missing versions in kits

[62rebel]

looking at some of the kits i have in various stages of completion, i realized that some had optional parts that didn't seem to go with any version of the kit in the box. one that comes to mind is the AMT '72 Nova SS kit; there has been a funny-car style windshield in that kit since the late '70's, and i've NEVER seen it mentioned as an optional part. it doesn't seem that AMT would have tooled it up and not had a use for it. when i look at the odd way that the front fenders attach to the car and the absolutely crude front suspension molding, it occurs to me that at one time a version of the kit must have had the option to convert the body to a funny car with extended fenders and hood.

AMT's latest reissues of some older kits have had much of their tooling reopened and missing parts restored to them. again, one that comes to mind is the AMT 29 ford roadster; it now has most of the early AlaKart kit in it, missing only a few crucial items, and with the wrong wheels. but it's good to have those extra parts back.

[bob paeth]

Perhaps a little education is needed here:

An injection mold for a model kit is like an open steel box. Into this box many smaller "blocks" are placed. These "blocks" contain the cavities that are filled with styrene to form the parts found in the kit. The manufacturer can remove any of these blocks and change the charactor of the kit. Custom body parts, speed equipment and wheels are dealt with in this manner. These parts blocks have no moving parts so they pose no problem when being changed. The body part of the mold presents a more major problem for the manufacturer. This part of the mold has all sorts of moving parts that must move with the correct timing or the mold self-destructs. Body characteristics can be changed, such as stretching the front fenders to make a funny car but this is very difficult and sometimes the result is a poorly fitting part. In these cases the manufacturer hopes we will be lenient.

With the development costs these days in creating a model kit, "short-cuts" are looked for to bring out a "new" kit for not much money. I feel that some of these compromises are better than not having the kit at all.

An example of a "short cut" kit is Revells' "Miss Deal" There was not one new part "cut" in the development of this kit. It did, however, come out OK.

Bob :shock:

Bob :shock:

[62rebel]

Bob, you'd be the guy who had the inner workings of this stuff! i know the basics of the process but over the years lots of what i used to call "heavy" models had parts deleted from the shot. maybe it was some bean counter weighing plastic; a few less optional parts in a kit; who's to notice? nobody buys a second one, right? that seems to be the "wal-mart" opinion anyway; the buyer is not the consumer? all models are gifts for kids, to them, and they market them that way. the "old pro" nova kit has the front fenders molded separately from the body shell; a rather odd approach unless you intended for there to be another set of front fenders?

the whole kit itself is supposed to be a pro-stock; therefore what use would separate fenders be, except to be god-awful to attach correctly lined up (especially if you're ten years old, and i'm 44!) ?

of course, when AMT was in its heyday models came and went and many were probably developed halfway and discarded. such is the nature of the business; what sells;stays; what doesn't, gets turned into the Jolly Roger.

and you're exactly right about being glad to get what they still have molds for. what i wouldn't give to have my original dream rod kit; or any number of the ones that suffered teenage frustration. again; such is life!

[Lyle Willits]

One of the reasons the fenders were done separately was to produce the Pontiac version. I seem to remember a funny car version, but I could be wrong, considering, I can't remember what I did yesterday.

[jbwelda]

lyle, yesterday you built the motor it takes me a month to build.

hope that helps!

one love

jah bill

[Biscuitbuilder]

Bob, you'd be the guy who had the inner workings of this stuff! i know the basics of the process but over the years lots of what i used to call "heavy" models had parts deleted from the shot. maybe it was some bean counter weighing plastic; a few less optional parts in a kit; who's to notice? nobody buys a second one, right? that seems to be the "wal-mart" opinion anyway; the buyer is not the consumer? all models are gifts for kids, to them, and they market them that way. the "old pro" nova kit has the front fenders molded separately from the body shell; a rather odd approach unless you intended for there to be another set of front fenders?

the whole kit itself is supposed to be a pro-stock; therefore what use would separate fenders be, except to be god-awful to attach correctly lined up (especially if you're ten years old, and i'm 44!) ?

of course, when AMT was in its heyday models came and went and many were probably developed halfway and discarded. such is the nature of the business; what sells;stays; what doesn't, gets turned into the Jolly Roger.

and you're exactly right about being glad to get what they still have molds for. what i wouldn't give to have my original dream rod kit; or any number of the ones that suffered teenage frustration. again; such is life!

