Perspective (Old and New and Everything In Between)

[70slooker]

i remember when i first got hit by the cal-look train, it was 1995ish i was living in ontario canada and a guy brought out his silver 59 hmm okay empi 5s neat but very common at the time but the caps srewed on, kept looking at the car wow those are some big carbs (idas) talked to him and found out him and his father built the car around 69 if i can rememeber correctly he retold me stories of him heading out to the "empi" supplier and racking in a nice bill for the carbs alone i cant recall the engine size but it did get going to where ever he was heading to rather quickly, and then the lasting momment of seeing a cal look car in action around the same time  period maybe + a few years i was at the michigan vintage show i saw the herbert video cranked and a white and black car decked to the look, was sitting there in the booth area, the cars turned out to be plows and conklins cars and dave took a rider out for a boot infront of the show and to this day hearing his car run up that street right out of the parking lot left a lasting impression on me those two events have lead me to follow this style, as for me and a few more on here the early 69-72 era cars are the prime in style, and have made me sit for hours researching asking questions about correctness im almost ready to start putting this car together and build it to a point where it will hold its own but i will drive it, because if the fast cars are "to nice" to be driven then how can we get the word out that these cars are better then any others. i look forward to the future (but not the costs) but for me even though i never lived it ill be suck in the early 70's thank you very much

[Zach Gomulka]

That was the longest sentence I've ever tried to read.

[Jeff68]

I got in to these cars because my Dad had two of them when I was growing up.  More great memories driving around in a Beetle when I was a kid than i can remember! Driving my car brings back those memories!  When I was younger I loved Hot Rods too (still do!) when I found out you could Hot Rod a VW I researched all I could to find out how to do it, and do it right! When I saw and heard my first Hot VW it sent chills up my spine!  I thought....Got to have one of these!! I live in Florida and I can tell you I can count on one hand how many are in the town I live in.  I'm guilty lately of not driving my car too, I got too damn busy studying for a big test related to my job. I will start driving it again though.  My $.02

[Zach Gomulka]

Another thing, I understand styles come and go. Many cars from the 70's looked similar, and from the 80's, and so on. But it seems to me there was a lot more personal influence before this whole business of repopping every single desireable part happened.

[Jim Ratto]

Another thing, I understand styles come and go. Many cars from the 70's looked similar, and from the 80's, and so on. But it seems to me there was a lot more personal influence before this whole business of repopping every single desireable part happened.

I agree. What I like about looking at photos and old articles on cars from days gone by is the individualistic treatments used, especially in the interiors. All kinds of unique takes on the dash, instruments, interior lighting, upholstery, etc. Yes there seems to have been a common link amongst many of the cars, but it sure seems like the cars were less sheep like. In the beginning, the guys that gave birth to what we know and love didn't have some pre-administered template they had to adhere to. Today it seems there is great care and effort given to keeping within the imaginary lines. I think the internet has a lot to do with it. Used to be not just anybody's ride was made "public", as you had just one form of "mass media" and those were the magazines. That and this hyper focused effort to create life (?) as it was 25-30-40-50 years ago, not just in VW circles but it seems in so many slices of automotive culture. The manufacturers themselves are regressing back to styles "of the golden age". Did modern society run out of balls to look forward and come up with something original? I know I am generalizing here and I am just as gulty as anybody else. I think aliens will land on earth someday after the human race has had its day and say "so in the first decade of the 2000's.....this species lost steam and had to look backwards to feel socially acceptable?"
The whole business of being period-correct but foresaking getting the most out of the car I cannot get on board with. That and a guy that spends stupid $ on building the "ultimate" idea of what a "Cal Look" car should be and can't help but keep throwing more and more "stuff" on the car, only for it to become overweight, diluted and quite unlike what the original idea once was.

[hotrodsurplus]

Oh where do I begin? We're like grumpy kids in a bitter-candy store! 

Another thing, I understand styles come and go. Many cars from the 70's looked similar, and from the 80's, and so on. But it seems to me there was a lot more personal influence before this whole business of repopping every single desireable part happened.

I agree. What I like about looking at photos and old articles on cars from days gone by is the individualistic treatments used, especially in the interiors. All kinds of unique takes on the dash, instruments, interior lighting, upholstery, etc.

...In the beginning, the guys that gave birth to what we know and love didn't have some pre-administered template they had to adhere to.

