or when they become an issue.

And you shouldn't complain about getting exactly what you baited and asked for.

Don't be surprised that you catch a fish when you go fishing.

Bird > Team6.1 10/15/2013 at 13:12

0

http://www.racingjunk.com/

http://www.racingjunk.com/Other/18198830…

http://www.racingjunk.com/Trucks/1819882…

http://www.racingjunk.com/NASCAR-ARCA-AS…

Sorry for all the time you're going to waste today...lol

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:19

0

LOOK AT THE FREAKING PICTURES. The Nissan truck has rough fender edges, that are less than half an inch from the tire, while it is standing still, without any weight in the vehicle... not even the DRIVER.

The S2000's front tires are TOUCHING the fenders. The rear tires are extremely close, again, without any indication that the driver's weight is even in the car.

IF you won't accept what is right in front of your eyes.. then you are blinded, and this discussion is fruitless.

Tires used properly are designed to be safe, or the wouldn't be certified for sale.

They are NOT designed to be in contact with a stationary edge, while they turn. It turns the car into it's own lathe that cuts the tires.

Ridiculous suspension modifications on some stanced cars that puts the tire at an extreme camber angle also puts forces on the inside shoulder and sidewall of the tire that are not intended use. A tire is designed to distribute forces across and around the tire, not concentrate them on one contact point, with uneven heating and wear.

If you don't know how tires, suspension, and chassis dynamics work... then you shouldn't be modifying a car in the first place...

Because then BAD modifications happen. Bad stanced cars are the evidence of that result.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 13:21

0

I'm not complaining. Art can put people at risk, just depends on what it is...but that's neither here nor there. As I said, not all stanced cars are unsafe, regardless of how vehemently you argue it. If that's the case, any modified vehicle is unsafe by your definition.

It's not egotistical to post an expectation of hate. I didn't say 'Cue stupid peoples stupid opinions on objective style'. I don't have a problem with anyone having an opinion. I'm saying people don't have to be a dick about it. Hate and an opinion are different.

We're not coming together on definitions of terms. I don't define unsafe as any modification done to a vehicle that could have a remote possibility of having a negative affect. Again, as I said, I will not argue there are some unsafe cars, but I will not agree with your position that anything referred to as stanced is unsafe because of a word used to describe it.

PatBateman > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:21

0

Having an opinion and voicing it does not make someone "conceited" or "self-centered". If I posted a picture of a Pontiac Aztek riding on Donk 33" rims, painted baby shit green, with tassels hanging from the head liner and a brush guard welded on the front, would you think that was "cool"? Would you think I was an ass if I said "if you don't think this is cool, you must be self-absorbed and conceited" in the title of the post?

Inigo Montoya Meme stands.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:23

0

Danger is danger, danger is not art, art is not art if it is danger.

Bird > PatBateman 10/15/2013 at 13:24

0

It's all in your actions. Are you voicing your opinion, or are you calling someone a stupid idiot for what they did? Those are two different things. I think it's usually easy to differentiate between them.

PatBateman > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:28

0

I've been on this site a while, and I normally don't see too many people calling others "stupid idiots" or any derived versions of said phrase. Do you get "I'm not a fan of the pic you posted, so you must be a stupid idiot" on here a lot?

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 13:29

0

My example would be a large art installation. There may be inherent risk by having an artist use large materials in a fashion that they were not intended for. Or a video/audio/light installation that operated within frequencies that could cause epileptic seizure. Those would be unintended consequences, but issues could arise none the less.

In my opinion that's being overly critical. Just like saying all stanced cars are inherently unsafe is being overly critical.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:32

0

Still it's only egotistical if you assume everyone elses hates it because you hate it.

