Thread: Just curious...

Tweet

I have been following the numerous threads relating to the Rat Rod topic as I find the whole concept... "Interesting". There is a fellow here in Brewster, WA selling his '30 Ford and I am curious what the opinion would be on this car, "Rat Rod" or "Traditional Hot Rod". I am attaching a picture and would really like some honest opinions on this because as I said... I'm just curious

Thanks - Greg

The car is being sold on Northwest Classic Auto Mall
www.northwestclassicautomall.com if you would like to see more of it (and no, I do not have any selling interest in this car).

Here's another shot of it to maybe help formulate your opinion...

Too me it's definately a traditional car.

There are a couple of things I see that would keep it from being an era correct car (alernator. thin white wall radials, and from what little bit I can tell the steering column).

I'm not picking the car apart, overall it's a nice looking car. It just boils down to how we define things.

Yep, I agree. It is a traditionally STYLED hot rod, because of it's Deuce grille shell, flatmotor, etc., but with modern touches like alternator, column, etc.

Nothing wrong with that. But a purist would say it needed old time components to make it CORRECT to the period. My '27 is done the same way, old looking styling, but modern drivetrain for reliability.

Not a rat though, finished a little too well, with different approach to the final appearance.

Hmmmm. Guess I would classify it as very nicely done, just needs paint IMO.

THIS on the other hand, IS a rat rod, in my opinion. (Maybe not really fair to the name rat rod, because this one is actually a barn fresh car, but it has the general flavor of the genre'.)

Hmmmmm. Gues I would have to classify that one as loaded with potential!!!! Do you suppose that is a real steel body???? Wish it was mine. !!!!!!

I bet it is steel. Supposedly it just came out of the barn after lots of year storage, and all the other stuff on the car seems to be from that era, so I think it is. Whatever though, it is still cool.

Don, the picture you posted is interesting, and may be one of the reasons there can be so much debate about rat rods.

It would be really intresting to have a little history about the car, primarirly when it was built and when it was parked.

I think the only way it could be classified as shown in the picture is "as found" or the current term.... barn fresh.

Now for ME, it would depend on the quality of the original work, and what the curent owner decided to do with it.

Heres an example, assuming the car has been sitting for a considerable amount of time, and the new owner decided to throw air/new tubes in the dry rotted tires, some brake fluid in the master cylinder, didn't do anything about leaking seals potentiually bad brake lines etc, then yes I would classify it as a rat rod.

On the other hand if the minimum amount of effort was expended on safety items and road worthyness checks, it would definatly be a time capsul/era correct car.

Man what a neat project.

You have a point, now that I look at it, the car does lean toward old style rather than rat. I was scrambling to find a car that sort of fit the category, and it was the first one I found.

BUT, here is where the rat rodders take offense.........not all rat rods have dryrotted tires, leaking seals, and bad brakes. Some do, I've seen that crap too, but this the kind of generalization that makes them come on here with a chip. Like the one rat rodder said, he has built some really nice cars, worked at some garages, etc. He knows how to turn wrenches. To lump him in with the crowd who thinks a car has to be held together with coat hangers, hurts their feelings and their pride in their cars.

I fall into that category. I just choose to call this latest project a rat. I started out with that premise, am doing some unorthodox things (wrench shifter, untraditional styling, patina on some pieces, etc.) but it will be built like a tank, and dependable. To me it will be a rat, but someone else may have a different name for it.

Although some of this back and forth rat talk seems boring and useless to some, maybe it is good, and the two camps will start moving toward a common center. Every car owner/builder just wants others to appreciate his efforts for what it is. Without insults, criticism, and hurt feelings. After all who out there hasn't looked at other cars and said "I wouldn't have done it that way"? But we never would think of saying to the owners face.

I'm not one of the fans of tuner imports, either, but I have to respect the fact that he or she is interested in cars rather than some other path, like drugs, and those cars are their generations '32 Ford.

Like I quoted before from Rodney King...............

This is kind of a rehash of the definition thing that's been ongoing pretty hot and heavy for the last month or so. Maybe this thread can at least get the 2 points of view across (hey, it could happen )

Just a brief rehash of what I've said before.............

For MYSELF (and I suspect more than a couple of other here) what defines a rat rod IS poor workmanship, safety issues and wether the car is road worthy or not......... IF THE CAR DOES NOT HAVE ISSUES IN THOSE AREAS, to ME at least it's NOT a rat rod....... and would fall into some other catagory based on body style, modifications, time frame the builder is trying to capture etc.

My icon picture is my 37 Dodge (which is currently back burnered). The picture was taken during the mockup stage. When I get back to it, it will eventually try to capture the FEEL of something build during early/mid 60's. Like Don's project there are going to be some concessions (IFS, disc brakes and a latter steering column) that will keep it from being era correct. I can't bring myself NOT to redo the paint, but thats me.

