this past weekend there was a car show , with hundreds of cars and thousands of people. The problem with these shows is that they place the cars so close together its really difficult to get a decent picture. I was able to get a few that weren't to cramped for space. They dont design cars today that have the character of the cars up through the mid 60s. Most cars today look like the next car, no imagination in design. Granted todays cars ride and mechanics are better, no argument there, but design is so blah. The black 65 vette with the forsale sign on the dash, was asking 60k, which is a good price, new interior, paint was excellent, no rust underneath, 327 fuel injected. The last picture is an entry in the ever on going battle of pickups with the largest motor.

[lesmore49]

Love that Cadillac convertible and that highway tractor engined 'pickup' truck. You are quite right about the difficulty of getting good car shows with the number of people and close proximity of vintage cars. My solution...I'm using my 70mm Limited to take partial photos of vintage cars.

[Lowell Goudge]

this past weekend there was a car show , with hundreds of cars and thousands of people. The problem with these shows is that they place the cars so close together its really difficult to get a decent picture. I was able to get a few that weren't to cramped for space. They dont design cars today that have the character of the cars up through the mid 60s. Most cars today look like the next car, no imagination in design. Granted todays cars ride and mechanics are better, no argument there, but design is so blah. The black 65 vette with the forsale sign on the dash, was asking 60k, which is a good price, new interior, paint was excellent, no rust underneath, 327 fuel injected. The last picture is an entry in the ever on going battle of pickups with the largest motor.

Just remember, the constraints that existed in the period between 1950 and 1970 on vehicle design were markedly different than those of today.

Fuel efficiency, crash safety requirements, road stability, etc. have forced us into a design box that leads to specific styling limitations.

Even in that era, aerodynamics (hence fuel efficiency ) dictated that the Shelby cobra be redesigned, and the Daytona, which shared the same engine and chassis as the Predecessor was sufficiently faster, that it could beat the Ferrari where the cobra couldn't .

It's a shame we had such a blind eye to efficiency back then

Ps. I do like the shots

[Just1MoreDave]

The Corvette shot is pretty cool with the sunstars. A good example of the 18-135 lens performance.

Old cars are great on styling, but design, I have to go with today's cars.

[monochrome]

Fuel efficiency, crash safety requirements, road stability, etc. have forced us into a design box that leads to specific styling limitations.

I can't see the ground out any angle of a current sedan well enough to park between the lines. While turning over an Accord this weekend I lamented my age and visual acuity to my Salesman - who said that's because European pedestrian safety regulations from the 2009 model year onward mandate 8" crumple zone between the underside of the hood and the top of the engine (for pedestrian impact protection). Thus sedans have vertical grills, high waist lines and a tall rear deck. So it isn't me, It's the car and the design mandate.

Since we can't see out of them now we all keep backing over small children and grocery carts - so we all need backup cameras.

Today I read GM will install a device in all its next generation cars that senses when your eyes are not on the road or the rearview mirror. Presuming you are texting, the car will emit a loud warning chime to get your attention back on the road. Naturally that will startle some people so there will also be a lane departure control to prevent abrupt responses to the alarm.

I wonder how the sensor will handle looking at the dashboard backup camera display while the car is in motion!!

$60,000 for a simple 1965 car doesn't seem like a lot of money at all.

[sunrepairer]

Love that Cadillac convertible and that highway tractor engined 'pickup' truck. You are quite right about the difficulty of getting good car shows with the number of people and close proximity of vintage cars. My solution...I'm using my 70mm Limited to take partial photos of vintage cars.

I had to take some partial pictures, but the beauty of these classics is their profile to me, most of mypictures are down in the low 20mm range.

---------- Post added 09-02-14 at 03:30 PM ----------

Just remember, the constraints that existed in the period between 1950 and 1970 on vehicle design were markedly different than those of today.

Fuel efficiency, crash safety requirements, road stability, etc. have forced us into a design box that leads to specific styling limitations.

Even in that era, aerodynamics (hence fuel efficiency ) dictated that the Shelby cobra be redesigned, and the Daytona, which shared the same engine and chassis as the Predecessor was sufficiently faster, that it could beat the Ferrari where the cobra couldn't .

It's a shame we had such a blind eye to efficiency back then

Ps. I do like the shots

I understand the need fuel efficiency, but there seems to be a lack of ideas in the design of todays cars. Look at the mid fifties studebaker silver and golden hawk nice design that was efficient.
How are cars like kia soul, scion xb,xd, nisson cube to name a few efficient. why does the prius and leaf have to be so ugly just because they are hybrid. Mustang has been able to keep in touch with the original design while still meeting today requirements, camaro is another, and dodge challenger also.its just that today so many of the car designs look similar,blah.

---------- Post added 09-02-14 at 03:35 PM ----------

The Corvette shot is pretty cool with the sunstars. A good example of the 18-135 lens performance.

Old cars are great on styling, but design, I have to go with today's cars.

I think we agree,you call it style im calling it design. there is no argument from me that ride, handling, reliaibility, efficiency are all better in todays cars.
Its the packaging that needs attention.

---------- Post added 09-02-14 at 03:44 PM ----------

I can't see the ground out any angle of a current sedan well enough to park between the lines. While turning over an Accord this weekend I lamented my age and visual acuity to my Salesman - who said that's because European pedestrian safety regulations from the 2009 model year onward mandate 8" crumple zone between the underside of the hood and the top of the engine (for pedestrian impact protection). Thus sedans have vertical grills, high waist lines and a tall rear deck. So it isn't me, It's the car and the design mandate.

Since we can't see out of them now we all keep backing over small children and grocery carts - so we all need backup cameras.

