|
I've bitten my tongue and held this comment for years, but today is the day.
With no intent to criticize or disagree with another's aesthetic choice, for the life of me I do not understand the appeal of lowering the car. I certainly can see the benefit of upgrading the suspension for better handling on or off track, but the look of a roadster lower than it was designed to be confounds me.
As someone with a design background, if you go through and look at iconic cars in this category like the Ferrari Daytona Spyder, BMW 507, Jaguar E-Type, or even more recent examples like the AM Vantage Roadster, Boxster or F-Type, you will notice a common, purposeful aesthetic choice amongst them all. The height at which they leave the factory is designed to create an even amount of space from the horizontal line at which the bottom of the body intersects with the tire all the way up and around the tire. In other words, if you look at the car in profile, you see an even amount of space between the tire and body throughout the tire's diameter.
When you lower the car, the space between the body and the top of the tire decreases and the space between the tire and the bottom of the body increases, creating more of an 'egg' shape in that line. Every time I see it on our car or cars like ours, it sticks out like a zit on a supermodel. That's not to say I don't see the appeal on something like a '57 Impala, '32 Ford Coupe or other hot rod of that ilk, it just seems terrifically out of place on a long nose, short rear deck Euro-style roadster.
Flame on.
|