This is kind of a rehash of the definition thing that's been ongoing pretty hot and heavy for the last month or so. Maybe this thread can at least get the 2 points of view across (hey, it could happen )

Just a brief rehash of what I've said before.............

For MYSELF (and I suspect more than a couple of other here) what defines a rat rod IS poor workmanship, safety issues and wether the car is road worthy or not......... IF THE CAR DOES NOT HAVE ISSUES IN THOSE AREAS, to ME at least it's NOT a rat rod....... and would fall into some other catagory based on body style, modifications, time frame the builder is trying to capture etc.

My icon picture is my 37 Dodge (which is currently back burnered). The picture was taken during the mockup stage. When I get back to it, it will eventually try to capture the FEEL of something build during early/mid 60's. Like Don's project there are going to be some concessions (IFS, disc brakes and a latter steering column) that will keep it from being era correct. I can't bring myself NOT to redo the paint, but thats me.

One route I could have taken with it would have been to leave the body/paint/interior as it was when I got it. The frame would still be boxed, brakes/tires new, and all the work done correctly. I reasise that by doing that MANY people would classify it as a Rat Rod, but im my mind it would be going for an "as found" STYLE.

While I could re-think my definition and expand it to include Rat Rod STYLE cars, the basis for the definition I use is an unsafe vechile (no matter the style)....how do you make something look unsafe without it being unsafe ???