What made classic car design so outstanding?

"JR1" (type35bugatti) 10/20/2015 at 17:14 • Filed to: None

0

51

What were the contributing factors to the designs of art deco cars? What made them so stunning? So unique? And so revered even to this day? Was it one specific actor or a host of contributions? Sound off in the comments below with your thoughts.

HammerheadFistpunch > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:16

5

Fashion > Function

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:17

1

Narrow bodies with fenders. That’s probably the biggest difference.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:21

0

swooping lines, and lack of passenger\pedestrian safety

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:23

1

I might be different here but I’m not a fan of art deco cars.

not for canada - australian in disguise > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:25

2

Lack of safety regulations and designers just not giving two shits about anything but class, luxury, and style.

crowmolly > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:26

1

Lack of safety features, beauty over profit.

gin-san - shitpost specialist > not for canada - australian in disguise 10/20/2015 at 17:30

2

Regulations slowly killed style - I don’t know where it all started but I always think of the USDM bumpers on BMWs.

Also, "art deco" is a term I see thrown around but I have no idea what it means. A quick search reveals it was popular around the 20s through to the 40s but I have no idea what "art deco" means as a style.

JR1 > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/20/2015 at 17:30

0

I would say it is an acquired taste. I wasn’t at first either.

JR1 > PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power 10/20/2015 at 17:31

0

The lack of safety regulations probably played a large part. As for the swooping lines I think that goes back to the large tires and rims fitted to compensate for poor road quality.

JR1 > not for canada - australian in disguise 10/20/2015 at 17:33

0

I agree with that. But what made the style change so radically in an era of economic distress.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:34

0

yeah.....

but the lack of safety helps. Like, the A-pillars on a 50’s car won’t hold shit if it flips, but they look bootyful!

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:34

1

They all look the same to me.

C62030 > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/20/2015 at 17:36

0

Same. I think there are a few really pretty ones but I don’t think most of them are as coherently shaped as newer cars.

JR1 > PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power 10/20/2015 at 17:38

2

So damn pretty and if you flip one of those boats it is really your fault and you did something pretty stupid

JR1 > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/20/2015 at 17:38

0

I said that at first too.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > C62030 10/20/2015 at 17:38

1

Large arches, lots of chrome, long hoods, big steering wheels. And I know most of these are based on what equipment they had available (or not available in the case of power steering) and the condition of the roads, but they all look a little overdone.

PanchoVilleneuve ST > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:39

0

Nostalgia.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:39

1

Specific to Streamline Moderne period cars, I’d say the first taste of being able to make cars shaped however we want had struck, and the need for escapism in the 30s worldwide and a shuffling of the car market toward upper middle class wealth meant that not only could you dream, but you got paid to do it. That’s the most common uniting factor - a clear design intent not toward aggression, bulk, sleekness qua sleekness, attempts to mimic successful designs of earlier years... no. Nothing but the cultic idea of speed, as imagined.

Lack of constraint was huge, and it was a wave of auteurs that had echoes in the 50s and 60s - whereas an atmosphere of constraint in modern times has led to the development of a group-working designer class who are generally only “bold” within limits of habit. Years of designs being neutered by the aero team, by the crash team, by the safety team, and deadened public taste seem to have created a vicious cycle - the designers turn out only “exciting” designs that they, through habit, have made un-exciting even before the design limits every crop up. My go-to on this for aero is the previous generation Nissan Maxima, which if memory serves looks like a standard modern car, but has an awful Cd. Why? Because the aero guys barely touched it, because it didn’t really matter, so it ended up looking “meh” without even a reason.

As a tl;dr of paragraph 2, Streamline Moderne cars were allowed to have lots of sharp edges and curves, and separated body elements. Aero and pedestrian safety have cheerfully taken an axe to all three. In response, designers gave no fucks, and often swung the axe. Because habit.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:39

0

They just look a little too overdone.

JR1 > PanchoVilleneuve ST 10/20/2015 at 17:40

1

That is a very good point

JR1 > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/20/2015 at 17:40

0

Welcome to the art deco period!

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:41

0

I just like things that are a little more subtle.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:43

0

Airbags bloating out the body panels. Pedestrian safety regulations. Crash test regulations. Etc.

Good case in point is the Challenger.

EDIT: Oops. Just saw that you specified Art Deco. Still a good example below of classic design vs. new classic

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > JR1 10/20/2015 at 17:46

1

I’m still trying to wrap my head around how you’d flip a ‘59 Caddy. I... uh... what?

