Talk:Rat rod

Big Daddy Ed Roth

"Rat" rod isn't a reference to Ed Roth's designs? —RandallJones 08:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Rod now defines style of Hot Rod

Rat Rod has now been used in media for over 10 years as a type of radically built Hot Rod. This term orginal a negative comment has now become a postive comment used among the builder and enthusist of Rat Rods. As cited in Old School Rodz, Kar Kulture Delux, Burnout, Barccuda, Rolls&Pletts and many other current Hot Rod publications. The POV that rat rods is a poorly built hot rod is not the correct definition in todays publications. — HunterIrrigation 11:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rat Rod

It is important to inculded that traditional hot roders dissagree with the term rat rod and find it dergatory. A Rat Rod is not a traditonal hot rod built in 50's style. It is a rod built with the same parts as in the 50's with a more radical stance and look. If any one has pictures of a rat rods to put up it would be appricated. It is easier to see pictures of traditional hot rods and rat rods to really understand the difference.

 Im Saying Wrong. and right. BUILD
             Brando.

-There is so many definitions of an "Rat Rod", an car that would never have become an "Traditional Hot Rod" can be built in the traditional style, and still accepted, but could also be built in the "Rat" fashion (Exageratted view of the Traditional Style), or vice versa.

I have been around Hot Rods, Street Rods, Street Machines, Race Cars, Harleys, Dirt Bikes, Cart Racing and almost anything involving wheels and a motor since I was born. My Dad was a racer and builder and I grew up around it in central Florida. We move to California where he was from, then back to Fla. move some more and kept up the "car/bike" habit. I joined the military right out of high school and that put me around alot of other gearheads (lots or gearheads in military) from all over the USA. I worked in a prominent HOT ROD shop while I was in for several years. I have heard the term rat rod used for at least 20 years, but it has blossomed over the last 5-8 years. I first heard it from a couple of northeast coast car guys in the military, us southeastern guys usually call ours beaters. What it was referred to is a car built out of parts that the builder had "ratted away for awhile, then pulled them out when they were close to having enough parts to complete a car. Most of the time it was a chevy (rat) engine also used. But no certain parts, car types, or parts/suspension were required to be placed in the Rat Rod category. Just my view from my experience on the subject.

Merge with Rat rod

I've found an article named Rat Rod, whioch obviously sdeals with the same as this article. Can someone merge their contents? -- NaBUru38 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Rod picture

The picture that says ""Typical "rough" finish of Rat Rods"" is the same that the one in the article called Hot Rod where is called "Traditional Hot Rod". That car is a rat or a hot rod? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.32.43.41 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Criticism

The criticism section was edited for standard English and assumptive arguments were removed.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.149.2 (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Dispute

This article seems fairly littered with non-neutral content, unsupported (and even undocumentable) assertions, and a seeming general bias against the subject at hand. I also question the need for the "Criticism" section, since most of its content seems to be based upon the opinions of the original writer and his/her unsupported generalizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.8 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I agree. I think I deleted something that just looked ridiculous. Rat rods were not well presented in this article at all. It needs a rewrite based on more accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.198.190 (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenition

The following sentence seems contradictory and muddled, so I moved it here:

"There is a suspicion on the hot rod camp that the Rat Rod movement leans toward under dramatic, safe, and exaggerated vehicles built for nothing more than to display their "Radical innovative" engineering at shows, commonly driven or moving reliably under their own power for more than short distances, however operator status still is the directive factor in the outcome of negative vehicular interaction."

Straussian (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I cleaned this article up somewhat. I'm not an expert in this field so I've tried to leave the content as it is, but have tidied up some wordiness and unencyclopedic phrasing. The images were of Hot Rods, not Rat Rods, so I removed them.

Straussian (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with my Ebay reference? BJS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.215.16 (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the January 2013 drive, I have completed a copyedit of the article. It would be good to obtain feedback from someone who is knowledgeable in the area.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Rat Rods?

