For Gary

Morning Gary
Sorry I had to leave so abruply yesterday, I was enjoying the exchange. My REAL life got in the way..!

Everything I presented to you is based on actual history and facts that can be substantiated. It was the time and era that dictated the design and style.

Most of your retorts were based on opinion, yours, which you are certainty entitled to.

Do some research on automotive design from the end of world war II. It's fastenating and you may gain a better understanding of the what & how of automotive styling.
 
bluefury361 said:
Morning Gary
Sorry I had to leave so abruply yesterday, I was enjoying the exchange. My REAL life got in the way..!

Everything I presented to you is based on actual history and facts that can be substantiated. It was the time and era that dictated the design and style.

Most of your retorts were based on opinion, yours, which you are certainty entitled to.

Do some research on automotive design from the end of world war II. It's fastenating and you may gain a better understanding of the what & how of automotive styling.
Click to expand...
Not sure what historical facts you are referring to, except for the fact that the public bought lots of fin cars (which does not make it good design). The only part I completely disagreed with you on is when you tried to infer fins on the automobiles of the days were there for aerodynamic reasons, that they required "stabilizers" whether directly or indirectly. Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

"The automotive reference term for those horizontal fins is .... stablizers. Thats also the term Chrysler used to describe the fins on their 57's and later cars. There was no wind tunnel tests in that era but Nascar racers claimed the vertical fins were somewhat effective for side force, but the horizontal fins ..... not so much. In fact they tended to provide more "lift" then downforce".

Not one bit of it had anything to do with aerodynamics......as in an apparatus utilize to promote added stability at high speeder. It was a facade. A 58' Desoto needs to be aerodynamically sound fins as to cheat the wind because the cost of gasoline was really high at an astonishing 24 or 25 cents per gallon...it makes economic sense.. Really?

Virgil Exner, Chuck Jordan and the rest of the crew were all following a fad. Fins equated to dollar signs. Nothing wrong with that, they're in the business of selling cars, why would they not utilize as many tricks possible to sell cars. So thus again we can see that fins were all about style, kitch, it was a way to sell more cars to the public.

Good design is timeless, which is why fins are long gone. That's not my opinion (in fact I've never once inferred any personal opinions). Look around..see any 50's type fins on any American automobile these days? I'm not saying fins were bad, and certainly not saying they are good. Just calling it the way it is. They were stylin', not good design. The two are absolutely not the same. Chop the fins off the 60' Caddy and it will make no difference in operation.
 
polara71 said:
Of course but they look great!
Click to expand...
There is one "designed" item that's been around for a very long time, that you see everyday, that makes your life infinitely better, but hardly realize it even when its right in front of you.
 
[QUOTE=70NPORT;129197]Not sure what historical facts you are referring to.
they required "stabilizers" whether directly or indirectly. QUOTE]

No one but you said the "stabilizers" were required.

Here is a quote directly from Chryslers own 1957 marketing/sales division ....

"The 300C had a low stance, unique grille, large windshield, front door vent windows, and a red, white, and blue emblem with the 300C logo (no hood ornament was used). Twin backup lights were perched above large tail lamps. Tail fins - or rear stabilizers, as Chrysler called them - reportedly increased stability at high speeds, resulting in 20% fewer steering corrections in cross-winds.

Original is at The 1957 Chrysler 300C letter cars http://www.allpar.com/cars/chrysler-300c.html#ixzz2pN8EzjQJ
Follow us: @allparcom on Twitter | allparcom on Facebook​


 
bluefury361 said:
Like I said Gary ... I can provide facts. So far all you've provided is opinion.
Click to expand...
Yes Wil I've only provided my own opinion. Perhaps you can supply empirical data and/or solid engineering experimentation and analysis results (which of course designers would have referred to before setting pencil to paper) supporting why those aerodynamic tail fins and bullet lights where slapped on car bodies....rather than relying on flimsy information from the company marketing department. C'mon Wil, really? You of all people should know better than that.

and when ya gonna answer my first question?
 
Last edited:
Well to be honest I think I've pretty much proved my point in a logical and rational way without resorting to hearsay or position based on emotional content. So if big *** fins and bullet lights are what you would call "good design", why are they not still on cars?.

