Hips or Shoulders?
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,645
Likes: 2,511
From: Carnegie, PA
Actually if you look real carefully, the hip is slightly below the beltline/doorline, and not above. At any rate: I definitely say hips too !
Cobra Member
Joined: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Take a look at The recent GM announcement of the 2010 Camaro, which many people say has 'hips'
GM says it has 'shoulders' Shoulders is the proper styling term.
an excerpt:
Design details
...............
Elements such as a forward-V shape at the front of the car and "gills" in the rear quarter panels are distinctly Camaro cues, as are the broad rear fender "shoulders." Those elements make the new Camaro instantly recognizable, but their execution is smoothly integrated into the contemporary exterior form. A family of large, 18-, 19- and 20-inch wheels also contributes to the Camaro's modern appearance.
...............
Elements such as a forward-V shape at the front of the car and "gills" in the rear quarter panels are distinctly Camaro cues, as are the broad rear fender "shoulders." Those elements make the new Camaro instantly recognizable, but their execution is smoothly integrated into the contemporary exterior form. A family of large, 18-, 19- and 20-inch wheels also contributes to the Camaro's modern appearance.
The Challenger also has "Shoulders" in Official description from Chrysler for anyone who cares to look it up.
Cobra Member
Joined: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
The 'hip' if it is to be called that, is below the belt line, and a flaring out of the rear quarter panel. As in the new Camaro. (which also has 'Shoulders")
Needs to be more Astony
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
regardless of GM or Chrysler, cars designed like an animal as wheels instead of legs and the part above rear wheels(legs) would be the hips.
calling those shoulders would not work anitomicaly, shoulders would be over the front wheels.
Other manufactures are just trying to be different then Ford.
calling those shoulders would not work anitomicaly, shoulders would be over the front wheels.
Other manufactures are just trying to be different then Ford.
Cobra Member
Joined: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
regardless of GM or Chrysler, cars designed like an animal as wheels instead of legs and the part above rear wheels(legs) would be the hips.
calling those shoulders would not work anitomicaly, shoulders would be over the front wheels.
Other manufactures are just trying to be different then Ford.
calling those shoulders would not work anitomicaly, shoulders would be over the front wheels.
Other manufactures are just trying to be different then Ford.
You've been shown one direct reference. Ignore it all you like, it doesn't change that this feature is 'Shoulder'
Needs to be more Astony
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
Well the terms were invented somewhere, so i am reinventing it to be anitomically correct, from this day forward they will be only known as Hips.
MOTM Committee Member
Joined: April 17, 2006
Posts: 9,201
Likes: 2
From: SoCal
Cobra Member
Joined: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
There is no 'Invented' about it. If you are going to continue with your anatomical re invention though, you might have to rethink the area you describe as 'belt line' and waist.
Perhaps you can start by writing to the Auto manufacturers of this usage.
Bullitt Member
Joined: April 28, 2008
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
The whole thing is hosed to begin with. If you follow the automakers' terminology, you wind up with the "beltline" ABOVE the "shoulders".
Then there is the reference to vehicles like the older Corvettes, Camaros, Chargers, etc. that were described as "wasp-waisted" because the body was pinched vertically just ahead of the rear wheels. So the "beltline" is 90 degrees off of the "waistline"? Doesn't make sense, either.
It DOES make sense, from an anthropomorphic perspective, that if one envisions the four wheels as the "feet", as in a four-legged animal, the "shoulders" would refer to the front fenders and the "hips" would refer to the rear fenders. However, the "beltline" is still illogical in that configuration. Still, one can only go so far comparing a vehicle to an animal.
So I go with Knight; they're "hips" in any logical comparison to a living entity, no matter what the manufacturers say...
Then there is the reference to vehicles like the older Corvettes, Camaros, Chargers, etc. that were described as "wasp-waisted" because the body was pinched vertically just ahead of the rear wheels. So the "beltline" is 90 degrees off of the "waistline"? Doesn't make sense, either.
It DOES make sense, from an anthropomorphic perspective, that if one envisions the four wheels as the "feet", as in a four-legged animal, the "shoulders" would refer to the front fenders and the "hips" would refer to the rear fenders. However, the "beltline" is still illogical in that configuration. Still, one can only go so far comparing a vehicle to an animal.
So I go with Knight; they're "hips" in any logical comparison to a living entity, no matter what the manufacturers say...
Cobra Member
Joined: October 27, 2007
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
The whole thing is hosed to begin with. If you follow the automakers' terminology, you wind up with the "beltline" ABOVE the "shoulders".
Then there is the reference to vehicles like the older Corvettes, Camaros, Chargers, etc. that were described as "wasp-waisted" because the body was pinched vertically just ahead of the rear wheels. So the "beltline" is 90 degrees off of the "waistline"? Doesn't make sense, either.
It DOES make sense, from an anthropomorphic perspective, that if one envisions the four wheels as the "feet", as in a four-legged animal, the "shoulders" would refer to the front fenders and the "hips" would refer to the rear fenders. However, the "beltline" is still illogical in that configuration. Still, one can only go so far comparing a vehicle to an animal.
So I go with Knight; they're "hips" in any logical comparison to a living entity, no matter what the manufacturers say...
Then there is the reference to vehicles like the older Corvettes, Camaros, Chargers, etc. that were described as "wasp-waisted" because the body was pinched vertically just ahead of the rear wheels. So the "beltline" is 90 degrees off of the "waistline"? Doesn't make sense, either.
It DOES make sense, from an anthropomorphic perspective, that if one envisions the four wheels as the "feet", as in a four-legged animal, the "shoulders" would refer to the front fenders and the "hips" would refer to the rear fenders. However, the "beltline" is still illogical in that configuration. Still, one can only go so far comparing a vehicle to an animal.
So I go with Knight; they're "hips" in any logical comparison to a living entity, no matter what the manufacturers say...
The beltline isn't.