Is this really a big enough phenomenon to have its own section here? I've been to countless rod and kustom shows in the past ten years and have never once seen one of these "modern" rat rods, nor does a quick google search turn up more than a single reference. Obviously, each person's rat rod is unique and at least slightly different from every other one out there, but does that mean that they all deserve their own segment in this article? If so, I'll start writing one for my car right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.163 (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its just placeholder info, they do exist, but its more personal and just describes the general look of these cars. Doing a google search probably wont give u references, but you will see 2 or 3 modern rat cars within the countless pics of ratrods. However most of them would count as sleepers, but this doesnt apply as these cars dont usually have high powered engines 67.243.176.215 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that would indicate that it's not really prevalent enough to have a subsection. For example, while I'm sure there must be a non-zero number of people in Japan who consider themselves to be cowboys, does that miniscule subset REALLY warrant a subsection in the cowboys wiki article about "Japanese cowboys?" Unless I see citations/links to this so-called "modern rat rod" thing, I'm going to keep pushing for its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.163 (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the 'rally car look' statement. There *is* no 'rally car look', as rally cars have a multitude of classes and most of them look absolutely stock from the outside, as per FIA regulations. Sensekhmet (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm once again removing the "modern rat rod" section. There have been no citations or instances of this phenomenon offered up to demonstrate that it's prevalent enough to have a section. Even searching for the term in google turns up this article at the top, and no other actual references except for wrong context or jokes on message boards.192.249.47.163 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Regarding the article changes that have been made (and reverted) during 11/18/2010: After investigating some of the links posted, and doing a little googling, it's obvious that this Russ Ellis guy is (or is affiliated with) the wiki user "azngosh8r," and is attempting to use this wiki article to advertise his car sales business. 192.249.47.163 (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of the site oldtinrods.com ("ronniepe") keeps adding links to and images from his fabricating business. These will continue to be removed, as wikipedia is not to be used for advertising purposes. 69.174.58.132 (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot understand why (talk) is giving me so much grief. All I have done was add a true statement. There are quite a few rat rod builders that request a frame to be built. I know this because I build quite a few of them. Call it what you will but the fact is that yes, the owner of www.oldtinrods.com has added a fact to the wiki and signed it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniepe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning whether the statement is true or not. The problem is that you've linked to a website that does not qualify as a reliable source as wikipedia defines it. The website in question seems to be mostly devoted to advertising a product or service as opposed to being a source of information on rat rods in general. The second issue is that you admit to being the owner of the website in question. This raises the issue of whether you may have a conflict of interest. In a nutshell, we aren't convinced you are here to help us build an encyclopedia as opposed to trying to advance the interests of your business. In these cases, it is recommended that you propose changes to the article here on the talk page and ask that if another editor agrees, they make the suggested change to the article. Having a conflict of interest doesn't prevent you from contributing to the project, but it does mean your edits in the area where the conflict exists will be under very strict scrutiny. Please view the WP:PSCOI guide for more information. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Ronniepe's last post. Threatening posts like this are not acceptable. --Daniel 03:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up for Deletion

If the article is non-cited, then how can one tell if it's original research and opinion? What's the basis for comparison? 69.174.58.140 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up for speedy deletion anymore, but it could still qualify for WP:AFD. Sourcing is lacking.

Here are some from Google News, not sure how many are useful:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22rat+rod%22

Here are some from Google books, which may be better as references:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22rat+rod%22&tbm=bks

This article has been around for a long time and has had many contributors. I am surprised nobody has added any references in all those years. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who's been active in the world of Rat Rods for over a decade, there really aren't a whole lot of non-commercial references out there. Aside from photographs, which exist in abundance. Maybe I should write a book.69.174.58.140 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, there seem to be plenty of books that cover this topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some citation tags in the body of the article, as this article really needs more than one citation; however, I did update the tag at the head of the article, as it stated that the article is unreferenced.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]