Today I read GM will install a device in all its next generation cars that senses when your eyes are not on the road or the rearview mirror. Presuming you are texting, the car will emit a loud warning chime to get your attention back on the road. Naturally that will startle some people so there will also be a lane departure control to prevent abrupt responses to the alarm.

I wonder how the sensor will handle looking at the dashboard backup camera display while the car is in motion!!

$60,000 for a simple 1965 car doesn't seem like a lot of money at all.

I agree, I dont know how we ever got along without these addons. I just read in the paper today about gm and the eye deversion device. it wont be long before the govt. mandates that device, and the price of basic car gos above 30,000.
Another thing have you noticed how high the beds of the newer pickups are getting,you need a ladder to get things into the bed, even on the 2wd models.

[Lowell Goudge]

I understand the need fuel efficiency, but there seems to be a lack of ideas in the design of todays cars. Look at the mid fifties studebaker silver and golden hawk nice design that was efficient.
How are cars like kia soul, scion xb,xd, nisson cube to name a few efficient. why does the prius and leaf have to be so ugly just because they are hybrid. Mustang has been able to keep in touch with the original design while still meeting today requirements, camaro is another, and dodge challenger also.its just that today so many of the car designs look similar,blah.
.

I dont argue some retro styles are pretty timeless, but also note, these cars are NOT the daily driver, or super economical. a 5 liter mustang is a far throw from the 1.6-2.o leter cars that fall into the maker neutral style box

[Just1MoreDave]

$60,000 for a simple 1965 car doesn't seem like a lot of money at all.

This is the problem with old cars: price equals the same thing new. A 2015 Corvette can be $55,000 without any boxes checked. Even if the old one is perfect, the new one will run rings around it in every (performance) way. It's not just Corvette. My wife just got a Mercedes-Benz SLK250, partly because she always loved the 230SL through the 280SL, mid-60s through say 1971. A nicely restored SL like that is the same price or more than the new one. I like the looks of both, and I can say that we can't go anywhere without two or three people saying that they like the car.

[monochrome]

This is the problem with old cars: price equals the same thing new. A 2015 Corvette can be $55,000 without any boxes checked. Even if the old one is perfect, the new one will run rings around it in every (performance) way.

The new Corvette has obligatory OnStar. You can easily run it at more than 1G through a twisting road course. If you cross the 1G threshold the car will notify OnStar Center and they will call you to see if you are OK. I've actually seen this done.

They're going to have obligatory eye movement sensing.

I wouldn't buy one for $25,000, or any other GM car for that matter..

[Just1MoreDave]

The 65 is not going to corner at 1G without a substantial budget and hoping that it is OK to subject all the 50 year-old parts you didn't throw away to double the original design stress.

I would have some qualms about a GM-designed eye movement sensor. They would probably forget to account for glasses. (Actual history of that.) But if it works, I don't see a down side to this particular technology. The SLK250 has a version of it, which is both less intrusive and I can turn it off. Sleepy or inattentive drivers are rarely excellent drivers.

[monochrome]

Sleepy or inattentive drivers are rarely excellent drivers.

Sure - I'll give you nod-off warning. But GM's stated design goal - and the technology is installed on a 2015 GMC SUV just debuted - is to interrupt driving texters.

Take your eyes off the road and we'll sound a loud warning klaxon (then we'll take control of your car if we inadvertently scare the #$^% out of you).

This is how tyranny starts*. Actually, it started with the seat belt ignition interlock in the 70's. I always use a seat belt - but I choose to use a seat belt.




* Ya know, we really shouldn't let you have a car that can handle 1G in a corner. There's no use for a car that can handle 1G in a corner. Except to drive it WAYYYYYY above the speed limit and recklessly sling it into a corner. So we're just going to scale things back a bit here. It's for your own safety and everyone else'. And . . . . . . Children!

[Sailor]

I'd say you did a wonderful job - looks like you had to contend with mixed sun and shade along with the other issues that can make car shows challenging for photographers.

I love the clean lines of that mid '60s Malibu SS, and of course the black C-2 is a stunner (brother Bob I hope you see this thread). Also, the svelte, uncluttered shape of the Cobra replica recalls the beauty of the real thing.

Again, very nice stuff.

Jer

[Miguel]

Outdoor car shows are so difficult to shoot due to environmental constraints, proximity of other vehicles, and all those other people who get in on the edges of the frame. The red Malibu (66?) is a wonderful shot because of the near perfect background. I'd put a calendar underneath it.

M

[sunrepairer]

I dont argue some retro styles are pretty timeless, but also note, these cars are NOT the daily driver, or super economical. a 5 liter mustang is a far throw from the 1.6-2.o leter cars that fall into the maker neutral style box

I don't argue that, but mustang makes a six that gets over 30mpg, and still looks good, my only argument is just because the car may have smaller engine is no reason that it can't have some character.

---------- Post added 09-02-14 at 09:25 PM ----------

I'd say you did a wonderful job - looks like you had to contend with mixed sun and shade along with the other issues that can make car shows challenging for photographers.

I love the clean lines of that mid '60s Malibu SS, and of course the black C-2 is a stunner (brother Bob I hope you see this thread). Also, the svelte, uncluttered shape of the Cobra replica recalls the beauty of the real thing.

Again, very nice stuff.

Jer

Thankyou sailor, I agree with you on the 64/65 Malibu had simple lines but it really worked.

---------- Post added 09-02-14 at 09:27 PM ----------

Outdoor car shows are so difficult to shoot due to environmental constraints, proximity of other vehicles, and all those other people who get in on the edges of the frame. The red Malibu (66?) is a wonderful shot because of the near perfect background. I'd put a calendar underneath it.

M

Thanks Miguel, that is a 65 Malibu.