looks wrong, works right. Looks right, works wrong... which one?

[Jim Ratto]

A lot of clamoring about 'what looks right' in this hobby... and as the hobby is so based around living up to a "look", that is understandable. But what happens when a solution is come upon that improves the function of the car but doesn't "fit the rules"?

there is some truth to function and form going hand in hand..... in some situations. The Weber 48IDA is a good example. It looks like what it is... simple, big and unforgiving. They are tops when it comes to horsepower, throttle response and gettings dropped jaws when you pop the lid. But overall, if you were to really use your car... they are unforgiving... no air filtration, big and in the way, etc, etc.
Though not really applicable to the VW, cosworth ports have always been beautiful and undoubtedly WORK.
A Vertex mag... same thing. You see it, it looks right and it does what it needs to.

But let's move on when it comes to following the CAL LOOK rule book.... 

When it comes to making the fast VW a better car to drive (fast)... what cosmetic "rules" are actually not improving the cars performance?

My guess would be a few things that are 'set in stone' as far as this hobby goes. Of course, if the Cal Look is only about 1/4 mile and looking the part.... then never mind.

#1. 135-145 front radials.
#2. Raked stance
#3. (more recently, and not 100% accepted by the hobby [thank God]) excessively narrowed front beam
#4. flabby sidewall, tall rear tires

My thoughts on each...

#1. It's pretty obvious... despite 55%+ of VW's weight on rear wheels, I think the front tire width is a consequence of getting tires to fit under fender after achieving # 2. If you've ever had top panic stop a 135 or 145 car (make it worse...in the wet)... you'll know you could've used more contact patch
#2. Raked stance.... it sure does look "right" and for drag racing... is it? Does it help weight transfer to rear wheels upon launch? Does it help stability up at top end of track? One thing it doesn't help is cornering, especially on a swingaxle. That ass up in the air stance is actually probably the opposite of what gets the VW around a corner in a hurry.
#3. Narrowing to keep tires under fenders (due to dropped spindle, disc brakes, wheel width...) is one thing. Burying the wheel a good 2" in from fender is just dumb. And looks it too. Narrowing track is a nightmare for handling.
#4. The big tires as of late... they mimic the look of a 26" tall drag slick. The tires I have seen in the "big tire size" on the typical Cal Look wheels seem to have floppy sidewalls, which yes, is a benefit to drag racing (and somewhat of an improvement over older bias tires, which had far less give in sidewalls, resulting it tire tread being "picked up" in cornering), but do nothing for stability as far as a street car goes. Stiffen up torsions, shocks, roll, and you still have the mushy sidewalls... unless you crank the psi way up... then you shake your dentures out...

My point is, there seems to be an emphasis in the hobby on appearance, regardless of the performance result. Especially now a days, they is such of wave of favor for "old school"..... everybody romanticizing using ancient tech "because it looks right", but then again... how much of this archaic tech is actually holding your car back?

Something to think about.

[Doktor]

Agree with everything here !

I have constant debate with my friend Zvonimir (Cal-Look is his nick on this forum) about same details...
I prefer more realistic approach to these details - for example front tyres - I would put 195-60-R15 in frontof my car any day over some skinny 135's and 145's !
Ten years ago I changed original radial Michellin ZX 155's for modern lower profile Goodyear Aquatread 185-65-R15 and never looked back, so to me this seems a normal thing to do - improve some characteristic of my car and modify it in a acceptable way.

Can you do this with your cal-look ? ->

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/M7sNlvvC850" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/M7sNlvvC850</a> 

To be total honest, I'm in VW's since I'm aware of myself and just want to do my car best that I can !

@ Jim: When I will have a little more time, I will post some details in your older topic how it all started (how we all get into VW's)...

