Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

1/25 Revell '70 Plymouth HEMI 'Cuda 2'n1


Recommended Posts

Please, for the benefit of all mankind, let us never mention a Revell 1/24 '70 AAR 'Cuda again. -_-

I forgot to check the two built up models to see if the passenger's side view mirror was added and/or of the locating depression was present as on the driver's side.

Hmmm, do they sell paint in 1/32 oz quantities?

70three.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as humans are involved in the creation of model kits for profit, there will be mistakes.

Do you ever wish that Revell would follow Moebius' lead and ask for input from model boards like ours? Moebius paid attention to the ones who knew their stuff and the Hudson became a better kit because of it. I think you could make a pretty good argument that if Revell had done something like this before the AAR 'Cuda was tooled, the word "fiasco" wouldn't be used nearly as often in conjunction with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Money that goes into tooling, why not tool it Right the first time?

Because getting it right costs money, and lets be honest here, car modelers are cheap. Would you be willing to spend $50 on an accurate kit?? Hell, I spend $50-$70 on my tanks, $100-$150 on my planes. Why you ask?? Because those kit makers actually took the time to do the research and cut the tooling to be accurate. Are they 100% accurate, no, but pretty darn close (in the 90%-95% range) and whats not right, I correct, since I am after all a model builder and not just a kit assembler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you ever wish that Revell would follow Moebius' lead and ask for input from model boards like ours? Moebius paid attention to the ones who knew their stuff and the Hudson became a better kit because of it. I think you could make a pretty good argument that if Revell had done something like this before the AAR 'Cuda was tooled, the word "fiasco" wouldn't be used nearly as often in conjunction with it.

A ha, there's the rub - we like Moebius because they come on here and ask what we think. But they've done what, two cars, a truck and a trailer so far? Still an upstart. When they're in the position where Revell is now we'll see if they still come on here and ask for input.

How long did it take the wise and all-knowing board to point out the rear wheel skirts were in the wrong place on the Hudson, or that the roof of the 300 was goofy? I don't remember that happening on the board, I just remember a lot of "attaboys" and "keep it ups". It's a lot like the Workbench section, you get very few people willing to step up and speak freely, even if the OP asks for it. I think Revell knows it (and Moebius has learned it) that folks are a lot more honest and open when they're talking behind your back and don't think you're listening... ^_^

And we also assume that if they know about it, they'll fix it. Believe me, they know the issues without someone on a board pointing it out. But once we know that they know, we expect them to fix it. And that's not always possible, there are always budgets and deadlines to be met, especially the larger and bigger you get. There's always an ROI to be considered with any last-minute tweak, will the fix help sales, or will the delay hurt sales? You've always got to make that choice, and it's a tough call. What ends up on the shelf is always going to be a comprimise of some sorts between perfection and reality. There's an old saying I've heard in manufacturing and engineering that says that chasing down that last 10% on a project will end up doubling the cost and doubling the time.

So why don't they get it right, right out of the chute? I mean, with all that money they spend, you'd think they'd get it right! And why don't my paint jobs come out right the first time, I mean I spend a lot of money on paint and airbrushes, but my paint jobs don't always come out right the first time. I make a lot of mistakes. And why do I snap hook my tee shots into the woods, I mean, I spend so much money on golf clubs and lessons and whatnot, and I still slice one in the weeds every now and then. Because I'm human. And humans make mistakes. And humans design model kits... Humans with budgets and timelines to meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why don't they get it right, right out of the chute? I mean, with all that money they spend, you'd think they'd get it right! And why don't my paint jobs come out right the first time, I mean I spend a lot of money on paint and airbrushes, but my paint jobs don't always come out right the first time. I make a lot of mistakes. And why do I snap hook my tee shots into the woods, I mean, I spend so much money on golf clubs and lessons and whatnot, and I still slice one in the weeds every now and then. Because I'm human. And humans make mistakes. And humans design model kits... Humans with budgets and timelines to meet.

It's a big difference between an individual doing something, and a product development team in a company...don't they QA their designs before and after tooling them up? Where is the accountability for product quality and accuracy?

Edited by Rob Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a big difference between an individual doing something, and a product development team in a company...don't they QA their designs before and after tooling them up? Where is the accountability for product quality and accuracy?

I am all for 100% accuracy, but I like to think I'm realistic enough to realize perfection is not going to happen.

You show a group of twenty people pictures of a '70 Hemi Cuda then show them the test shots built up, and how many of those twenty are all going to agree the model looks a bit too tall, the wheel lips are to thick, and the lump in the twin-scoop hood is too prominent?