Bird > PatBateman 10/15/2013 at 13:36

0

They're usually not calling the poster stupid. It's the hate towards the genre and the owners of the vehicles. I'm not going to call out anything or anyone specifically. Just making commentary from what I see as a general bad attitude here and in the larger community. I think it does a dis-service to the community as a whole for people to be-little what others might be into. You can voice an opinion, and talk about something without going to the useless and stupid because it is, kind of arguments.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 13:42

0

if a large art installation in a public place fell on people and killed them, the artist would be liable for an accident. But the installation would not be designed to destroy itself, and harm people around it.

If an art installation caused someone an epileptic seizure and they were injured by it, and not warned away from the installation... the artist would be liable.

And if the artist intended to cause danger to others, that is criminal intent, not and thus NOT ART.

Intentionally causing real danger, and I am not talking about 'dangerous ideas' or controversy... I am talking about the real and intended harm of others, or unsafe practices that should be obvious for anyone to see as causing harm to others...

That FAILS to be Art, and succeeds at being a clear and present danger.

Modifying a CAR, something that weighs more than a TON, and is INTENDED to travel at speeds capable of causing harm to others if mis-handled... if it is knowingly modified to be unsafe, it is not artistic, it is not an expression, it is UNSAFE FOR ROAD USE, and it puts other people in danger. Potentially YOU, or your loved ones.

That is negligence if someone is stupid. That is willful endangerment and attempted vehicular manslaughter if someone is trying to consciously put other motorists in danger, which I give people the benefit of the doubt not to be trying to do.

'artistic' expression is fine up to that point. At the point where it becomes a functional impairment of the machine's road-worthiness, it is not subject to being excused as an artistic expression, and is putting people in DANGER.

Bird > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 10/15/2013 at 13:43

0

I see where you're going there, but I don't see that as a requirement. I just see that as making it worse. I see the very idea that your opinion is better than that of the owner of the vehicle takes it to that level.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 13:49

0

All of that is absolutely true. Our society would hold those people liable. If you modify your vehicle and cause an accident you are liable too. That is exactly how our society works. I'm arguing that not all stanced vehicles are unsafe to the point they should not be on the road. Again, to beat a dead horse, I will agree some are unsafe, just like some hot rods are unsafe, just like some lowriders are unsafe, just like some race cars are unsafe....

Lowering your car on extremely stiff springs and putting on low profile tires causes increased risk by your own argument. Doing it with a wide fender gap and saying it's lowered makes it safe. Yet somehow that's different of you call it stanced. Why? How is it negligent for one person, but accepted for another?

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 14:05

0

I highly doubt either of those actually rub. You're assuming they do. Most guys get there cars setup to be as close to possible to rubbing, but not actually rubbing. Photos always make the gaps look closer anyways....you know cool photography makes the car look cooler. If they rub, I would agree that is unsafe. Again I doubt they do, truck maybe, Honda I'm sticking with no.

So because 'some stanced cars' have ridiculous mods they're all unsafe? Pointing out 'Some cars have ridiculous camber' has nothing to do with this argument. Some hot rods have rusty 70 yr old worn out steering and suspension components. Again that's true but has nothing to do with this argument.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 16:00

0

You are mischaracterizing everything I have said.

It is safe if there are tolerances enough for the car not to cause itself damage during operation. It is UNSAFE if there isn't enough tolerance, and the car chews itself up.

The definition is in the results.

Most cars that have safe tolerances seem to simply be called "lowered", as a tendency.

Most cars that DON'T seem to have proper engineering maintained, and are causing their componentry to become unsafe, are actively CALLED "stanced", and the more ridiculous they get, the more popular the seem to be with the people who like "stanced" cars. Merely lowered cars tend not to get as much "stanced" acclaim.

The words FOLLOW the facts and results. So I am going to call them what they are, by the clearly apparent results.

It sure seems to me that the more ridiculous it gets, the more popular it seems to get with those who acclaim "stanced" cars.

Stock:

A

B

C

D

The more, the better, evidenced by the results.

The blue one, A, with minimum, but functional clearance looks great, and functions fine. I would call that lowered, or perhaps having a nice looking stance. I wouldn't instantly think of "stanced" as an aesthetic genre for that one, but it is not stock.