For starters here, the "Old Pro" 71 Nova has separate front fenders for one simple reason--there was a second variant of the kit, a '71 Pontiac Ventura.

Now, on to your main concern. To add to what Bob Paeth has very correctly described (and to answer your concerns about the "bean counters"), it may be hard to believe, but developing and producing model kits is a game of pennies, literally PENNIES--sometimes only a fraction of a cent here and there--as profit margins are indeed quite thin in this business. So, yes--sometimes the elimination of extra parts from production comes into the equation (I spent just enough time in product development of both diecast and plastic model kits to get a real feel for such minute cost controls).

When a model kit is tooled with multiple variations (believe me, those who develope model car kits can get very obsessed with potential optional versions, additional parts--it's part of the passion those who do this sort of work seem to have been born with!--there comes a "coin toss" situation:

Do we include all the optional parts in a kit, quite possibly adding to the ultimate retail price? Bear in mind that the more parts in a kit, the heavier the weight of a carton containing a dozen, and weight is a big factor in shipping. It may also dictate a larger box size, which impacts not only shipping, but also product placement in retail stores, which have only just so much "real estate" to commit to model car kits. More than once when I was at Playing Mantis, for example, we had to face the implied insistence from retail buyers that a model kit box be just a little bit smaller, a blister card adjusted so that more pegs could be used on a hanging display. Yet, as a manufacturer, we wanted a larger package, giving us more "presence", more visibility--so we had to meet somewhere in the middle. Believe me, when Walmart speaks, model kit (and other) manufacturers LISTEN. A lot of product sales hang in the balance there.

Also, putting all the potential optional parts in one kit reduces the exposure to a company's product in retail, particularly in the area of being able to put out another version of the kit as something new--shoot the whole wad up-front, what would we have had for a follow-on? Additionally, there has been, for decades, a resistance on the part of the larger market ("larger" denoting those consumers who aren't as dedicated, nor as desireous of having lotsa extra parts to fill up the parts drawers we more serious builders love to have) about having to "pay" for all those extra parts that cannot be used--THANKYOU Ralph Nader (NOT!).

So, in the matter of having all those extra parts, "consumerism" plays a big part.

Further, in many model car kit tools, some options required the use of an additional mold frame (the AMT '25 T Fruit Wagon, for example, had a complete extra parts tree, shot in a different color--white--included in the standard AMT '25 Model T kit of the day, which was molded in black--separate mold frame--meaning one more mold press and one more mold press operator--more production costs.

Just to illustrate all of this: In 1967, Monogram Models introduced a then-fabulously done 1:48 scale Lockheed P-38 Lightning (WW-II twin engined fighter plane). The tooling of this kit could be used to create a P38-J fighter, an F5 photo-recon plane, the P38 "Pathfinder" bomber leader, and the P38M Night Fighter. The initial release of this kit had all the parts for all the variants, down to the decal markings, and sold reasonably well. About 1977 or so, Monogram reissued this kit, not as a total reissue, but splitting things up into the individual variants. Whammo!

A HUGE, and bitter argument ensued in the pages of the IPMS Quarterly and its then-companion, the IPMS Journal, as to why not all the parts in one kit--one side screaming that the original kit had all the parts for all the versions, the other side shouting just as loudly that they saw no added value in "paying" for a bunch of extra parts they couldn't use, just to get the variant they wanted to build. The verbal "fisticuffs" lasted almost the entire year--and some of the letters written were pretty ugly (one can only imagine the vituperance had their been the Internet available 30 years ago!!!). So, I think it's possible to see that there are multiple sides to this argument.

AMT/Ertl, having produced all their kits in China since the late 1990's, benefits, or is cursed (choose your side here), by having engineers and production people (even product development people on this side of the pond) who really do not understand the whys and wherefores of all those added parts in the older tooling they are working with. So, they tend to take the path of least resistance, and simply open up all the "gates", let the styrene flow where it will, and pack the resulting product. In addition, AMT/Ertl is in possession of literally thousands of tools, which can be measured in thousands of tons of steel blocks, but no budget for anyone to specialize in pulling all those tools together. Would that it were otherwise, but it's not.