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > gin-san - shitpost specialist 10/20/2015 at 17:50

2

Art deco: short answer, early century dressing up of things for dressing up’s sake. Scrollwork on things, fluting, wavy lines, generally going bugfuck crazy. Many late ‘30s cars are better described as Streamline Moderne, which was kind of an “In the future, all things will look swoopy and streamlined and fast and stuff” design aesthetic. Early ‘30s stately stuff with more “look how many chrome pieces I can cram on” stuff can be more art deco. Compare/contrast with googie, which is “my design is wilder and more attention grabbing so it’s better!!!! BUTTONS! LIGHTS!” aka quite a lot of ‘50s stuff.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/20/2015 at 18:01

0

My Falcon is fascinating to take apart from an industrial design perspective, because while they didn’t go all out to limit worker hours, they absolutely seem to have been prioritizing machine time and material. Never use two pieces when one will do - unless the two pieces are simpler. It’s designed to offer all features then possible, but in as cheap and simple a manner as possible. It’s... oh what’s the phrase... elegantly shabby. The “chromework” is aluminum, zinc-plated steel, zinc cast, and actual chrome in a hodgepodge based on what made the cheapest piece. The radio is cleanly designed and clear - through its single speaker. The windshield is trimmed with aluminum extrusions that screw into the A-pillar in a guarantee to make leaks... looks nice, doesn’t it? The suspension is berserk with rubber, so that it rides smoothly for 5,000 miles before squeaking hell breaks loose. Profit is definitely being considered, but the whole mindset is different. They don’t ask “does the car really need all this chrome?” No, it’s “what’s the cheapest we can do this car all chromed up for?” and “what extra random does-nothing chrome can we put on the deluxe model to show off?”

It’s great.

Cé hé sin > gin-san - shitpost specialist 10/20/2015 at 18:20

1

Art deco?

Something like this Delahaye 175 by Saoutchik.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > JR1 10/20/2015 at 18:22

0

hahah, I’d like to see someone try to roll one

EDIT: there’s a 70’s movie featuring a white Cadillac '59, and it's beaten up. (not ghostbusters) has to do with loggers and stuff.... can you remember the name\movie?

MultiplaOrgasms > JR1 10/20/2015 at 18:30

1

Body on Frame construction. It enabled the manufacturers to sell rolling chassis to the (usually wealthy) customers who then went to one of many, many coachbuilders to get an extravagant one off body. That and a lack of fucks given about safety and environmental concerns.

duurtlang > JR1 10/20/2015 at 18:45

2

Not specifically art deco cars, but classic cars in general; they were designed by one designer. Not by comity. The lack of required aero and safety features helped as well.

Berang > JR1 10/20/2015 at 20:42

1

There are very few cars from the art deco era that actually embody any sort of art deco design sense - and honestly most of these come off as garish. On the other hand, cars in general during the 1920s and 30s mostly look quite good.

Cars had very little overhang, and long hoods. Even the later Model Ts.

Car bodies were also become cleaner and less ornate and two tone schemes were popular.

The early 30s is pretty much the same except that cars start getting longer and lower. They’re still rather upright though. Open cars are falling out of favor.

By the mid 30s cars have gotten a little less angular, and the trend to longer and lower continues. But still - almost no overhang and a long hood. The “trunk” at this point has been integrated into the car body, but it’s very short.

Late 30s cars are softer and bigger - but still well proportioned. Headlights are integrated into fenders, trunks are now a thing. Wooden wheels are firmly in the past. We start to see more and more overhang from this point, and also the passenger compartment will move further forward - hoods remain long for a few decades because overhang has been increasing. Jump ahead to the 1950s:

Acres of overhang. Small wheels. The trunk is longer than the hood, and the passenger comparment sits well forward of where it would be on a typical 1920s car.

Studebaker Larks were some of the better proportioned cars of the 1950s and 60s. Front overhang is back to 30s levels, and rear overhang is not nearly so extreme as it was on most American cars. Although the hood is relatively short, the trunk is noticeably shorter which lends pleasing proportion to the overall shape.

ranwhenparked > JR1 10/20/2015 at 20:45

1

The proportions are a big factor. Few modern cars really do that as well. Long hood with the axle pushed well forward of the cowl, short deck, etc. Plus, the detailing was pretty restrained - no overuse of chrome, no overwrought body creases, plus the custom coachbuilding system allowed for a level of individualization way beyond anything that’s been possible since.

desertdog5051 > JR1 10/20/2015 at 21:07

0

It was a factor of the times. The 20’s was a time of super money. Everyone with any was rolling in the dough produced by the stock market.