[Jim Ratto]

I ran 195/60 on front about 10 yr ago. Actually when I went 12.66 @ Carlsbad, the front tires were 195/60. I changed to 145 when I wanted to go "faster", along with the entire motor spec (which never ran half as good as my old 2276 or the latest 2165).
I also ditched 205/65 rear a few weeks ago after years of not liking the squishy lateral stability, replacing them with Goodyear Eagle 195/65 which fit much more squarely on FF BRM wheel, and give much higher level of stability under all conditions my car sees. We have pretty gusty winds here, and just tire change made a world of difference in resisting cross winds. The canyon roads around my house are more fun now too. The old tires would chatter and hop under hard cornering, my opinion was sidewalls were giving and "snapping" back, not giving much confidence. The new tires just plain dig in. You come into corner, and get rear planted and then get the power on... no more skittering.
I think more and more, when the weather is right, being able to do the tour around California I've always wanted to do in my '67, but running the open stacks... low ride height...etc. What I need is a fast VW that works like a Lancia Stratos  .

[Doktor]

I think more and more, when the weather is right, being able to do the tour around California I've always wanted to do in my '67, but running the open stacks... low ride height...etc. What I need is a fast VW that works like a Lancia Stratos  .

Well, you're just sick, I cannot help you ! 

[dirk zeyen]

bought my bug in 1991(1974 standard)- don't know anything about "cal-look" . at that time in germany it seems that everybody build there modern bugs back to a 61-66 modell- like i did. bought 6 and 7 /15 fuchs wheels lowered the car and put some 195/50x15 at the front and 195/60x15 at the back, i loved the way it drives. today the back is raised a bit and i put 195/65x15 rear wheels with 155/65x15 at the front. the handling is not half as good but it looks better!!! i don't like the look of a narrowed front beam!!!

i really like cornering, so i build a lowered bug with 195/50x15 rear and front wheels, the engine is a stock 1600cc. but with that small diameter tires it is so much fun in the hills( very small hills called "eifel").

so not only cal-look is fun but it looks great and means more fun in a straight line.

dirk

[airstuff]

Agree with everything here !

I have constant debate with my friend Zvonimir (Cal-Look is his nick on this forum) about same details...
I prefer more realistic approach to these details - for example front tyres - I would put 195-60-R15 in frontof my car any day over some skinny 135's and 145's !
Ten years ago I changed original radial Michellin ZX 155's for modern lower profile Goodyear Aquatread 185-65-R15 and never looked back, so to me this seems a normal thing to do - improve some characteristic of my car and modify it in a acceptable way.

Can you do this with your cal-look ? ->


To be total honest, I'm in VW's since I'm aware of myself and just want to do my car best that I can !

@ Jim: When I will have a little more time, I will post some details in your older topic how it all started (how we all get into VW's)...

Hey Leo,I know you want a drift car,but this is a cal-look forum

I tottaly agree with what Jim stated.

The only reason why I have stepped up to a 2" narrowed front beam were the front tires rubbing constantly on the fenders.I had 185/65/16 at some point up front,and with a stock beam that was OK,with a stock lowered beam that was not OK :PThere was constant rubbing of the tires to the inner fender lip,and paint started falling off.Offcourse,the wheels were guilty,as thay had not so good ET of 20mm or so,the chrome Mangels wheels

When I put the narrowed beam,there was a whole a lot of difference:)With those big tires up front it started looking good,cause they were tottaly hidden under the stock fender.

As far as handling is concerned,I do not plan to take a fast cornering round or Spa,or similar track,just relaxed street driving,occasional meeting trips(driving on the highway) and 1/4 weekend action.This is the reason why I can remain the current beam.

Many of us have read the cal-look rules many times,and if we stick with the "what is obliged" then we are cool in the mass.But...........

Offcourse,todays roads and sometimes  the conditiones under which we drive,tell us that we need something that can be safer for everyday need.

Nice topic Mr. Jim

[Doktor]

Hey Leo,I know you want a drift car,but this is a cal-look forum

Maybe it's time for evolution of a cal-look style ? 

[dirk zeyen]

what about adjustable spring plates in the back and 2 set of whells with different tire sizes?
the next problem will be the turbo muffler ground clearance...

dirk

[airstuff]

what about adjustable spring plates in the back and 2 set of whells with different tire sizes?
the next problem will be the turbo muffler ground clearance...

dirk

adjustable spring plates a re a cool item to own 

donnow about the wheel sets

but I think If lowered in the back,someone would always rub somwhere the exaust

When my car was lowered one spline,I was schratching the asphalt when I was going on the pavement :Dsparks 

Do you have adjustable springplates Dirk?

