zaina Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 The tab is there just like all the other dueces to mount it but there is no master cylinder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett Barrow Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Did anyone notice the fact that this kit doesn't have a master cylinder? Or am I just not seeing it in the box or the instructions? Noticed that. The tab is still there, but no master cylinder. Probably interfered with the new exhaust routing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Im gonna try that on my 1:1 rod. Eliminate the mastercylinder because the exhaust is in the way. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Most Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Im gonna try that on my 1:1 rod. Eliminate the mastercylinder because the exhaust is in the way. Lol. Don't. The 'Fred Flintstone Braking Method' isn't quite as effective as you've been led to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Master cylinder? We don't need no stinking master cylinder. Dang parts-counters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Hey, give 'em a brake. *ducking* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azers Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Theres a new market. Asbestos soled shoes. Hahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) 'Cause the marketing tie-in with GearZ is apt to draw in more casual modelers. And if you have a pool of more casual modelers, why sink the money into masters for a 100% kit when you can save it with amortized masters for the majority, develop new masters just for the most obvious unique bits, get an 85%-correct model, and figure the remaining 15% probably won't even get noticed by anyone except the lunatic fringe? Further proof, by the way, that a critical drubbing means shag-all to Revell's bottom line, or else we wouldn't keep seeing examples of this "meh, good enough" paradigm. And to be fair, they did try harder on the other three 2012 new tools. **EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies. Edited February 6, 2013 by Chuck Kourouklis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 That's above my pay grade, Case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 OK, OK, back to the Rat Roaster. I have yet to have my kit delivered, so I am curious if the instruction sheet shows the master cylinder at all or not. I wish Revell would have the instruction sheets available online once the kit appears on their 'site. It would make things much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 **EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies. Yeah, that was me. I figured better not to make waves. But since you saw my post and answered, well, waves made! But to get back to your comment about drawing in more casual modelers, Chuck... Since this is an all-new kit, wouldn't it have been just as easy to get it right than to get it wrong? Seriously... the excuses about why they cut this corner and that corner and why they left out this part and that part just doesn't make sense when you're talking about a new kit and not a re-release. Why not just make the freakin' thing right and satisfy both the "casual" modeler and the "lunatic fringe?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggon Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 I just cked my instructions and there is no master cylinder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Yeah, that was me. I figured better not to make waves. But since you saw my post and answered, well, waves made! But to get back to your comment about drawing in more casual modelers, Chuck... Since this is an all-new kit, wouldn't it have been just as easy to get it right than to get it wrong? Seriously... the excuses about why they cut this corner and that corner and why they left out this part and that part just doesn't make sense when you're talking about a new kit and not a re-release. Why not just make the freakin' thing right and satisfy both the "casual" modeler and the "lunatic fringe?" Philosophically, I'm bang-on your page, Harry. Pragmatically, I'm guessing it would have cost more to do the master patterns for the correct rear suspension and front axle than to recycle the previous patterns, to say nothing of the valve cover breathers, master cylinder, external door hinges, and other little bits m.i.a. It seems they did it the cheapest way you could still call the tooling "new". Frankly I'm glad we got a new firewall, a TKO and such great new rubber out of the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbox55 Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 The master cylinder is tucked inside the X member of the frame on the 1:1, however, there should a master cylinder for the hydraulic clutch mounted on the frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace-Garageguy Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Another possibility is that no one in the Rat Roaster deal-to-production loop is sufficiently a 'car-guy' to even have noticed the absence of a master cylinder or the correct front axle, etc. etc. After all, the old-tool front axle sorta looks like the one in the RR. This isn't as unlikely as it seems, because there has been a definite trend in business over the past many years towards thinking that management doesn't need to actually have any hands-on understanding of product. Leave the details to the grunts, who may not actually know what they're doing, and focus on marketing partnerships and related hooey. Anybody remember the o-rings on the Challenger solid-fuel rocket boosters that caused the first Space Shuttle disaster? If critical details like that can be glossed over by upper management, it's not that surprising that there are detail discrepencies on a car model, now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt T. Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Stacey David hisself probably signed off on this kit. Revell presented him with the box art build and he must have said "Looks great!" We have to remember that, for the car guys that don't build model cars, model cars are just office/book shelf decoration or "kid stuff." The lack of an under-floor master cylinder, or a correct I-beam even, isn't a deal breaker when you look at this as an "arm's-length replica." Or, maybe Stacey did say something, but it was too late to retool. Either way, he had to sign off on it - his name is on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Anybody remember the o-rings on the Challenger solid-fuel rocket boosters that caused the first Space Shuttle disaster? If critical details like that can be glossed over by upper management, it's not that surprising that there are detail discrepencies on a car model, now is it? OUCH. True, though. At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) ...At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford. I feel it's unproductive to speculate on the internal goings on and motivations at Revell. The observation regarding some of their other recent releases is the interesting part to me. There's no doubt in my mnd that Revell has, and will continue to, produce some very fine kits. Indeed, I'm sure that for every corporate drone buzzing around within its wall there is an equally committed modeler driving the corporate mission forward, often quite succesfully. But, ... I have a copy of the Rat Roaster kit. The more I look at it the less I like it. If it's my future source for Deuce roadsters it has increased the number of fixes I will have to do to make it universal enough to be suited to a variety of variants. The smaller than expected number of "plus" features has made it difficult for me to be enthused about it. Even the cool wheels and tires, as nice as they are, use a mounting system where the wheels, at least, are not easily adaptable to more standard systems. The bottom valance at the rear is Rat Roaster specific (although how they could avoid this, if they intended to model the Rat Roaster, is unclear). Much of the interior is toy like and, again, Rat Roaster specific (compare it to the previous interior, despite the dashboard). The hood is useless. etc., etc. As much as I welcome a fresh tooling of a 1/25th Deuce roadster, if this is to be our only one I remain unconvinced that doing the Rat Roaster, particularly at this level, was such a good idea... Edited February 6, 2013 by Bernard Kron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrknowetall Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Has anyone mounted the new Rat Roaster body on the old tool '32 frame? The bodies look pretty similar, along with the wheel well inserts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Kron Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Has anyone mounted the new Rat Roaster body on the old tool '32 frame? The bodies look pretty similar, along with the wheel well inserts. As I mentioned above, I'm doing a review of the Rat Roaster kit on another forum, comparing the RR with the earlier "Goodguys" release as well as the other 1/25th Revell Deuces currently available. I'm checking for compatibility and differences. The body has two significant changes, the firewall covered earlier on this thread, and the rear valance which is Rat Roaster specific with two small extensions that surround the gas tank as well as an inset for the license plate (see pictures below). The modified rear valance would need to be cut back for a full fendered conversion of to be correct for a stock bodied car. As a result the wheel well panels are different. However the mounting tabs are identically placed and the two panels can be interchanged betwenn the two kits. I'm focused on anoth project I'm trying to get done by next week so I haven't moved on to the chassis as yet, but an initial examination indicates that the RR frame is very close to, if not identical to, the older issue chassis. I should get to a more formal comparison in a couple of weeks. Edited February 6, 2013 by Bernard Kron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Kourouklis Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 It's funny you bring up the DOH example, Casey, 'cause it occurred to me too. And while it's absolutely correct that the General Lee wasn't a single specific car, it's just as true that there probably wasn't one, among all the '69 Chargers sacrificed for that show, had a flush-mounted 500-style backlight instead of the standard flying buttress C-pillars. That was a detail about the kit that had me going "wtf??" as an 11-year-old consumer, and it's the chief reason I think your basic point stands. Like many of you, I think Revell kinda blew it by not taking advantage of all the Roaster's features to generate some bones to toss the trad crowd and herald another, even more traditional version down the line. But I say this having to acknowledge some pretty strong work in their other new 2012 kits, and I think the good news here is that Revell has a way of coming around - which is why I would encourage the trad crowd to grouse loudly and repeatedly about the omissions here. I mean, I know the AMBR judges don't know squat ( ), but even outside of that, traditional movements are building steam, and if you guys are loud enough, Revell might just catch the wave before it washes away. And if there's another Revell Deuce permutation ahead to play the COPO Nova to the Roaster's Yenko, that would probably be a very good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 OUCH. True, though. At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford. We should be glad that Revell wasn't in charge of the space shuttle program... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggon Posted February 6, 2013 Share Posted February 6, 2013 Like many of you, I think Revell kinda blew it by not taking advantage of all the Roaster's features to generate some bones to toss the trad crowd and herald another, even more traditional version down the line. But I say this having to acknowledge some pretty strong work in their other new 2012 kits, and I think the good news here is that Revell has a way of coming around - which is why I would encourage the trad crowd to grouse loudly and repeatedly about the omissions here. I'm hoping that this kit morphs into the McMullen roadster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrknowetall Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I wouldn't hold my breath, but you never know. I can see Revell doing a full fendered '32 roadster at some point, along with a '32 pickup. I'm sure they have other subjects in mind away from the 1932 genre. Just my guess. I'd rather see them do a line of Model A street rod kits, which has been a hot topic in the 1:1 street rod world for more than a few years. Again, I'm not holding MY breath on that wish either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samdiego Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side. This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also Edited February 7, 2013 by samdiego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.