...I think the internet has a lot to do with it. Used to be not just anybody's ride was made "public", as you had just one form of "mass media" and those were the magazines.

...not just in VW circles but it seems in so many slices of automotive culture.

I'm going to make the case that the internet isn't responsible for homogenization. It's pretty prevalent in the '80s and '90s when magazines were responsible for disseminating information. And the aftermarket was responsible for making parts readily available. But neither the magazines nor the aftermarket is responsible for that homogenization. We only have ourselves to blame for that.

What made hot rods and customs unique once upon a time was their builders' resourcefulness. An enthusiast had to make do with production-car parts--I have photos of a '40 Ford that date to 1957. It has Volkswagen seats in it (and a Stovebolt engine with a 12-port head against a Cad/LaSalle trans). No two cars were alike because there were so many production cars from which an enthusiast could harvest parts. It just took a bit of work.

The aftermarket emerged to solve problems. Most people aren't capable of making their own wheels, casting their own manifolds, grinding their own cams, etc. And the magazines drafted a whole other demographic of enthusiasts who liked what they saw yet didn't have the resources to even make brackets to adopt VW seats to a '40 Ford. The aftermarket responded by offering parts. And as the enthusiast population grew so did diversity.

The aftermarket is a double-edged sword, though: it appeals to peoples' laziness. Why bother with a boneyard, nasty parts, and laborious modifications when you can just call a supplier and buy a ready-made part? A prime example is again seats. I have all Hot VWs back to 1967 in binders. They're one of my highest prized possessions, a collection that belonged to a good friend's late father. For the better part of 20 years I've PORED over the things. I've read every article, even the ones on goofy cars. I tell you what, most Cal Look cars 'from the day' ran seats from cars like Datsuns and Mazdas. Hell, a car in the VERY FIRST Cal Look issue has Mustang seats in it! Do that now and many self-proclaimed experts would string you to a post. I've even read where people chastised an early car as non-authentic because someone dropped it on a ball/IRS pan. I tell you what, kids, it really doesn't get much more Cal Look authentic than that.

The problem is that because so many parts are available in the aftermarket people feel that they must buy them. Now there exists another legitimate function of the aftermarket: there are no more boneyards to comb through to harvest parts. Now there are only swap meets and communities like this so I can't really hold it against someone for having a few excessive aftermarket parts. But people need to understand that's not the norm, at least it wasn't during the period that most of us are reveling in.

...I know I am generalizing here and I am just as gulty as anybody else. I think aliens will land on earth someday after the human race has had its day and say "so in the first decade of the 2000's.....this species lost steam and had to look backwards to feel socially acceptable?"

This was already a problem by Y2K, at least in some minds. BMW designer Adrian VanHooydonk (almost the best name in the world) came out very against retro, calling it among other things a gimmick. Bear in mind that retro is far different than vintage. Retro is a new design that evokes historical ones--New Beetle or PT Curser whereas historical refers to an actual old object or a faithful reproduction of one. I think a lot of designers felt that we'd done it all before so there was no place to go but backwards. They were appealing to peoples' feelings about 'the good old days (if they were so good then why did we change things?).

The whole business of being period-correct but foresaking getting the most out of the car I cannot get on board with.

I think the real trap there is taking 'period correctness' so seriously that the car and owner get too self conscious. Maybe we're talking about the same thing. I think it's important that people work to the best of their abilities but a lot of people get into this perfectionist mode and BUILD THE BEST CAR IN THE WORLD! They invest themselves so deeply and sacrifice so much that they live in mortal fear that they'll have to go through it again if they mess up the car. At that point the whole act of having a car is punishment.

Of course that's not exclusive to the vintage thing. Ironically, the hot-rod traditional backlash that started in the '70s and gained momentum in the '80s was a backlash against the anguishing perfectionism and cost of the 'modern' Boyd, Buttera, and Thelen cars. But a bunch of 'traditioinalists' in the present rod hobby have found a way to 'period-correct' the fun and soul right out of their cars. This perfectionism is also inauthentic from a historical perspective: with the technology today we can (and often do) build cars that are way beyond the quality of those built even 20 years ago.

That and a guy that spends stupid $ on building the "ultimate" idea of what a "Cal Look" car should be and can't help but keep throwing more and more "stuff" on the car, only for it to become overweight, diluted and quite unlike what the original idea once was.