I would definetly stay with stock ride height at the rear which can be improved with camber compensator,good bilstein shocks and so on

[dirk zeyen]

no sorry, no adjustable spring plates, but i like to own them sometimes!

another funny thing is to put the 195/50x15 on my "looker" it fells like i found 20 horses

dirk

[Jim Ratto]

I guess one way to look at things is...

Jim "Sarge" Edmiston wasn't looking for goofy and spindly little 30HP Okrasa stuff to make his white Bug cool, back in 1965-70...right? Those guys were looking to today or tomorrow... how to make car faster, lighter, meaner (maybe not more user friendly).
Don't get me wrong. You'll never see EFI or 17" wheels on my car.

And I appreicate "period correct" maybe just as much as the next guy... it IS cool to see the style of years gone by still alive,

but to make excuses why a car cannot be used as a car, only to keep its "looks" period correct... I don't get that (or want to live by those rules). Or even to make excuses why performance must be compromised and take second seat to "looks"

If it works right, it will look right. Function is timeless.

[Zach Gomulka]

There has to be a happy medium! But I'm usually willing to sacrifice a small amount of function for form if it comes down to it.

[Donny B.]

Jim, I love this thread.  I have always believed that form follows function.  I also appreciate the look, but believe that modern day parts actually make things better.  I built my car as a driver.  I believe I have proven that.  I had one set of 48s and let them go years ago realizing that I would probably never get them on my car.  I have run DCNFs for years not and have no reason to go back.  Not saying you cannot make 48s work on a driver, but I do prefer carbs with air cleaners.  I bought my car in 1984 and never looked back.  The first thing I bought for the car was a set of 135s.  I thought they looked cool and they did.  The first time I tried to slow down in the rain to make a turn and slid all over the place I had second thoughts.  I got plenty of miles out of those little tires, but I would never run them again.  I have 145s, but would prefer 155s like I had when I finished the car.  I couldn't find any just like I couldn't find any 185/70s either.  I like Berg linkage of today because it has been refined and improved  over the years.  The function is much better than the early models.  I don't believe in sacrificing performane for looks.  I respect how the look was back then, but I would rather have things that just work better for me. JMO.

[Jim Ratto]

Jim, I love this thread.  I have always believed that form follows function.  I also appreciate the look, but believe that modern day parts actually make things better.  I built my car as a driver.  I believe I have proven that.  I had one set of 48s and let them go years ago realizing that I would probably never get them on my car.  I have run DCNFs for years not and have no reason to go back.  Not saying you cannot make 48s work on a driver, but I do prefer carbs with air cleaners.  I bought my car in 1984 and never looked back.  The first thing I bought for the car was a set of 135s.  I thought they looked cool and they did.  The first time I tried to slow down in the rain to make a turn and slid all over the place I had second thoughts.  I got plenty of miles out of those little tires, but I would never run them again.  I have 145s, but would prefer 155s like I had when I finished the car.  I couldn't find any just like I couldn't find any 185/70s either.  I like Berg linkage of today because it has been refined and improved  over the years.  The function is much better than the early models.  I don't believe in sacrificing performane for looks.  I respect how the look was back then, but I would rather have things that just work better for me. JMO.

The Berg linkage goes a long way in making an engine compartment right. Not that the other linkages don't work, but the Berg works well, and looks like it does. Another good example.
I guess where I am going with this, is look at a purpose built, factory competition car. What you see is what you get. Everything has a purpose.
I agree. I would rather have things work correctly and live than worry about whether my stuff fits into the page from Feb 1975 Hot VWs.

[Hotrodvw]

I agree 100% Jim.  I won't put something on my car for the look only, over function.  I do run 145's, but I can't fit anything wider right now.    

