Back to the Drawing Board (So to Speak)

Jeff Puthuff
by Jeff Puthuff

Due to overwhelming (negative) reaction to the choices we made for Monday’s logo poll, we are starting from scratch but this time with professional graphics designers. Several have expressed a desire to offer their services, gratis, for which we are eternally grateful and we hope to provide the winner with something. I’m thinking a permanent, prominent link on TTAC to their portfolio or business site and the glory and recognition that goes with being “Designer to TheTruthAboutCars” or somesuch. I digress.

Some of the more considerate commenters on that original post mentioned that we need to explain what we’re looking for. Well, if it were that easy . . . we’re not designers. (You’re shocked, right?) We’re writers and researchers and snarks. Big difference. But, after some research, I’ve come up with some guidelines and desires for the new logo:

1. We prefer a vector or, at the very least, high-resolution. We’re going to be shrinking the logo for business cards and stretching it for t-shirts and beach towels and the last thing we need is pixelation.

2. Maximum of three colors (we can’t afford more). They don’t need to be the exact colors used now on the site but please keep it simple yet manly.

3. That said, the logo should work well in black and white, too.

4. We’d like it to somehow convey/emphasize “Truth” since that’s our mission.

5. A favicon would be awesome, too, but isn’t necessary.

Jason Parry (JayParry) designed “Angled Grungy” (my name for it), the winner of Monday’s poll with nearly 23% of the vote. “Gavel” was a close second, losing by only 24 votes. There were a lot of commenters who said they didn’t like any of the choices, but they were in the minority as more than 850 people voted and “Angled Grungy” (our favorite) was consistently (all day) in first place. Jason’s logo automatically gets entered into the final round.

Here’s a taste of new submissions and old favorites. We’re accepting submissions until Sunday. Thanks again, artists!



I’m allowing comments but you must keep them civil and constructive. No “these are all s**t” (and the like) comments will be tolerated. It’s fine to not like something but at least be considerate of the people who contribute their time to this project. It ain’t isn’t easy and none of us are being paid for it.

Jeff Puthuff
Jeff Puthuff

Early 30s California guy driving a 97 Infiniti I30. Past cars: 90 Cavalier, 82 Skylark, 78 Courier, 61 Beetle.

More by Jeff Puthuff

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 39 comments
  • Elloh7 Elloh7 on Feb 26, 2009

    @Tiki: Thanks for the resources. Designers and artists of all colors can always use more resources. :) I'll check out the other link too, sounds interesting.

  • Jeff Puthuff Jeff Puthuff on Feb 26, 2009

    What Knight said. Spot on. I'm very pleased with the quality of the comments on this thread. I truly appreciate it and have learned quite a bit.

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next