That's a real old one right there. In the '50s they referred to those cars as Gook Wagons. Make the distinction that gook in this case is a derivation from guck which refers to sloppy debris and not the pejorative term for Asian people. I think those cars exist as a means to assert peoples' perceived power, a sort of ego stroke. Many people build cars as a competition of sorts--who can outdo each other. And it's tedious.

By the way, Jim, thanks for the quote in your sig. That's a first for me.

[Jim Ratto]

from your post: I think a lot of designers felt that we'd done it all before so there was no place to go but backwards. They were appealing to peoples' feelings about 'the good old days (if they were so good then why did we change things?).


Most of this retro-flavor harkens back to the days prior to oil embargo, 55mph speed limit, air pumps, thermal-reactors, retarded timing and big ugly EPA rubber shock bumpers. Guys I know that are and were into cars during those "dark ages" tremble in nausea when you bring up a 1974-1980-ish car. Maybe all things (mass marketed) automotive lost their way at that point? And only recently we all said "Man if it were only 1966 again... "
Which to me is fine. I think the best looking car ever was the Miura. And to keep on topic here, the best looking "Cal Look" cars were the first few of them, Don Crane's, Mike Mahaffey's, Thurber's, Flemings black oval. It's the purity of each of them. Trying to separate what these cars represented, youth, rebellion, ingenuity, (and most of all not being afraid to be different) from what we might see thru reto-tinted lenses is hard.
BTW I know of a recently debuted true blue, full blooded, real McCoy Cal Look car, complete with heart and soul that's running  Saab Sonnett seats.
See, there is hope. 

[hotrodsurplus]

Guys I know that are and were into cars during those "dark ages" tremble in nausea when you bring up a 1974-1980-ish car.

Hey, we don't call them the Malaise Years for nothin'! You Europeans reading this got some weird designs in the '70s and '80s but ours were weird AND bad! Okay, the Brits understand; they had British Leyland after all.

Maybe all things (mass marketed) automotive lost their way at that point?

Well at the very least the innocence was gone. For the first time peoples' confidence in the automobile as the way of the future was shaken. This was the first really big setback in our post-war prosperity. Gas was expensive (although not the most expensive; when adjusted for inflation gasoline cost more in 1960 than it did in 1974 and cost about 50 percent more from '30 to about '36 than it did during the embargo). And the government's encroachment (while legitimate even if imperfect) made many people aware that the things that we've come to rely on are in fact killing us (look at a photo of Los Angeles during the '50s through the '70s--you can't see the mountains for the smog). And technology got to the point that cars went fast enough to kill and maim us more efficiently than ever.

Of course the aftermarket flourished in those years if only so people could modify older cars. That's when the street-rod market rose from the ashes of the dead hot rod.

Which to me is fine. I think the best looking car ever was the Miura.

Well that's the beauty of living today. Want a Miura? Go buy one; they exist (and adjusted for inflation they don't cost as much as they did back then). On the other hand, do you want to drive to work in a car that turns a high-13 in the quarter, yields 28mpg, urges you along in quiet comfort, and won't kill you in a 35mph offset-frontal collision? You can buy that too. It's called a new Mustang. We have it all today and everything can come to the show, big progress if you ever tried to drive your car to a Goodguys event when you were a kid.

And to keep on topic here, the best looking "Cal Look" cars were the first few of them, Don Crane's, Mike Mahaffey's, Thurber's, Flemings black oval. It's the purity of each of them. Trying to separate what these cars represented, youth, rebellion, ingenuity, (and most of all not being afraid to be different) from what we might see thru reto-tinted lenses is hard.

That's the purity of form established by all of the pioneers. Go to post-war hot rods. They're stripped down and essential. But look what happened to the hot rod when cars like the '55 Chevy came out. They became irrelevant. Their owners found it difficult to keep pace with a showroom car so they began competing on aesthetics and the show car was born. The Wink Mirror was the quad headlight stands of 1960.

I totally agree that the best cars are the purest ones. They actually had a bit of a purpose then. 

BTW I know of a recently debuted true blue, full blooded, real McCoy Cal Look car, complete with heart and soul that's running  Saab Sonnett seats.
See, there is hope. 

It warms my heart!

[Zach Gomulka]

BMW designer Adrian VanHooydonk (almost the best name in the world) came out very against retro, calling it among other things a gimmick.

He was right!!

