2002maniac wrote: I thought the original car was tacky and annoying. This is obnoxiously awesome.
Yes^
Also, the chopped version was the last one. It's first iteration was a slammed black show car before the fire.
2002maniac wrote: I thought the original car was tacky and annoying. This is obnoxiously awesome.
Yes^
Also, the chopped version was the last one. It's first iteration was a slammed black show car before the fire.
I really like it but needs paint. When I become President shiny paint will become a requirement on anything not chromed.
You would chrome an Sr-71?
In reply to Appleseed:
Chrome does make you faster.
In reply to Appleseed:
A deep gloss black would work too.
why they created a huge opening to the rear tires, I have no clue. Max tire drag right there.
-Henry
Sure, there are a few opportunities for improvement. But from what I can see, overall it's exceptionally well executed and has the appropriate combination of ingenuity, technical specifications, and craftsmanship. Enough so that it has me thinking all sorts of illicit thoughts along these lines, some of which even include the molestation of Robbie's V12 powered aristocrat...Thankfully for my marriage, such things aren't even an option in the foreseeable future.
As much as I love them, professional racecars (including the Group 5 cars) are/were also ultimately just promotional tools whose only real purpose is/was to attract attention. Thus I personally don't see the point in automatically putting them up on a pedestal over all others as some kind of be-all and end-all of high performance automotive enthusiasm.
The only thing I've never liked about rusty was camber. The gold ronals, ultra slammed, multiple engine swaps, all of it. Love that E36 M3. Personally I'm a little sad to see that all Mike did was go for oversisized basket weaves with this run. I'd think 1552 or someone would sponsor a set of something ridiculous for this build
Chris_V wrote: the car was burned to the ground, so the "patina" that's on it is real rust from real flames. It's creative in that it's a different kind of car than you would see, done up in a sort of Mad Max world, old fighter plane style. Or, instead of just another rat rod, it's the ethos applied to a group 5 car that never was. I think it's cool as hell. ANYONE can bolt aftermarket parts on a car, it takes being creative to look at a burned out hulk of a 4 door 5 series lowrider and see a off beat, whimsical Group 5 racecar and then actually BUILD it.
An American fighter plane, at that. At least they couple pretend it was German.
And I question the "creativity" of letting the car look like a burnt out hulk. Especially when the inside of the car is finished really well. What is that supposed to stand for? If there were soot stains left inside or under the hood, and the engine (while running) was covered with fire damage- it would make more sense. As it stands now, it's easy think that the car was stripped as opposed to burnt. And the themes are quite conflicting and confusing.
For a car that's not a race car. What does it all supposed to mean?
alfadriver wrote: For a car that's not a race car. What does it all supposed to mean?
Stance br0.
Honestly, if the stance trend becomes emulating old racecars, I'm okay with that. Sort of an "awareness" thing.
It's a show car, what does it need to "stand for"? What does your Miata "stand for"? I'm Not poking you I'm just trying TO figure out why some cars bring out these positions.
unevolved wrote: Honestly, if the stance trend becomes emulating old racecars, I'm okay with that.
Oh, great. Incredibly weak and dangerous "style cages" make a comeback. Not saying Mike's car is like that, but all the stancetards will want them.
chandlerGTi wrote: It's a show car, what does it need to "stand for"? What does your Miata "stand for"? I'm Not poking you I'm just trying TO figure out why some cars bring out these positions.
Since this isn't a real car, it's theoretically art. That's why people (like me) think it should have some kind of meaning.
(it's not a street car, it's not a race car, it's a show car- which means art)
Just so you know, the British were the first to paint the shark mouths on P-40s. The AVG (Flying Tigers) openly admitted copying them.
In reply to Appleseed:
None of which were German.
In reply to alfadriver:
Why does art have to mean anything?
I could be looking at a Picasso and it doesn't mean anything at all to me. It's just paint on canvas, not useful in any way for anything.
Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Why does art have to mean anything? I could be looking at a Picasso and it doesn't mean anything at all to me. It's just paint on canvas, not useful in any way for anything.
It means that you can not like it as much as you like it. We are allowed to see what we see, and not expect others to see it.
For this car- I see a lot of conflicted messages that don't make sense.
If you don't- that's fine.
But generally, art does mean something to the maker. Otherwise, they would not put that kind of effort into it. Otherwise, it would just be crafts.
Not much in life actually fits into neatly defined little boxes, like "street car", "race car", and "show car". In my opinion, sporting cars are defined by a spectrum. On one end, are completely non-functioning concept cars. On the other, are the heyday of Can-Am cars. Beyond that, everything thing else is merely shades of grey.
Maybe part of why I 'get it' is because my vintage-inspired-modern-performance project is to include similarly "conflicted messages", and will neither fully be a race car, show car, or street car. But will rather combine various elements of all three...Or maybe part of why my project is being built with such "conflicted messages" is because I 'get it'. Kind of a chicken and the egg thing, I guess. Either way, apparently I am somewhat drawn to paradoxical creativity.
I like it. The whole thing is just nuts. However, if you want a really good idea of a car with no berkeleys to give, check out Mighty Car Mods's cheap golf, or any of Corbin Goodwin's creations.
It's a show car. It exists to be looked at. I think it's cool to look at. That's enough for me to be happy that it exists.
I see form over function trying to look like function over form. That confuses me.
I'm no expert, but I also see nothing in the pictures that would prohibit this from being any less at home terrorizing pedigreed sports cars on a racetrack, than it is drawing spectators at SEMA. Which I believe might just be the 'artistic message' it's trying to convey: "Berkely your preconceived notions."
Its built to be "cool" to a certain person/crowd, doesn't have to be functional/artistic/racecar or fit your definition of what any of those things are or should be. Some guy built it because that's what he wanted. Good for him.
I kind of like it, but personally think it feels a bit contrived. Dig the general concept, but would execute differently I guess you could say.
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Appleseed: None of which were German.
Feel better? 
Isn't complaining about this car no different than the complaining that shadowed this car by Dobbertin?
They're really works of craft meant to illustrate the builders ideas. Nothing more. Your reaction to them says more about you than the cars or the builders.
You'll need to log in to post.