[TexasTom]

I agree ... good thread.
This past weekend I finally made a step in the right direction when I was buying new front tires.
A friend installed some of the 175/55-15s on his FF BRMs >>> the look is good and the traction is available, but I just can't stand driving around recalculating the speed for accuracy ... 55 while the speedo reads 70, I hate that stuff.
Well, I found out while searching TireRack's website the new Mini Coopers run 175/65-15s; 23.96" tall, just like a 145, and they fit the rims better.
I put these on my FF BRMs and they fit perfect! The speedo error is tolerable too. I highly recommend check them out next time you're looking.
Now I can enjoy using my Wilwood 4-piston calipers on the front brakes!

[javabug]

I can't believe the 175/65s get overlooked so often for our cars.  There's a good chance I'll try a pair on the front of my car when the time for new tires comes.

The period correct-ness thing does have some limitations, but if you are reasonable about it, there's not a whole lot of what I would call "realistic" cal-look elements that reduces the enjoyment of our cars.  I think one thing to consider, however, is that by nature the original cal-look cars were used in a somewhat limited environment.  Yes, they were often the owner's only transportation and needed to be used as such.  But did they really go much further than cruising the surface streets of so-cal?  Some did, I'm sure...  Freeway use?  Relatively rare would be my guess.  And the cars that did see that sort of use were likely more mild than we would like to remember.

[Sam K]

Great topic! I ran 135's on the front of my bug for many years and had a few scares. the last time some genious in a Geo Metro cut me off and I locked the tires up so hard that I made flat spots on them and ended up in a ditch on the side of I-25! after that I got a pair of 175/55's and I love them.

One of my V-8 buddies can't wrap his mind around the fact that my little four cylinder's  IDA's flow more CFM than the dominator carb on his all motor 9 second Camaro.

[DKK Ted]

Say TexasTom, can you post a pic of that tire here??

[TexasTom]

Say TexasTom, can you post a pic of that tire here??

I tried, but the pics were too big.
I'll get some new, smaller versions and post asap.

[louisb]

Yeah, I had a few scary moments with the 145s locking up and sliding on my '67. They would also slide in a sharp turn. I don't think I will run them on the new car when it is done.

--louis

[Jim Ratto]

I can't believe the 175/65s get overlooked so often for our cars.  There's a good chance I'll try a pair on the front of my car when the time for new tires comes.

The period correct-ness thing does have some limitations, but if you are reasonable about it, there's not a whole lot of what I would call "realistic" cal-look elements that reduces the enjoyment of our cars.  I think one thing to consider, however, is that by nature the original cal-look cars were used in a somewhat limited environment.  Yes, they were often the owner's only transportation and needed to be used as such.  But did they really go much further than cruising the surface streets of so-cal?  Some did, I'm sure...  Freeway use?  Relatively rare would be my guess.  And the cars that did see that sort of use were likely more mild than we would like to remember.

That's an interesting look at this.... that the cars were used in limited manner.... but
I've seen pictures of DRF cars crawling through muddy creeks out by Palm Springs, etc.... which is a good 2hr drive from OC, (somewhere there is a pic of a brown sedan (Thurber or Hunsaker?) going through a muddy culvert and another of a makeshift tent strung over car out there...
Trips to San Diego zoo.... pictures of that in the first KS book... of course, looks like the cars were much more stock than the "1970-on 'Aronson' era", but then again, read the chapter on Mike Mahaffey's '51 2180cc green 13 sec car.... it was his only car! If he needed to get somewhere, it was the '51 he used.
We oughta here from the horse's mouths here...  Sarge? Mike? John L?

[Stephan32]

Hi,

Changing tyres and wheels around on a car is great fun.
I run 195/60 all round or 195/50 all round or 195/60 front and 195/65 rear.
All of which are not cal look but the nearest you get is different size front and rear.
I don not care if it is cal look, the stance counts and even cal look sometimes lookes wrong due to the wrong stance.
So in effect I like my car best on 4 lug sprint stars with 195/60 front and 195/65 rear nice stance and good handling.
But with 195/50 on ATS Alloys all round that car looks like a racer and is so much fun to drive, turns in very direct
with a very snappy back end.
Just right for speed cruising.