What I love about those cal look cars featured in the early VW magazines is that they always had at least one feature that, by today's standards, looked completely out of place compared to the rest of the car. Such as a completely dechromed car with a chrome glove box door or later model tail lights on an oval window. Carpet half way up the door panel (Aronson's rag), or the Berglar with full US spec bumpers, no one would consider doing that stuff today. It's wrong, it totally goes against the flow of the car. But for me it gives the car some individuality. I love that stuff.

[Fastbrit]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

[Jim Ratto]

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Lee.C]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

A VERY good point VERY well put 

[bugnut68]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

This is epic awesomeness.  I truly agree, wholeheartedly!

[hotrodsurplus]

What I love about those cal look cars featured in the early VW magazines is that they always had at least one feature that, by today's standards, looked completely out of place compared to the rest of the car. Such as a completely dechromed car with a chrome glove box door or later model tail lights on an oval window. Carpet half way up the door panel (Aronson's rag), or the Berglar with full US spec bumpers, no one would consider doing that stuff today. It's wrong, it totally goes against the flow of the car. But for me it gives the car some individuality. I love that stuff.

Well you're in good company. The late Gray Baskerville heralded those little visual speed bumps. It's sort of like Frankie Bacon's observation, "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion."

Those 'flaws' are charming. They make otherwise sterile machines feel a bit more human-like which is to say slightly flawed. People don't understand that there has to be something slightly flawed about a design. We expect to see some sort of flaw and if we don't see it we get sort of uneasy, like we question if something is real even if we don't realize it.

Of course it has to be the right flaw, almost calculated.

Baskerville went to great lengths to preserve the few key flaws in his old roadster (which he referred to as his late pal Paul Horning's car). The rear wheels sit a bit too far forward in the wells. They stick out a bit too much. The doors don't line up perfectly. The old synthetic enamel is worn out. It has roll-bar mounts in the trunk that haven't been used since the '60s. The wrinkle paint is sloughing off the chrome wiper motor. The 'new' (as of '74) Sun speedometer doesn't work. The shoebox Ford hood latch, while cleverly adopted to hold the trunk closed, is clunky.

That is a hot rod built in the golden age of the hot rod. He kept it that way to show people that's really how those cars looked and felt. And damn it all if that car doesn't feel absolutely unlike any other newer car out there. It has tons of soul. Only a fool would dare to 'improve' it.

[Sarge]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

I honestly don't know how we got by without internet forums years ago

[hotrodsurplus]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

Amen, brother. I mean it's okay to set some sort of parameters but for god's sake don't fence yourself in or build a car by committee. This ain't a popularity contest.

People often corner me with, "I want to get my car in a magazine. How should I build it?" The answer is simple: build the car the way you like it. Editors are jaded to hell--we've seen it all and we've seen most of it so often we can't stand it. So we gravitate to the cars that were built to suit an enthusiast's vision and passion. Believe it or not but that shit shows. If you do that, you'll still love your car even if nobody else--magazines included--hate it. That's far better than building it to please someone else only to have it go unnoticed. That's a recipe to resent a car if there ever was one.

[Fastbrit]

I honestly don't know how we got by without internet forums years ago

Sarge, you are THE MAN! 

[Dyno-Don]

This is getting interesting. Especially the psycobabble from Chris as to why we and others do this or that with our cars. Love it. His comments about "traditional" and"Period Correct" in the Hot Rod world are very poignant and cause me hours of entertainment on a certain forum where it is particularly interesting how new young guys come in and try to re write history to suit their vision, perspective, or desire of what it should be.
 No matter what some would like to believe (and this is as true here as it is in the Hot Rod world), it all didn't fit into a neat little box and the cars weren't all identical and following the "Rules" back then either. Oh don't get me wrong, we had our rules, but they weren't spelled out, it was more like do something we don't approve of and we'll give you a hard time about it. And the funniest thing was you didn't have to stray far from home to find that other areas had a different set of "Rules". I will never forget a comment made to me by a customer when I was recreating a very well known 32 Ford that he had owned and then was totaled in 1961. While working on it one day we were BSing and the subject of Bee Hive oil filters came up. He said in the 50's if he saw a car at the drive in with a Bee Hive oil filter on it, he would chose it for a race, cuz no serious street racer would ever run one. I mentioned this to another famous racer who only lived about 10 miles away  from our first hero and he laughed and said in his area no serious racer ran without one!
In my case I was fortunate enough to live in Newport Beach and work for Auto Haus with guys like John Lazenby, Ed Craig, Doug Mische, Ron Greiner and others, in what I consider the Heyday of the Cal Look movement. Because of that I have some very strong feelings about the way that I will finish Ruby the '66, but it doesn't mean that there is a blue print per se. In my mind there are certain things that define the look - for me - like non metallic solid colors, a certain rake (I've exaggerated that on this car), a small collection of wheels (and I might even slightly stray here, cuz I'm sick of BRM's LOL, I never really liked them then either!) and the biggest faux pas on my car right now is it has, Oh the HORROR, a Herrod Helper!!    Not because I think it belongs to "The Look" but because I DRIVE my bug 75 miles every day and I have documented that it is worth a minimum of 3 miles per gallon, and these days that matters to me! But don't wprry, i won't be adding a Wink Mirror

