Purists (Functional vs. Non)
3/12/07, 07:41 AM
#41
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
So you are saying that NOTHING should be added to any car that is not functional by your definition of such?? (does your car have a spoiler, fake gas cap in the rear, mirror inserts, etc)You act as if anyone that doesn't share your thoughts is wrong?? Not so. No one, (or at least no one I know) is pretending that their window scoops, door scoops or even hood scoops for that matter are functional as described by you. If they are then they are definitely wrong, although the shaker does provide a source of cold air it really doesn't improve performance. Most people add these (myself included) because they feel it improves the cars appearance.
I have no problem with people putting GT500 fascias, GT/CS chins or rear fascias, etc on their car, or changing spoilers or anything that makes the car look like something that it isn't as long as they don't try to play it off as what its not.
This is purely an opinion on what one believes, it doesn't make the other side wrong, just different and that is what makes this world great.
And breast implants are great
I have no problem with people putting GT500 fascias, GT/CS chins or rear fascias, etc on their car, or changing spoilers or anything that makes the car look like something that it isn't as long as they don't try to play it off as what its not.
This is purely an opinion on what one believes, it doesn't make the other side wrong, just different and that is what makes this world great.
And breast implants are great
3/12/07, 08:16 AM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
First, nowhere is it written that function is solely a property of performance. You have style function, economy function, comfort function etc, as well as performance function. I'm a 60s child, 13 when the Mustang debuted. I'm a hot rodder. Hot rodding comes in all different facets. To me no where is there a more beautiful Mustang than the 67 Shelby, with the fake quarter and side scoops. It had the look! I'm not bothered by hood scoops, side scoops, body kits, 20 inch wheels, fart can muffeled godzilla winged ricers, or Stereo systems that cost more than the cars I see some people driving.
The absolutely, positively glorious thing about cars is you can individualize them. That what hot rodding is all about being unique.
I dont want a rice car, but have no problem with those who do. Many young people get in them because they available and affordable, much like my first car, a 56, Chevy, like my dad's first car, an old Hudson Hornet. Personally I dont need anything more than my shaker 500 stereo. I dont need 18, 19 or 20 inch wheels. I dont need wings. Lots of body kits out there I dont care for. I dont care for the Lemans stripes on my Mustang. I've no need for nitrious, blowers or turbos.
I do like my 67 Shelby styled hood scoop and CDC classis front spoiler. I would like to be able to fit 16 inch wheels with 60 series redline tires on my GT. I love the sequential signal lights, and blacked out tail panel. One of these days I'll get a ducktail spoiler more to my liking than the stock spoiler
BUT, its all good because we are all individuals with different tastes. I'm just glad hot rodding is still around after all these years. I'm glad way back there people weren't afraid to be different with their cars. The only thing I dont like about cars and what people do to them is the attitude of someone putting them down because the dont agree with what they have done.
Long live hot rodding.
The absolutely, positively glorious thing about cars is you can individualize them. That what hot rodding is all about being unique.
I dont want a rice car, but have no problem with those who do. Many young people get in them because they available and affordable, much like my first car, a 56, Chevy, like my dad's first car, an old Hudson Hornet. Personally I dont need anything more than my shaker 500 stereo. I dont need 18, 19 or 20 inch wheels. I dont need wings. Lots of body kits out there I dont care for. I dont care for the Lemans stripes on my Mustang. I've no need for nitrious, blowers or turbos.
I do like my 67 Shelby styled hood scoop and CDC classis front spoiler. I would like to be able to fit 16 inch wheels with 60 series redline tires on my GT. I love the sequential signal lights, and blacked out tail panel. One of these days I'll get a ducktail spoiler more to my liking than the stock spoiler
BUT, its all good because we are all individuals with different tastes. I'm just glad hot rodding is still around after all these years. I'm glad way back there people weren't afraid to be different with their cars. The only thing I dont like about cars and what people do to them is the attitude of someone putting them down because the dont agree with what they have done.
Long live hot rodding.
3/12/07, 08:22 AM
#43
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
3/12/07, 08:30 AM
#44
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Good point. This is from the "Form Follows Function" school of aesthetics and it is rational. The opposing school could be called "Beauty As An End In Itself." An extreme example of the former school is the Scion Xbox: a purely utilitarian look. An extreme example of the latter school is the Lamborghini Countach: a dizzying display of ducts, scoops, wings & spoilers.
To stay within the context of the Mustang, this car is inexpensive and thus fully functional body implements are beyond its price range. So really, Mustang enthusiasts have the choice of a plain exterior or non-functional add-ons: spoilers, scoops, louvers, caps, wings, diffusers, etc. Personally, I like the mix of plain & adorned Mustangs; if all Mustangs had plain hoods, trunks & side panels, they would be a bit too monotonous IMO.
To stay within the context of the Mustang, this car is inexpensive and thus fully functional body implements are beyond its price range. So really, Mustang enthusiasts have the choice of a plain exterior or non-functional add-ons: spoilers, scoops, louvers, caps, wings, diffusers, etc. Personally, I like the mix of plain & adorned Mustangs; if all Mustangs had plain hoods, trunks & side panels, they would be a bit too monotonous IMO.
