SCCA GT-classic cars, traditionally, have worn contemporary bodywork over a tube chassis. That plan, theoretically, would allow drivers to update an outgoing model to the new one–or even switch from one brand’s engine and fiberglass to another.
New Camaro out, for example? No need to t…
Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
In reply to msterbeau :
I don't think it's any more "misshapen" than the Camaro and Mustang Trans-Am cars from that time period. I look at it and see a neat falcon GT-1 car.
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
No, but when Ford Or Chevy developed a 1988 ______ into a 1988 SCCA Trans Am car or IMSA GTO car it made some sense from a business/marketing standpoint. Developing a 1960's Falcon in 2009 is a passion project and only something one would do if that original car was recognizable. Which it isn't.
David S. Wallens said:FWIW, I love cars like this–and this:
This is much better, in my opinion. Same basic idea but I know exactly what this is (supposed to be).
In reply to msterbeau :
Asa multi-time Falcon owner, it's instantly recognizeable to me. To people who never saw a Falcon before, even a stock one wouldn't be recognizeable. So it's kind of a moot point. it's a cool concept that instantly makes it unique among a sea of all-the-same race cars.
Though, as a street car, this one is my favorite (and a lot of subtle stuff going on here under the skin)
In reply to Chris_V :
I like your Falcon.Still looks like a first body style one.The front of the tube frame one just doesn't look like a Falcon
That Falcon is pretty rad.
msterbeau said:Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
Can you show me on the doll where the superfalcon hurt you?
Dude this thing is awesome. I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
JG Pasterjak said:msterbeau said:Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
Can you show me on the doll where the superfalcon hurt you?
Dude this thing is awesome. I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
Meh. Fiberglass blob.
If I'm going to spend a large wad of cash making a crazy, vintage-inspired thing, this is where I'm headed:
JG Pasterjak said:I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
Which is 98% of the custom cars in the world. There are some amazing, creative, beautifully executed vehicles out there created by individuals or small teams just doing what they feel like doing. There are also a whole heap of ugly, questionably designed, poorly executed messes out there. This falls someplace in between, in my opinion. I admire the build. I'm not impressed by the execution of the body design. Full disclosure: I'm a picky, discerning person, who's tastes are colored by 30+ years as a design professional. I don't like a lot of stuff many others do. C'est la vie.
msterbeau said:JG Pasterjak said:msterbeau said:Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
Can you show me on the doll where the superfalcon hurt you?
Dude this thing is awesome. I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
Meh. Fiberglass blob.
If I'm going to spend a large wad of cash making a crazy, vintage-inspired thing, this is where I'm headed:
Two more very solid answers here. We'll let you slide for now :)
JG Pasterjak said:msterbeau said:JG Pasterjak said:msterbeau said:Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
Can you show me on the doll where the superfalcon hurt you?
Dude this thing is awesome. I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
Meh. Fiberglass blob.
If I'm going to spend a large wad of cash making a crazy, vintage-inspired thing, this is where I'm headed:
Two more very solid answers here. We'll let you slide for now :)
Thank you kind sir. 
My buddy crews for Doug Richmond who races chassis #2... the big sister. He is super competitive in SVRA goup 10 (big bore ground pounders). The car hauls the freight. I somewhat agree that maybe some decals that look like headlights (like NASCAR) would make it look more Falcon.
I kind of have to agree with a couple of folks here. From the A pillar back it does pretty much envision the Falcon. The front, however, resembles a pillow on my Sleep Number bed.
P.S. I really like the cruise-in Falcon.....
It is Falcon enough. Generally, the Falcon has been so junkyard-bound since the 1970s that really only people with significant quantities of gray hair know what one looks like anymore. Clue: The 1963.5 body style (only made for six months) is the most iconic (like a tiny Galaxie), hence the choice for this build. Kudos to whoever made the choice. Kudos to whoever gets it.
JG Pasterjak said:msterbeau said:Tube-frame silhouette cars like this made sense when they were based on a contemporary car for an active series. They make no sense at all in this context. If you asked me to identify what car it was originally, the only clue I would have is the tail lights. Kinda. why base a modern style race car on a vintage one if you can't even tell what it it when you're done? All I see is a fiberglass blob.
Can you show me on the doll where the superfalcon hurt you?
Dude this thing is awesome. I kind of love that they didn't build it as a marketing exercise, they just built it to be cool.
If I could give this post a hundred more thumbs up, I would. You rock, dude!
300zxfreak said:I kind of have to agree with a couple of folks here. From the A pillar back it does pretty much envision the Falcon. The front, however, resembles a pillow on my Sleep Number bed.
I like it. To me, the Falcon is following the example set by the Plymouth Superbird or Torino Talladega - a swoopy nose added to a (relatively) stock shaped body. if you cut off the first 24 inches of the nose and replaced it with a stock grille and bumper, would it be more acceptable?
You'll need to log in to post.
