Help me understand "wheel gap"

On a blog I read, one of the commentators had an issue with the stock appearance of a Gen1 Celica.

He said that it needed lowering springs (or whatever) because there was too much "wheel gap". I think the implication is that the top of the tire sits (visually) below the wheel arch.

Now don't get me wrong - I understand the handling and aerodynamic benefits of a lowered car.

But I fail to see how a normal suspension in a normal wheel arch is visually offensive. I expect a more insightful response here than on the blog where I originally found it.

I'm not a designer, and I don't have a designer's eye. What is so offensive?

Oh man, I can't wait to see Anti-Stance's response to this.

EvanR wrote: But I fail to see how a normal suspension in a normal wheel arch is visually offensive. I expect a more insightful response here than on the blog where I originally found it. I'm not a designer, and I don't have a designer's eye. What is so offensive?

It's a form of schizophrenia to fixate on one minute aspect of something, while completely ignoring everything else.

For example, slamming a car to get rid of the wheel gap at the very top of the fenderwell, while ignoring the 3-4" of gap at the sides.

Me, I see slammed cars and think they look awful, because the proportions get destroyed. It's like the same effect as jacking a car up two feet to put 28" wheels on it.

So I guess this...

Must be the height of automobile design!

Look at a stock height E30 vs a lowered one. Stock height looks terrible.

I attribute it to playing with Hot Wheels and being around race cars growing up.

z31maniac wrote: Stock height looks terrible.

Okay, this is your position. I want to understand WHY you feel this way. To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

Yeah I find too much wheel gap visually offensive. Not if the tire just sits below the wheel arch, but if the distance is excessive. I think a stock 1st gen celica would look better with about 1"~2" less ride height.

It even looks bad on offroad vehicles sometimes, that's why I think they should have squarish or angular wheel arches to visually separate themselves from the wheels.

GameboyRMH wrote: Yeah I find too much wheel gap visually offensive.

Again, I'm trying to understand WHY it offends you.

Really? I don't see the problem. I've heard "car guys" since I was a kid talk about performance wheels and tires looking better because they "fill the wheel wells better". I get the idea of looking down your nose at form over function, but do any of us not think our cars look cooler when we lower them? "Wheel gap" may be the vernacular of unruly youngsters these days, but who cares?

I think the wheel arch should be roughly concentric with the wheel in the resting position, too low or especially too high just doesn't look good to me. The wheel arch should frame the wheel not just float above it like an afterthought.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: but do any of us *not* think our cars look cooler when we lower them?

I don't. That's my whole point. When I bought my xB, the PO had installed lowering springs. I thought they made the car look disproportionate.

I found some stock springs and raised the car back up. Now it looks right to me.

Well, I found a car for you.

When I see a sporty car, it doesn't quite look as sport in street trim. I like wide wheels, lowered, fender flares, cage, racing seats, big tall shifter and aggressive exhaust.

But for the majority of most cars, I could care less if its lowered or not. I don't see a minivan, a Taurus, or a SUV and think "that'd look better dropped".

It's like seeing a good looking lady with her clothes on. She looks damn good with the clothes on...but better without.

EvanR wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Stock height looks terrible.

Okay, this is your position. I want to understand WHY you feel this way. To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

I don't know, it just? Define Quality for me.

vs

Because it looks like a lowered race car. And it's why people will consider both of these cars to be acceptable. One's low because it looks cool, one's tall because that's where it needs to be.

Personally, I like the wheel well to be a good fit around the shape of the wheel. Too low, it looks like the wheel's in the wrong place. A mostly circular wheel well should have the wheel center at the center of the circle.

EvanR wrote: To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

And to others, a lowered BMW looks better.

Oh god, that blue Miata is teh sexxorz!

Yes. Good looking woman without clothes.

Sorry I can't appreciate a car when I know the wheels will crash into the fenders if it runs over a pebble. I should be able to believe it can drive on smooth roads if the suspension is set F1-hard.

Going on vacation? Might plan a trip here!

http://www.eachtown.com/places/Big-Wheel-Gap;1277440.html

z31maniac wrote: Oh god, that blue Miata is teh sexxorz!

See, and I like the look of the targa car better.

I guess I've solved my own problem here. It's theoretical.

I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars are designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

I wouldn't want car designers to tell me I do my job poorly. They don't know my craft.

To me, lowering a car (solely for appearance purposes, mind you) is akin to telling the car designer that he/she did a crappy job. Since I don't know car design, I feel I couldn't say that.

z31maniac wrote:

EvanR wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Stock height looks terrible.

Okay, this is your position. I want to understand WHY you feel this way. To me, a stock-height BMW looks just fine.

I don't know, it just? Define Quality for me. vs

That is ugly, the wheels are too big.

EvanR wrote: I'm not a designer. I assume the people whose job it is to design cars *are* designers. I respect their craft, and I respect their skills. I figure that people who are paid to design cars know best how they ought to look.

You could use that argument against any modification of any car. In 1993, Toyota put 15" wheels on the MR2. Otherwise, it looked the same. Almost everyone thinks it looks better. I got a set of '93 wheels for my '91 just 'cause I thought it looked better. What's wrong with that?

EvanR wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: Yeah I find too much wheel gap visually offensive.

Again, I'm trying to understand WHY it offends you.

Taste and preference.

This was my Mk2 Jetta. It was very low but still drove fine(ish). I liked the way it looked though.

Evan, you like the Targa car better because it's functional It looks good 2" lower as well, but that's because in that case it's been set up for a different function.

Looking at the MR2 just above the post - the wheel is perfectly placed in the front wheel well in the larger picture. In my oh-so-humble opinion. You'll notice the wheels are properly placed in the wheel wells in those designer sketches as well, even if the cars are slammed.

To me, the Jetta appears to have a collapsed suspension.