I'd really think about my answer.
 
70NPORT said:
Well to be honest I think I've pretty much proved my point.

So if big *** fins and bullet lights are what you would call "good design", why are they not still on cars?. QUOTE]
Click to expand...
70NPORT said:
Standing up and stating that "big *** fins and bullet lights are not good design because you don't like them", is not much of a point Gary.

They are no longer on cars for the same reason there are no running boards, kerosene lights or trunk racks. Time goes on and things change. Dosen't mean it was a bad idea in it's time.

Let me ask you this ..... Why do men have nipples ....?
Click to expand...
 
Whenever I get stuck in the quagmire of dicussions like this where two sides argue over why something was or is, I can end the debate in my mind every time by looking at the present state the world is in and I realize that people have always been stupid and always will be.

Why was that period of auto design so, ummm... extreme? Because a butterfly flapped its wings in Africa. That's as valid as any other because one can not prove otherwise.

Posted via Topify on Android
 
Last edited:
bluefury361 said:
70NPORT said:
Well to be honest I think I've pretty much proved my point.

So if big *** fins and bullet lights are what you would call "good design", why are they not still on cars?. QUOTE]
Click to expand...
70NPORT said:
Standing up and stating that "big *** fins and bullet lights are not good design because you don't like them", is not much of a point Gary.

They are no longer on cars for the same reason there are no running boards, kerosene lights or trunk racks. Time goes on and things change. Dosen't mean it was a bad idea in it's time.

Let me ask you this ..... Why do men have nipples ....?
Click to expand...
Those running boards, trunk racks, and kerosene lights had singular obvious functions. The lights are STILL around (in improved forms), so one could say that/they are a VERY good design concept (obviously, or you could not see during night time driving). The wheel is also good design, it is useful in many different ways.

I'm afraid your gonna tell me anyways, so just why do men have nipples?
Click to expand...
 
commando1 said:
Whenever I get stuck in the quagmire of dicussions like this where two sides argue over why something was or is, I can end the debate in my mind every time by looking at the present state the world is in and I realize that people have always been stupid and always will be.

Why was that period of auto design so, ummm... extreme? Because a butterfly flapped its wings in Africa. That's as valid as any other because one can not prove otherwise.

Posted via Topify on Android
Click to expand...
Hey, it was not I who initiated this. I believe it was someone from Detroit who started all this, of course. I was just minding my own business like always.
 
There's a few timeless designs, not so much in automotive design though, but I don't think that's the only pleasant design, would make things rather boring. Fins were a fashion, clearly stated by Exner himself who is cited as saying bottom line "we're doing fins as long till we think of something better", doesn't make them bad IMHO and the way of development from 1948 Cadillac to 1957 Chrysler was a steady optical imporvement, so even there was some continuity up until the early 60s, Cadillac had some traces even in the late 70s and was leading sales in this price class.
 
Last edited:
cm23uoc said:
There's a few timeless designs, not so much in automotive design though, but I don't think that's the only pleasant design, would make things rather boring. Fins were a fashion, clearly stated by Exner himself who is cited as saying bottom line "we're doing fins as long till we think of something better", doesn't make them bad IMHO and the way of development from 1948 Cadillac to 1957 Chrysler was a steady optical imporvement, so even there was some continuity up until the early 60s, Cadillac had some traces even in the late 70s and was leading sales in this price class.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I hate fins with a dogmatic passion, it is a pet peeve. Nonetheless, I also know many have fond memories of that era which include fin cars. I respect that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

crv
NOT MINE 1968 LeBaron $6K
Replies
0
Views
550
crv
crv
Polara_500_Jr
HELP Identifying wheel covers/hubcaps
Replies
11
Views
696
Polara_500_Jr
Polara_500_Jr
N
Is there a catalog of fuselage year photos showing the front and rear ends for every make, model, trim, and year?
Replies
7
Views
608
ceebuddy
ceebuddy
R
  • Locked
WANTED 1966 Fury III Driver front fender horseshoe trim/molding
Replies
1
Views
580
fury fan
fury fan
Captainfury
Last electrical question for today( circuit diagrams sending me cross eyed !)
Replies
6
Views
535
72DL41
72DL41
Back
Top