[javabug]

This is getting interesting. Especially the psycobabble from Chris

That dude should see if he can get a job as a writer. Man can he ramble!

[Dyno-Don]

This is getting interesting. Especially the psycobabble from Chris

That dude should see if he can get a job as a writer. Man can he ramble!

He'd never make it. 

[hotrodsurplus]

Especially the psycobabble from Chris

Please, Don. Psychobabble refers to psychological jargon. I'm just talking out my ass!

But don't wprry, i won't be adding a Wink Mirror

Here's something that speaks directly to Chuck and the other guy's opinions about bee hives and the things that somehow 'define' Cal Look. To me Wink mirrors (as awful as I think they are) are entirely Cal Look material. If you're going for historical accuracy they have no place on an early '70s-style looker but they're perfectly suited for an '80s-style car with Mexican bumpers, Vitaloni mirrors, and a velour interior.  

I realize that sounds somewhat hypocritical of me to say what they'd be appropriate on but it also acknowledges how broad the definition of Cal Look is. There are many factions: there's the cone crowd who replicates famous cars. There are historical wonks like me who anguish over finding parts that were not only available but appropriate during a certain historical era as sort of a means to suspend time. Other historian types just grab whatever is old and cool regardless of its historical appropriateness. There are others who wholeheartedly embrace modern technology and parts that just happen to have some common ground with old ones. And the great majority of people merely grab whatever tickles their fancy regardless of era and put it together.

And the thing is, every one of those groups is fully capable of building super bitchin' cars. That, to me, underscores the diversity and opportunity within this weird definition of Cal Look. It's tough--maybe even impossible--to pigeonhole a movement that's 40-plus years old and never went out of style.

[hotrodsurplus]

That dude should see if he can get a job as a writer. Man can he ramble!

He'd never make it. 

You got THAT right!

[Dyno-Don]

Especially the psycobabble from Chris

Please, Don. Psychobabble refers to psychological jargon. I'm just talking out my ass!

But don't wprry, i won't be adding a Wink Mirror

Here's something that speaks directly to Chuck and the other guy's opinions about bee hives and the things that somehow 'define' Cal Look. To me Wink mirrors (as awful as I think they are) are entirely Cal Look material. If you're going for historical accuracy they have no place on an early '70s-style looker but they're perfectly suited for an '80s-style car with Mexican bumpers, Vitaloni mirrors, and a velour interior.  

I realize that sounds somewhat hypocritical of me to say what they'd be appropriate on but it also acknowledges how broad the definition of Cal Look is. There are many factions: there's the cone crowd who replicates famous cars. There are historical wonks like me who anguish over finding parts that were not only available but appropriate during a certain historical era as sort of a means to suspend time. Other historian types just grab whatever is old and cool regardless of its historical appropriateness. There are others who wholeheartedly embrace modern technology and parts that just happen to have some common ground with old ones. And the great majority of people merely grab whatever tickles their fancy regardless of era and put it together.

And the thing is, every one of those groups is fully capable of building super bitchin' cars. That, to me, underscores the diversity and opportunity within this weird definition of Cal Look. It's tough--maybe even impossible--to pigeonhole a movement that's 40-plus years old and never went out of style.

well said, except that I don't include those 80's car in my definition of Cal Look - right or wrong to others, it doesn't matter. they were no longer Cal Look, they morphed to something else. It was like the kid that pulled up next to me the other night at the supermarket. He was in a slammed 64, you know the look, where the rear torsion bars must have broken. It had US Towel bar bumpers, 5 spokes in chrome, a huge freakin rack on the roof, visors over the headlights, all the trim, another rack on the back, a stinger on a stock 40HP, and a visor above the windshield.  He asked me if I was going to accessorize my car?!?!?!?! said no, I'm going for more of a Cal Look style, and then he floored me with "Me Too"
I just shook my head and walked away mumbling, this ain't religion, you can't rewrite history to suit yours.