One route I could have taken with it would have been to leave the body/paint/interior as it was when I got it. The frame would still be boxed, brakes/tires new, and all the work done correctly. I reasise that by doing that MANY people would classify it as a Rat Rod, but im my mind it would be going for an "as found" STYLE.

While I could re-think my definition and expand it to include Rat Rod STYLE cars, the basis for the definition I use is an unsafe vechile (no matter the style)....how do you make something look unsafe without it being unsafe ???

Greg, as often happens I'm pretty much on the same wave length as Mike, and Dave for that matter(on car issues anyway ). When it comes to the car I'm pretty close to Don. That car you pictured looks to be a coupe or sport coupe cut down to look like a roadster which was not uncommon "back in the day", at least where the weather or personal insanity motivated. A lot of traditional style guys don't like the rat term because it's not intended to be complimentary, at least in it's origins. Ratty is...............well, ratty! This car is pretty tidy in a traditional theme. I think this represents what a majority of the folks that consider their car a traditional style are doing. They're building something that catches the flavor of the '50's or even '60's, but have incorporated a few "convenience" items such as alternators, and maybe even tilt columns.

Don, you must be a very kind man. Personally I think you're cutting some of these guys way too much slack. This forum is a virtual social environment. People with reasonable social behavior fit in, those without prove to be a problem...........not really much different than if this were a brick and mortar club house. I'll give some abreviated examples to support why I think you can't lump all the ratters together as "misunderstood" guys. If you look at the posts of detroit casket, hotroddaddy, and yourself (after your one misunderstanding about access) you each are willing to participate in give and take without getting snotty about it. In your own case you posted some mild anger about a misperception you had. Myself and a couple others engaged in "conversation" with you and you settled down and have been a good contributor (an important factor) since. The other boys had similar experience.

The other side of the coin is the type that comes on like an acre of garlic from the get-go, and seems to relish that method. No amount of concilitory discussion seems to satisfy them. I usually give them one, maybe two chances to settle down, then, if they don't, I hit the ignore feature. Life's too short to put up with the antics of these malcontents, and one of life's sad lessons has been that if they're that persistent at working to piss people off, you're not going to change them. I watched with some humor yesterday as Dave, Mike, you, and others tried to reason with one of them. Since I've got the guy on ignore I don't waste any time reading his blather, but could tell by the responses that the anti-social approach he took in his first half dozen posts hasn't changed. During the past week there were a couple others whose first posts were full of hate. You believe their feelings are hurt, I believe they like getting attention by causing trouble. It's probably how they've lived most of their life. It's about choices, you can get attention by helping and working with others, or you can get attention by pissing them off. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

Some very true words from all of you. Maybe there are some of the ones out there who just want to pick a fight and be in your face. But I always try to see the other guys perspective, that is how I learn and grow.

I equate it to the biker who pulls in looking like the current President of the Hells Angels chapter in your neighborhood. First thoughts are "Oh s***, here comes trouble." But when you get talking to him you find out he has two kids, a mortgage, and the same goals and aspirations as you do. And he is really a nice guy.

Bob, you make another great point. The reason I like this forum so much is that you could let your Grandmother read it, and there would be nothing offensive in it. The contributors try to keep the language and comments to an acceptable level. I'm certainly no prude, and pepper some of my conversations with some 4 letter words, but some of the forums seem to think if you aren't using the F word in every other sentence you aren't cool. I see none of that here, and it is really refreshing.

Mike, Donsrods and Bob,

As I read through your posts, I see quite a few different parameters that you each use to define a "rat".

Era, patina, mechanical correctness, safety issues or mechanical soundness, unusual components, unorthadox styling, the attitude of the builder, and others.

It would seem to me that a rat rod would actually be defined by those items that affect the appearance. Otherwise, a boyd Coddington car with a bald tire, a high-end custom owned by a millionaire with an ego problem, the "skull car" '34 coupe seen on this sight, and any other typical hot rod, with a bad weld, an incorrect driveshaft angle, or an unsafe wire connection, are all rat rods.

I would ask if you would all agree that the flat finishes, patina, intentionally incomplete cosmetics, unusually extreme styling, non automotive components (blankets, road signs, tuna cans, etc.)and unusual vintage parts, used in combination, would loosely fit everybody's "rat" criteria?

If so, then generally we could agree on a broad definition of what fits into the rat rod genre.

In a nutshell....a rat rod looks like a hot rod built by vagrants, transients, and homeless persons! :-)~...........at least that's my impression.

P.S. Those who take offense to this, probably see the rat rod as some sort of anti-establishment statement anyway, and built theirs just so they could irritate onlookers, and prove they are a true rebel, by getting "in their face"! :-)

I still think if everyone would switch over the the "classification" system for cars that I proposed on a different thread the controversy would be over. Only 3 "classes" for Hot Rods:

Show
Go
Both

See, now wouldn't that be easy???? Nothing to argue about at all!!!!