Look at this black '70, and in particular, how the wheel arches/lips meet and blend into the flat part of the fender/quarter panel:

1bf52dfd-68b2-40aa-b3b8-4768a1305a56.jpg

Then compare the same areas on this EK5 Burnt Orange(?) '70:

3b058f73-4c1f-45c1-83a0-ee47ada99bf0.jpg

And this AAR:

35605499-1fbe-438f-bcdf-6d6748d657b9.jpg

They're all different, so which is "correct"? There can't be a "this is how they all were and should be" consensus when the real cars were never all exactly the same. A stamping machine isn't going to stamp and exact copy of the same roof skin 20,000 times, so whoever is dong the pattern work for Revell has to use all the information and arrive at the best possible conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a big difference between an individual doing something, and a product development team in a company...don't they QA their designs before and after tooling them up? Where is the accountability for product quality and accuracy?

Design work is still done by an individual designer and they put a lot of trust in that individual. They hire a designer to produce the drawings and patterns from which they can make model kits. Those initial designs and first patterns are always going to be flawed, some more than others, and they always have been since the dawn of modeling. Now the back and forth, the give and take begins, what do you fix and what do you leave alone? Now it becomes a bit more of a collaborative effort, between the designer, pattern makers or tool makers, the R&D teams, et al... But they don't do design by committee. That don't work. You get something down, either on paper, or in the computer. That's what you start with - good or bad, perfect or flawed. Then you tweak. And you tweak until you run out of time or money or both. Then you run what you've got, you dance with who brung you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for 100% accuracy, but I like to think I'm realistic enough to realize perfection is not going to happen.

You show a group of twenty people pictures of a '70 Hemi Cuda then show them the test shots built up, and how many of those twenty are all going to agree the model looks a bit too tall, the wheel lips are to thick, and the lump in the twin-scoop hood is too prominent?

Look at this black '70, and in particular, how the wheel arches/lips meet and blend into the flat part of the fender/quarter panel:

They're all different, so which is "correct"? There can't be a "this is how they all were and should be" consensus when the real cars were never all exactly the same. A stamping machine isn't going to stamp and exact copy of the same roof skin 20,000 times, so whoever is dong the pattern work for Revell has to use all the information and arrive at the best possible conclusion.

They are all the same (different hood on the AAR), only appear different because of differences in the photos. I would hope Revell isn't relying on photographs of a 1:1 and has a more precise means of capturing measurements and shapes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are all the same (different hood on the AAR), only appear different because of differences in the photos. I would hope Revell isn't relying on photographs of a 1:1 and has a more precise means of capturing measurements and shapes...

This is exactly my point, Rob. If you and I see different things in three images and don't agree on the details, how can Revell be expected to have one true, set in stone "standard" '70 Hemi Cuda upon which their kit is based? No such standard exists.

We went through this whole debate regarding Moebius' Hudson Hornet, and they still got the fender skirts wrong when the kit was produced, and guess what? They still sold a ton of 'em. Same deal with this kit IMHO. It'll be a huge seller, and a staple in the Revell lineup for decades to come. For the 137 people or so who find the flaws so repugnant they refuse to purchase it, I respect and understand that, but Revell will survive and release future variants, satisfying their core customers pent up demand for a great '70 Hemi Cuda kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ha, there's the rub - we like Moebius because they come on here and ask what we think. But they've done what, two cars, a truck and a trailer so far? Still an upstart. When they're in the position where Revell is now we'll see if they still come on here and ask for input.

How long did it take the wise and all-knowing board to point out the rear wheel skirts were in the wrong place on the Hudson, or that the roof of the 300 was goofy? I don't remember that happening on the board, I just remember a lot of "attaboys" and "keep it ups". It's a lot like the Workbench section, you get very few people willing to step up and speak freely, even if the OP asks for it. I think Revell knows it (and Moebius has learned it) that folks are a lot more honest and open when they're talking behind your back and don't think you're listening... ^_^

And we also assume that if they know about it, they'll fix it. Believe me, they know the issues without someone on a board pointing it out. But once we know that they know, we expect them to fix it. And that's not always possible, there are always budgets and deadlines to be met, especially the larger and bigger you get. There's always an ROI to be considered with any last-minute tweak, will the fix help sales, or will the delay hurt sales? You've always got to make that choice, and it's a tough call. What ends up on the shelf is always going to be a comprimise of some sorts between perfection and reality. There's an old saying I've heard in manufacturing and engineering that says that chasing down that last 10% on a project will end up doubling the cost and doubling the time.

So why don't they get it right, right out of the chute? I mean, with all that money they spend, you'd think they'd get it right! And why don't my paint jobs come out right the first time, I mean I spend a lot of money on paint and airbrushes, but my paint jobs don't always come out right the first time. I make a lot of mistakes. And why do I snap hook my tee shots into the woods, I mean, I spend so much money on golf clubs and lessons and whatnot, and I still slice one in the weeds every now and then. Because I'm human. And humans make mistakes. And humans design model kits... Humans with budgets and timelines to meet.