[Jim Ratto]

Do you know what p****s me off? Seeing dumb posts like "What's the best Cal Look steering wheel?" (Answer – a round one that you feel comfortable with); 'What's the best Cal Look wheel?" (Answer - one that fits under stock fenders that you happen to like); "What's the best Cal Look colour?" (Answer - one that you like. It IS your car, after all); "What's the best Cal Look seat?" (Answer - one you like and feels comfortable); "What's the best Cal Look shifter?" (Answer – one you like which works).

Sorry, but I get fed up with everyone trying to make up rules for a genre of car that evolved 10 or more years before many of them were even born. Jeez, do what you want – don't keep asking other people what you should do. Or does your mother still dress you each morning?  

 This ain't a popularity contest.

 

I think some feel it is.

[Mike Maize]

For me I am not even sure where my connection to the Cal-look scene started. Quite frankly I am sure that neither of my cars qualify as Cal-lookers. That is fine with me because I never got involved to qualify as or replicate anything. Beetles were simple and that appeals to my sensibilities. Cal-lookers (that I only saw in magazines) were even more simple without chrome etc...PLUS they were fast! I always liked to go fast!!!

I had a ride in an older friends 70's style bug with an 1835 when I was around 18 and it changed my life! We blew off a Corvette, did some burnouts and I was hooked. I think the difference for me is that I was not directly exposed to any "scene" because of my location and lack of internet (80"s). For this reason I built my cars to suit my own sense of style with parts that worked for the way I was going to DRIVE them. MY passion was fueled by the feel of driving not the love of an image that someone else had already created.

When the internet hit me with the original forum my world expanded 1,000%. I saw the quaife test and read all of Jim's and Marks posts over and over. They knew what they were talking about, shared freely with me, and the DROVE their cars. They inspired me (Jim still does. RIP Mark). I have to say that I also feel I see the internet as a limiting factor for a lot of what is being built in this scene because it seems to be built with only tradition in mind. I love the Cal-look spirit but I can't claim to be from and era or a scene. I feel it my responsibility to build my cars to reflect me and the culture that I bring to the hobby. I can't imagine not putting 185/60/15's on the front of my car because others may not approve!

Although my cars are not traditional Cal-lookers I believe I represent what the scene stands for every time I DRIVE my cars and show new people what a fast raked VW is about. Doesn't matter if it is at the track upsetting V8"s or running around doing some burnouts while my son laughs his head off. Have fun, build what you want, and drive it really hard. Don't use this connection to JUST repeat the past, we might miss out on something   If you dig my cars, cool. If not you would if you drove them...LOL

[bugnut68]

Insiders to the scene have a pretty hard and fast idea of what traditional California Look is.  Talk to guys outside that circle, or hell even outside the VW world altogether, and you'll get guys describing a 'Cal Look' car that wouldn't necessarily fit the mold described on sites like this.  Then there's the Cal STYLE subculture (L.A. scene) that is frustrated with being lumped in with Cal Look, as well, but that's a whole other topic altogether.

I digress.  The '80s trends, from what I've gathered, resulted from a lot of people wanting to truly stand out as individuals and as a result a lot of very different (no, not traditional Cal-Look as per the '70s era line drawing) styles and custom influences emerged.

Myself, I love cars like Ted Dominguez's Bug, to me that epitomizes Cal Look, late model to boot.  I remember people dogging on '68 and later cars at one time or another, as if you had to have a '67 ideally or earlier car to truly fit the Cal Look moniker, which I never understood.  To get down to that level of nit-picking reminds me of Star Trek guys arguing over which show was best. lol.

I agree with what was said earlier: no question about it, build your car for yourself and your own tastes.  To do otherwise is  a surefire guarantee one will never be happy if the first and foremost goal is to please/garner favor from others.

[hotrodsurplus]

well said, except that I don't include those 80's car in my definition of Cal Look - right or wrong to others, it doesn't matter.

See, that's the funny thing about trying to define a look.

