![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:24 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
This, gentlemen, is lowriding.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:26 |
|
Woah, someone rodded out a Graham!
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:28 |
|
That is literally the best color combo I've ever seen on a Sharknose, and convertible + four-wheel pants + low?
Tres magnifique
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:30 |
|
ITS SO BEAUTIFUL.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:32 |
|
Redefining the term "Mustache Ride."
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:33 |
|
Yes. You stancing idiots have no idea what you're doing.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:38 |
|
The original bat mobile... Love the colour.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:52 |
|
Some of them do, though.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 17:54 |
|
This car is clearly on bags. Ergo, it does not ride quite that low, merely parks. In addition, its height is the only thing altered, not track width or camber. Furthermore, lowering such a car is a tradition dating back nigh unto 70 years, if not quite so low - dropping to this height with hydraulics is a good 30 years old.
There is no "you stancing idiot" here. This car is a lowrider. Its ride height is not in parody of some type of performance, with large diameter wheels nestled in cut out fenders. Nor are its wheels tilted inward to exaggerate how much it's allegedly gripping. It is a *lead sled* style lowrider, a stylistic movement to make *more* of existing trends toward swooping design and an aviating or nautical set of lines. Specifically, by eliminating or reducing the visible effect of the wheel, trying to make the car look like a plane or ship of the asphalt.
In addition to all this, a lowrider, as a modification of a classic car type, very often by sheer technical material worked with, is less prone to mechanical misery than a car which is stanced. It is also either specifically performance-built as it is or not substantially performance-improved at all - it's a modified car of a type meant to look good, not perform, so violence done to performance does not take place.
In short, stancing is trend in which form destroys function, and classic lowriders are a trend in which form *is* the function - these are not modified fast cars, though in some cases they become fast in their apotheosis. Nor is function existing typically destroyed.
In short: this is not stancing, and whether you like it or not, you're wrong.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 18:25 |
|
I have no idea how these things even move even WITH bags, but they're so awesome. Look so mean.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 18:33 |
|
But...........how does it turn??
![]() 12/12/2013 at 18:42 |
|
I'll let him verify, but I read that comment as him agreeing with your post, not calling this person out for stancing. Of course, I have been wrong before...
![]() 12/12/2013 at 19:25 |
|
Sorry for possibly misunderstanding your post, btw. Long day.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 19:50 |
|
I really have to see if it's feasible for me to bring over my Grand Father's shark noses.
![]() 12/12/2013 at 20:31 |
|
Why would you turn?
Why did you turn?
![]() 12/12/2013 at 20:48 |
|
I didn't turn!
![]() 12/12/2013 at 21:27 |
|
That is one fantastic looking beast. Rolling art.
![]() 12/13/2013 at 11:29 |
|
Was misunderstood. I was commenting on the fact that stancing ruins the car whilst lowriding makes it better (in some aspects; I wouldn't take a dropped Impala round the Nurburgring...).
![]() 12/14/2013 at 17:00 |
|
This is what I envision electric shavers from the 1950's to have looked like.