Excellent synopsis, as expected. I may quibble with you on one point: Moebius also brought their Hudson project to the Spotlight Hobbies board and, to the best of my recollection, received more helpful critiques than atta-boys. I'm guessing that's probably because their membership skews slightly older than MCM's. As you noted, Moebius still didn't catch all the errors (seems like the rear axle mounts directly to the frame) but again, imagine how that kit might've turned out if they hadn't asked for input. We'd probably be calling them Trumpeter Jr.

I'd love it if everyone took your point regarding comments in the Workbench section. Probably better leave it at that. :unsure:

Wish I could help you on the golf thing but I haven't advanced beyond courses with large-mouthed clowns and tricky windmills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again. Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad.

I am all for 100% accuracy, but I like to think I'm realistic enough to realize perfection is not going to happen.

You show a group of twenty people pictures of a '70 Hemi Cuda then show them the test shots built up, and how many of those twenty are all going to agree the model looks a bit too tall, the wheel lips are to thick, and the lump in the twin-scoop hood is too prominent?

Look at this black '70, and in particular, how the wheel arches/lips meet and blend into the flat part of the fender/quarter panel:

1bf52dfd-68b2-40aa-b3b8-4768a1305a56.jpg

Then compare the same areas on this EK5 Burnt Orange(?) '70:

3b058f73-4c1f-45c1-83a0-ee47ada99bf0.jpg

And this AAR:

35605499-1fbe-438f-bcdf-6d6748d657b9.jpg

They're all different, so which is "correct"? There can't be a "this is how they all were and should be" consensus when the real cars were never all exactly the same. A stamping machine isn't going to stamp and exact copy of the same roof skin 20,000 times, so whoever is dong the pattern work for Revell has to use all the information and arrive at the best possible conclusion.

But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples:

2012-10-06160608.jpg

Now there's a big difference in the angle of the model versus the varying angles of the 1:1 profile shots, but where the differences in the 1:1 can just about be accounted for in factors like camera lens distortion, subject angle and focus, you can't say the same about where the model goes off course. Every single example you use points to a front wheel arch that's flattish and over-prounounced, and an upper fender-door-quarter surface that's a bit beefy relative to the surface just below the crease (the black one, less so, thanks to the same focus and lighting issues creating the illusion of a blending rear wheel arch). And the top two shots only bludgeon Ron's and Bill's points about the two-scoop hood home.

By the way, there's room to point this out and still acknowledge that the new model overall is just stupid better than any previous Revell/Monogram 'Cuda. It's probably good enough (straight down to chromed taillights which can be done-in-one with a fine-tip red Sharpie). Thing is, we're just coming off a '57 Ford that's everything you could want out of a Revell model - way better than "good enough"- and a '50 Olds only a little shy of that standard. Revell can be more consistent than this, and they have been in the recent past. But nobody's gonna encourage them to do so by rationalizing every little instance they go wide of the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again. Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=55&showentry=107

For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad.

But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand what the flaws are (beltline to shoulders looks too tall, inner scoop ridges are too short, wheel lips are too fat), and I even agree they should be addressed, so interpreting my "no kit is perfect" comment as an attempted justification as to why these flaws exist is not the case. I don't know exactly why Revell (or any other company) doesn't get it prefect every single time, but I do realize debating how close to perfection each of us perceives this kit to be is only good up to a certain point, and that point is different for each of us.

And yes, all three example I posted how noticeable differences in the wheel lip areas alone, and that was intentional--t o show they are all different. And yes, they are all different from what we see on the 1/25 scale model, but as I said already, I agree that the model's wheel lips could be better, so I have no need to try to justify why they aren't. I think most of us would rather see them improved than debate why Revell hasn't done that yet, but will it happen? I guess we'll see in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you. You'd be far from the only one making reference to it.

I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them. And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about.

It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place. That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place. That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

I agree 100%, and that's probably why there's frustration when Revell brings out a new kit and it doesn't seem to be on the same level as previous "best efforts" on their part. We know they can do it, and they have done it, but for whatever reason(s), they don't do it on every new kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations. be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations. be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

If we the automobile modelers did not nitpick and complain about what the model manufactures did not get right, we have a lot more inaccurate kits out there, to a point they do listen to us, and by us throwing fits like little spoiled kids over things, we get better kits in return, well, for the most part.

I ask you this, do you really want to see just how accurate model kits would be if we did not care?, I know I sure as heck dont

Remember, they are in the business to make money,and the less they can spend on tooling/R&D and so on, the more that goes into their pockets, and if they know they can get away with it, they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just PLEASE let this not come with DONKS. That's all I ask.

Dog dish wheels and factory mags are perfect for this kit.

I think Revell is done w/ the 'donk' style kits, and big wheel hi-riders are a GM thing anyway...looks like it will have stock and Pro-Touring style wheels w/ lowered suspension.

Edited by Rob Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...