B might be functional, IF the tires are changed often, and the fenders don't carve the tires up, but the alignment is ridiculous. I tend not to find ridiculousness to be attractive.

C and D, I would HIGHLY suspect to become un-road-worthy quickly, and I question the mental facilities of anyone thinking that is a good idea to do, or to drive while putting other people at risk. Loss of control is likely, and perhaps imminent in any precipitation on the road.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 16:35

0

This is the problem. YOU are trying to define stanced as the bad cars but not the good ones...they're lowered. That's not a generally accepted definition. It's your opinion that the cars that are called stanced are the bad ones...based an just your anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it fact.

The last two photos of the Celica you posted is also an outlier from the norm. That was one persons expression of taking it to far. It's intent is to be ridiculous, and it's a show car not a driver. The owner himself understands this and built it for that reason.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Bird 10/15/2013 at 16:49

0

As far as I know, those are all different celicas, but you may know more about it.

The thing is, the definition already exists.

Lowered cars have been around since at least the 1950s, if not the 1930s or earlier, to lower the center of gravity, and INCREASE handling performance on a flat track where road clearance for unimproved roads with ruts, isn't needed.

Lowering can have positive effects that way.

"Stanced" as a noun, the name of a genre, rather than just an adjective, is a new thing, and coincides with the introduction of bad alignments, and bad tire fitments, scraping the ground (although that can be traced to low-riders before "stanced" became a thing)

I don't name this stuff, I observe how vocabulary is used, and adopted... and "stanced" recently became a thing that goes beyond what has been known as lowered for a LONG time.

If you are in denial about that, that is a YOU problem.

BTW... there are animated GIFs, and videos of the last celica out driving around, and wears a license plate. I can't have tinted side windows.... but that ridiculous thing is registered for the road.

It is an example, and a made a FAMOUS example, of the goal and logical extrapolation of the goals of "stanced". that genre shows over and over that MORE is considered better... and that is where more moves toward, not ironically, but intentionally.

And it gives people the wrong idea about the automotive aftermarket and custom industry, and is likely to be the next thing to get the government to clamp down on all aftermarket automotive customization.

If people won't govern themselves to take road safety and propriety seriously, Nanny State will come in and do it for everyone, and they don't care who they trample, any more than someone who modifies their car to be nearly impossible to control in an emergency, to put other motorists at risk.

Bird > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 10/15/2013 at 18:03

0

I think the last two pictures are the same Celica. It progressed to what it is. As far as I know, it is not a currently registered car. In Japan people do use 'slash plates' to legally drive non street legal vehicles on the street. It's how guys get their race cars to the track, or how Bosozuka guys get to the shows. It may have been moved around like that. As I said before, I'm not defending dangerous, and that car is obviously an outlier to the norm. I think that's obvious even to people who know nothing about it.

As for the definition. All of your points are anecdotal. As viewed from blog posts by people whose knowledge is limited to the pictures they've seen on the internet. Go to a show and get a view from the wider scene. Maybe even check out a blog that doesn't view it negatively. You might find that people discuss things like how to set up the car not to rub. Proper fitments and camber settings to get the look you want while not eating your tires up. Stanced does not equal 'so low it's dangerous'. It would be the same as lumping traditional hot rods together with shoddily built rat rods. They're very different, even though some people wouldn't know why they were different. Any car guy would spot the difference a mile away.

People badly modifying cars might cause the clampdown you're so worried about, but saying it's the entire stance crowd and them alone that's bringing it on is wrong. Saying that everyone in the stance crowd has a dangerous car is wrong.

Hot rods have been around a while, they didn't cause the complete clampdown you're afraid of. Lowriders have been around a while...same thing...mods are still for the most part legal. Most states have laws against fuzzy dice obstructing your view, but hey, small price to pay.

People have been turning out beautiful well engineered machines as well as dangerous pieces of crap for decades. No matter the genre. If YOU are in denial about that it's YOUR problem.