A word derives its meaning by consensus: people have to agree that the word represents a particular thing. Otherwise the things you call cookies would be pants to someone else. The sky would be red and in would be out. Pretty soon someone would show up with a Cal Look Camaro*.

Then there's also a personal definition. I don't draw a distinction at a year as much as at a style. To me, a stock-bodied car in a stock color with US-spec bumpers, a stock-ish interior, a big engine, and custom wheels is not a Cal Look car. Even in the '80s that was a separate class--we called it Resto Custom (resto rod for the street-rod crowd, resto-mod for the muscle-car crowd, etc.). That's not to say it's a bad look or anything but to me it's just not Cal Look. Again, to me. Like '80s isn't to you.

However, while I went off to wander in the desert to play with hot rods in the '90s everybody came to the consensus that those stock-appearing cars were Cal Lookers. It seems that all it takes is a common denominator: those cars are nose down, fast, and have custom wheels. Ergo, by the evolved definition they're Cal Look cars--the Cal Look of the '90s and New Millennium I guess you could say.
 

this ain't religion, you can't rewrite history to suit yours.

But like Jim just observed that it's a competition for some people, other people feel as if they can change the religion to suit themselves. All it takes is a bunch of people to come to consensus with that guy and you now have a definition.

This extends to language itself. There's a word that exists for ignorance: irregardless. It's a portmanteau of irrespective and regardless. It's a double negative even--irrespective of regardless. But alas, you hear people use it all the time. And not too long ago Merriam Webster added it to its dictionary. It's not as if the editors even remotely consider the word legitimate; they merely alter the dictionary to suit the evolution of language.

Christ on a bike this is some good weed! (just joking; I'm a cough-syrup kind of guy)

*about the Camaro. Boy this is gonna piss off a few people. If you look at it, the Cal Look movement took shape as the NHRA created the Pro Stock class. Think of the common ground: Pro Stock and Cal Look cars sat nose down, had big tires in the rear and skinny ones in the front, used lightweight wheels, eliminated everything not essential to the vehicle, forbade 'custom' bodywork, and so on. Hell, they both ran fiberglass hoods, Grant steering wheels, Hurst shifters, and so on. Pro Stock and Cal Look were oriented to one thing: going as fast as possible in a straight line. Cal Look It owes its existence largely to the Pro Stock movement.

Hell, Cal Look evolved largely by the same way Pro Street (the domestic outgrowth of Pro Stock) did. The cars started out relatively high but over time got progressively lower. The rear tires got bigger (albeit not as big as pro street). The trim seemed to migrate back onto the cars. I mean look at late '70s and '80s Pro Street and Cal Look cars: Pete Santini was doing graphics on all of them!

So really, I think a Cal Look Camaro isn't as off base as some of the other definitions of Cal Look are. (just my personal opinion of course).

I got my Deist lobster-tail suit on. Flame away!  

[danny gabbard]

Think this a reason I'm building a (COW-LOOK) car, Less rule's Ha Ha !!

[iowa mark]

I got into VW's because girls really liked the slide open hole in the roof. And at age 16, I really liked the view as they stood up so close to me on the seat. Everything after that has been a lame attempt to get back to those days. 

[Jim Ratto]

Thanks for the kind words Mike. I was hoping you were going to join us here. I just can't wait to continue to hear the onslaught of "why did you...." comments when I'm done. It was the perfect storm.
"you sure you want this old color?"
"yeah..uh..yeah.... why?" flipping through a paint chip book with my son
"once we mix it, it's yours..."
"Wait a minute, can I take this chip outside?"

And then it happened, I relived an afternoon way up in between Tenaya Lake and Tioga Pass in Yosemite (9000'+). I was a bit light on my feet, thanks to altitude and other forces, and was feeling woozy and noticed the sky and its color way up there. And I remember in my stupor up there swearing I'd paint my car that color someday (because it was such a trip, how succulent of a blue it was). Anyway, seeing this paint chip did a bunch of things at once: made me remember the day up there and my promise to myself, and it made me realize that I didn't want "another old school" in vogue, period correct color like I was lying to myself about. My car's never been one to give much of a rat's ass about following much. Plus, when I asked my 5 yr old son if he dug the color, his eyes lit up and that was that.
But of course, those that are ingrained to "follow the rules" have already made their opinions clear. They don't like it.

Ya think I got into bashing on the majority of the HS parking lot because I wanted to be liked?