3/12/07, 08:37 AM
#46
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
I'm still waiting for a list of functional items vs. non-functional items. Anyone? Some things have been pointed out, like the fake gas cap, etc.
Oh, and another thing! If you were given the option of having two cars: one bing a stock 07 GT (no scoop), and a CS with GT appearance package...both for the exact same price...which one would you take?
Oh, and another thing! If you were given the option of having two cars: one bing a stock 07 GT (no scoop), and a CS with GT appearance package...both for the exact same price...which one would you take?
3/12/07, 01:03 PM
#47
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 5, 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of body add-ons, it's pretty easy to categorize them as functional or not. However with creature comforts, it becomes more subjective.
For instance, I envision my Mustang to be a near "pure" grand touring car. So things like a/c and a CD player add to my purpose of a comfortable high performance car.
I made my choice. I didn't choose the GT over the CS because of $$$.
3/12/07, 01:42 PM
#49
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps to better define the argument, let's let "functional" mean solely in terms of performance rather than in terms of aesthetics. Sure, I pink fiberglass elephant glued to your hood would have a stylistic "function," but I think that is just confusing the gist of this discussion, which is using real vs fake performance items to develop and convey a particular look.
<o></o>
And again, this is very distinct from clearly and plainly purely stylistic elements such as a hood stripe, which never pretend or imply to be anything more than a purely aesthetic hood stripe.
<o>
</o> These fake hood scoops are quite obviously trying to pass of as the real thing, whether overtly stated or not, in order to give the false impression of a performance enhancement that simply is not there, regardless of whatever real performance a car might otherwise possess. Fake hood scoops, even if you do manage to pull the wool over someone’s eyes, do come at some cost to the stylistic integrity and honesty of a car.
<o></o>
Many obviously don’t seem to care, that the “badazz” façade achieved through automotive trompe-l'œil is enough, regardless of what deleterious effect such visual falsehoods might have on a car’s stylistic integrity and credibility.
<o></o>
Perhaps some feel that if they have enough “real” performance, they can fudge a be bit fuzzy on the performance image after some point.
<o></o>
On the other side of this discussion, there are others who do strive for a deeper level of visual honesty and integrity in their stylistic efforts. This group wants to have whatever image their car conveys to be 100% backed up by the real substance implied by each and every “functional” performance elements added.
<o></o>
If being a “purist” in this sense then means to be scrupulously honest in even the implied connotations of one’s styling choices and visual modifications, then that seems to be a fine goal to strive for.
<o></o>
Anyway, again, anyone is free to do with their ride what makes’ em happy and of course we can all share thoughts, ideas and, yes, opinions, even quite frank ones, on what all we do. But then, that’s they whole point of a discussion forum anyway and perhaps we and the Stangs will all be the better for it in the end.
<o></o>
And again, this is very distinct from clearly and plainly purely stylistic elements such as a hood stripe, which never pretend or imply to be anything more than a purely aesthetic hood stripe.
<o>
</o> These fake hood scoops are quite obviously trying to pass of as the real thing, whether overtly stated or not, in order to give the false impression of a performance enhancement that simply is not there, regardless of whatever real performance a car might otherwise possess. Fake hood scoops, even if you do manage to pull the wool over someone’s eyes, do come at some cost to the stylistic integrity and honesty of a car.
<o></o>
Many obviously don’t seem to care, that the “badazz” façade achieved through automotive trompe-l'œil is enough, regardless of what deleterious effect such visual falsehoods might have on a car’s stylistic integrity and credibility.
<o></o>
Perhaps some feel that if they have enough “real” performance, they can fudge a be bit fuzzy on the performance image after some point.
<o></o>
On the other side of this discussion, there are others who do strive for a deeper level of visual honesty and integrity in their stylistic efforts. This group wants to have whatever image their car conveys to be 100% backed up by the real substance implied by each and every “functional” performance elements added.
<o></o>
If being a “purist” in this sense then means to be scrupulously honest in even the implied connotations of one’s styling choices and visual modifications, then that seems to be a fine goal to strive for.
<o></o>
Anyway, again, anyone is free to do with their ride what makes’ em happy and of course we can all share thoughts, ideas and, yes, opinions, even quite frank ones, on what all we do. But then, that’s they whole point of a discussion forum anyway and perhaps we and the Stangs will all be the better for it in the end.
3/12/07, 01:52 PM
#50
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think the Stang is a fairly practical car and certainly a good compromise between practicality and performance as compared to a more pure sports car, which is part of the attraction of a sport coupe. Wouldn't mind a few notches up on either the practicality front (hatchback) or the performance front (IRS, 6-speed, Jag 5.0 if the recent questionaire is an accurate hint of the future Stang), or even the general safety and function front (HIDs, real sport seats).
The Lotus Elise actually seem to come fairly close to a purely "functional" performance car, at least one you can slap a license tag on, and has pretty incredible performance for it, even if its a pretty raw ride (think four wheeled motorcycle).