So whatever, whoever does, it is down to taste followed by function, both is at times difficult with a classic car.

Cheers Stephan 

[Zach Gomulka]

I understand that 145's aren't the best thing out there, but my car stops on a dime and leaves a nickels change with them. I wasn't about to narrow the beam on my car to fit wider tires, and I like my car to look like a time warp anyway For AssHull's car I chose 185/60's, because like the 175/65's they are about the same height as a 145, but offer much more grip.

[javabug]

I've seen pictures of DRF cars crawling through muddy creeks out by Palm Springs, etc.... which is a good 2hr drive from OC, (somewhere there is a pic of a brown sedan (Thurber or Hunsaker?) going through a muddy culvert and another of a makeshift tent strung over car out there...

I've seen that...think it was the Hunsaker car.  And BRMs, no less!

Another example is in the magazine write-up on Wallace's red sunroof car it is mentioned that he takes the car north on ski trips.

[Rocket Ron]

Lets face it it's all wrong anyway

engine way out back, 70 year old design, upto 5, 6 or 7 times the factory hp, engine with no water etc etc

still it the most fun you can have with a car, puts a smile on my face every time 

 

[Nico86]

Lets face it it's all wrong anyway

engine way out back, 70 year old design, upto 5, 6 or 7 times the factory hp, engine with no water etc etc

still it the most fun you can have with a car, puts a smile on my face every time 

 

Well said Ron, we're all crazy guys, and we like it ! 

Look at old rally/sport cars, R8 Gordini, Simca 1000 Rallye etc... they all have skinny tires, high suspensions, and a lot of fun to drive !
For a beetle 165/65 could be a nice choice, they have a heigt between 135 or145, and handle nicely I think.

[Jim Ratto]

Lets face it it's all wrong anyway

engine way out back, 70 year old design, upto 5, 6 or 7 times the factory hp, engine with no water etc etc

still it the most fun you can have with a car, puts a smile on my face every time 

 

Well said Ron, we're all crazy guys, and we like it ! 

Look at old rally/sport cars, R8 Gordini, Simca 1000 Rallye etc... they all have skinny tires, high suspensions, and a lot of fun to drive !
For a beetle 165/65 could be a nice choice, they have a heigt between 135 or145, and handle nicely I think.

[Jim Ratto]

I know Larry Mckenzie... ol' Lar.. he gets what I'm saying. Last time we rapped a bit on the phone he was doing stuff to make his gorgeous black '67 a real "driver".... I think we're both trying to outdo one another... "who has the better driver?"
Anyway, last time I saw Larry's black '67 it was driving away from my home in Southern Calif, on his way back to Northern Calif.... yep 360 miles away...
He brought the car down for the weekend to visit and bring it along to Nicks for DKP cruise night, and then a few hours @ Disneyland with me and Sheep and our better halves. I was real proud of Larry that weekend, he showed he had the balls to drive a 48IDA 2276 on a good trip, the car looking absolutely bitching the entire time. Larry you're the man. Ray is wrong about you.
(Larry you can slip me that $50 later for talking nice ab
out you)If you've seen Larry's car, you know it's as nice as any other serious hot rod VW...

and in the truest Kerouac form... just took an all "back roads" trip, in an old Single Cab, to Death Valley, then Cambria, then Big Sur... using all back highways and stopping in at funky truck stops and cafes. Nice....

[larry mck]

To me the look is very important. If doesn't look right then it is just wrong. I like to drive my cars and when I was younger I put up with a lot things that just didn't work right because of stupidity, lack of money and/or knowledge. Now that I am older, but still not to smart, I like things to work right. So I have been working hard to get my car working smoothly and still looking right. With Jim's help I have the 48's working nice and he is sending me a fix for that darn noisy fuel pump. Now I want to drive it more. Last weekend I took it out to a Kelly Park pre-show at Mark M's shop (100 mile trip) and showing off threw the fan belt. Boy that car is fun! I have 165s on the front, yeah they don't look perfect but they stop good. I have a feeling that car will get quite a few miles on it this year.