The car makers were taking the basic designs of Henry and Louis and expanded on them.

They produced some of the most ‘imitated’ cars ever.

The people with money wanted luxurious and beautiful cars and the designers answered with cars like the one you show.

Variants of design on the basic Model T and Model A is really what they are.

The designers were artists and produced long, low cars that have stood the test of time for beauty.

Hence, cars were designed by people who would have designed the Ford GT in another era.

crowmolly > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/20/2015 at 21:12

0

I was thinking more along the lines of Duesenbergs, Packards, and the like.

When you get into the 50’s-60’s you start to see more shortcuts being taken.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > crowmolly 10/20/2015 at 21:27

1

Right, which is why I was saying my car is fascinating. It’s made with a mindset framed on those older cars, being told to take shortcuts. So the shortcuts being taken are... sometimes longcuts or horribly ill-advised. They literally don’t get making a less fancy or less elegant car - “Americans shouldn’t make a car like X/ without X”. It’s like a china cabinet made out of part-veneered MDF, finished with 8 hand-rubbed coats of cheap poly - it makes. no. sense.

JR1 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 10/20/2015 at 22:01

0

I like how you mentioned the original cars were designed to imagine they could achieve massive speeds. Quite often the designs were extravagant and based off the true marvel of the age, aircraft. Cars were meant to mimic the idea that at any moment they could take flight, swan fenders looking like that of a bird, altimeters to suggest aeronautical engineering, and massive steering wheels that look like they could come right off an airplane propeller.

JR1 > PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power 10/20/2015 at 22:03

0

I cannot. I am not sure I have seen it.

JR1 > MultiplaOrgasms 10/20/2015 at 22:03

0

Body on frame is a great point and probably a big part in the difference of designs.

JR1 > Berang 10/20/2015 at 22:09

0

Great example of the evolution of car design. But I think you are missing some of the key actors from chevy. The basic chevy if optioned up could look like a mini Cadillac V-16

JR1 > ranwhenparked 10/20/2015 at 22:11

0

Custom coach building is likely a big part of it. The lack of chrome was probably a big plus. I cannot imagine a classic with much more chrome that what you see on the grill. Save for a few exceptions from the French oddly enough.

It is unfortunate times have changed so much. I suppose modern cars are safer though which is nice.

JR1 > desertdog5051 10/20/2015 at 22:13

1

Designers and art are two key parts that I think we have lost. Yes some modern cars are beautifully designed but the vision of one man is know the vision of many delegating the task to one designer with server restrictions on artistic license.

ranwhenparked > JR1 10/20/2015 at 22:46

1

Safer, but they’ve lost the elegance. There has to be a way to do both. Even ultra-luxe models from Rolls and Bentley lean more toward over the top ostentation now.

Bill Mitchell probably could handle it, were he still alive.

911e46z06 > JR1 10/20/2015 at 23:05

2

Easy. Lack of regulation. When you don’t have to worry about hitting pedestrians without hurting them, or having the lights be a certain height, or crumple zones, or shit like that, you can make some pretty sweet stuff.

Party-vi > BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. 10/22/2015 at 09:38

0

Narrow?

Party-vi > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/22/2015 at 09:39

0

*banning intensifies*

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > Party-vi 10/22/2015 at 09:41

0

Wait but why?

Party-vi > Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap 10/22/2015 at 09:45

0

Because you aren’t a fan of Art Deco cars.

Kidding, by the way. I’m just a huge pre-war and Duesenberg fan.

Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap > Party-vi 10/22/2015 at 09:51

0

I didn’t think that was a bannable offense.

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > Party-vi 10/22/2015 at 12:33

0

Yes. With modern cars the body hangs over the wheels negating the need for fenders.

Party-vi > BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. 10/22/2015 at 13:08

1

You’re right - with unibody construction we can integrate fenders and the cabin much more efficiently, as opposed to the old way of building the cab and then tacking on fenders. Still, those old cars were enormous.

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > Party-vi 10/22/2015 at 14:03

1

I should be clear that I’m not talking about actual size, I’m talking proportionally.