The Lotus Elise actually seem to come fairly close to a purely "functional" performance car, at least one you can slap a license tag on, and has pretty incredible performance for it, even if its a pretty raw ride (think four wheeled motorcycle).
3/12/07, 01:59 PM
#51
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 5, 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No...all I was saying is that the measure of how practical a vehicle is has nothing to do with this conversation. Formula One racers are among the most impractical vehicles on the planet, but they are also among the purest.
3/12/07, 01:59 PM
#52
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Perhaps to better define the argument, let's let "functional" mean solely in terms of performance rather than in terms of aesthetics. Sure, I pink fiberglass elephant glued to your hood would have a stylistic "function," but I think that is just confusing the gist of this discussion, which is using real vs fake performance items to develop and convey a particular look.
<O></O>
And again, this is very distinct from clearly and plainly purely stylistic elements such as a hood stripe, which never pretend or imply to be anything more than a purely aesthetic hood stripe.
<O>
</O>These fake hood scoops are quite obviously trying to pass of as the real thing, whether overtly stated or not, in order to give the false impression of a performance enhancement that simply is not there, regardless of whatever real performance a car might otherwise possess. Fake hood scoops, even if you do manage to pull the wool over someone’s eyes, do come at some cost to the stylistic integrity and honesty of a car.
<O></O>
Many obviously don’t seem to care, that the “badazz†façade achieved through automotive trompe-l'œil is enough, regardless of what deleterious effect such visual falsehoods might have on a car’s stylistic integrity and credibility.
<O></O>
Perhaps some feel that if they have enough “real†performance, they can fudge a be bit fuzzy on the performance image after some point.
<O></O>
On the other side of this discussion, there are others who do strive for a deeper level of visual honesty and integrity in their stylistic efforts. This group wants to have whatever image their car conveys to be 100% backed up by the real substance implied by each and every “functional†performance elements added.
<O></O>
If being a “purist†in this sense then means to be scrupulously honest in even the implied connotations of one’s styling choices and visual modifications, then that seems to be a fine goal to strive for.
<O></O>
Anyway, again, anyone is free to do with their ride what makes’ em happy and of course we can all share thoughts, ideas and, yes, opinions, even quite frank ones, on what all we do. But then, that’s they whole point of a discussion forum anyway and perhaps we and the Stangs will all be the better for it in the end.
<O></O>
And again, this is very distinct from clearly and plainly purely stylistic elements such as a hood stripe, which never pretend or imply to be anything more than a purely aesthetic hood stripe.
<O>
</O>These fake hood scoops are quite obviously trying to pass of as the real thing, whether overtly stated or not, in order to give the false impression of a performance enhancement that simply is not there, regardless of whatever real performance a car might otherwise possess. Fake hood scoops, even if you do manage to pull the wool over someone’s eyes, do come at some cost to the stylistic integrity and honesty of a car.
<O></O>
Many obviously don’t seem to care, that the “badazz†façade achieved through automotive trompe-l'œil is enough, regardless of what deleterious effect such visual falsehoods might have on a car’s stylistic integrity and credibility.
<O></O>
Perhaps some feel that if they have enough “real†performance, they can fudge a be bit fuzzy on the performance image after some point.
<O></O>
On the other side of this discussion, there are others who do strive for a deeper level of visual honesty and integrity in their stylistic efforts. This group wants to have whatever image their car conveys to be 100% backed up by the real substance implied by each and every “functional†performance elements added.
<O></O>
If being a “purist†in this sense then means to be scrupulously honest in even the implied connotations of one’s styling choices and visual modifications, then that seems to be a fine goal to strive for.
<O></O>
Anyway, again, anyone is free to do with their ride what makes’ em happy and of course we can all share thoughts, ideas and, yes, opinions, even quite frank ones, on what all we do. But then, that’s they whole point of a discussion forum anyway and perhaps we and the Stangs will all be the better for it in the end.
Rhumb - You are exactly the person I don't want to be when I grow up
3/12/07, 02:45 PM
#53
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well son, please do let us know when you do grow up, we're quite patient and have every hope that you'll mature into a fine young man someday.
3/12/07, 07:05 PM
#56
GT Member
.....when it comes to my car, I am the least functional thing in/on it or otherwise... ...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
3/12/07, 07:13 PM
#57
GT Member
.....when it comes to my car, I am the least functional thing in/on it or otherwise... ...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
3/12/07, 07:14 PM
#58
GT Member
.....when it comes to my car, I am the least functional thing in/on it or otherwise... ...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
3/12/07, 07:15 PM
#59
GT Member
.....when it comes to my car, I am the least functional thing in/on it or otherwise... ...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
...good thing the rest of the car works so well...besides, get going fast enough and who can tell what is functional or non-functional anyway...just like breast implants, liposuction, facelifts and the rest...as long as you're enjoying the ride, its all good...and if you're not the driver, at least you get a nice view....
3/12/07, 07:21 PM
#60
GT Member
God, I hate Windoze...sorry for the redikulouse number of dupe-li-kit posts...PC goes braindead, connection seems to drop, start banging away on keyboard hoping something works....so much for functionakl vs. non-functional.....