Biscuitbuilder

[jbwelda]

>THANKYOU Ralph Nader (NOT!).

this, in my opinion, is misplaced. it would be much more truthful as:

THANKYOU walmart (NOT! a thousand times not). you are a chancre on the body of society. please go away. not that you will or that you care, but youve ruined untold local economies and convinced sheeple that what they really need is to save 10 cents on something at the eventual cost of their jobs and livelihood, not to mention product quality and quantity.

oops i guess that should go in the rant department. sorry but i just cant restrain myself sometimes.

one love

jah bill

[bob paeth]

OK, Here is a true story about "bean counters" :

The very first model kit that I worked on when I started with Revell was Mickey Thompsons "Attempt I ". If you are familiar with the 1/1 car it is not very exciting. A dragster with a completely enclosed body covering a 4 cylinder engine. With the body in place the only chrome that showed was the lower part of the wheels. If you left the body off, a somewhat small chrome shot added a little to the overall picture. Better small than not at all, right ? Being a model builder did not prepare me for the trials and tribulations brought forth by the "bean counters". It looked, to me, that the kit, in order to be a sales success, needed a little something "extra". I sold the boss on the idea of putting in a fully opened drag 'chute, vacumned formed so that it was cheap to produce and very thin for realism. Whoopee !!!!!!!!!!! My first idea for a kit was going into production. Also a first for the model hobby.

About four weeks later, production started on the Attempt I and I stopped by the injection molding machine to see how it was coming out. Being packed into the box was a gray sprue that had the wheels, engine parts, etc. I must have set a record for the quarter mile in my dash up to the boss' office with the question, why ? I was told that the three cents that the 'chute added to the cost of the kit had to found somewhere and the chrome shot was the easiest way out. In my best "kings English" I tried to explain that a kit with no chrome would equate to a "still born". I suggested that we mold about a dozen or so, for historical reasons and then use the mold for a door stop.

After a short delay, the chrome shot was restored to the kit and thats "the rest of the story". The kit was never a big money maker but, it did add a little to the "bottom line".

Maybe a bit of history here on the 1/1 is in order here: The 4-banger that Mickey Thompson used to power the Attempt I was a Pontiac V-8 cut down the middle. This was done to qualify for a certain class of racing at the Bonneville Salt Flats. He also built a car that used 1/2 of the 4 cylinder engine but mercifully Revell declined to kit that car. There must be a model "god" after all.

Bob :shock:

[jbwelda]

i always thought the attempt 1 was a very cool kit of a very cool car. but then again i never subscribed to the "more cubes" school of thought.

ps: a two cylinder version would have been cool too, maybe even more so for its historical context.

[Guest zebm1]

I had tha Attempt 1, and Mickey's Challenger too. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but didn't someone plan to or maybe did a model of Mickey's Indy racer,but pulled tha kits after Dave Macdonald and Eddie Sachs burned up in tha '64 Indy Race?

[bob paeth]

good question zeb 1. Biscuit builder ................any thoughts on this on this question of a "cancelled kit" ?

Bob :?:

[Guest zebm1]

I know that there was a Clear Plastic Slot Car Body of Mickey's Indy Racer, I had one but could never find any AllState (Sears) Tire Logos. Yeah that's right kids...Mickey T. had Sears sponsoring him, they made his tires and they were very wierd, really small and really wide. Unless my memory is playing tricks on me.

:roll:

[Darin Bastedo]

OK, Here is a true story about "bean counters" :

The very first model kit that I worked on when I started with Revell was Mickey Thompsons "Attempt I ". If you are familiar with the 1/1 car it is not very exciting. A dragster with a completely enclosed body covering a 4 cylinder engine. With the body in place the only chrome that showed was the lower part of the wheels. If you left the body off, a somewhat small chrome shot added a little to the overall picture. Better small than not at all, right ? Being a model builder did not prepare me for the trials and tribulations brought forth by the "bean counters". It looked, to me, that the kit, in order to be a sales success, needed a little something "extra". I sold the boss on the idea of putting in a fully opened drag 'chute, vacumned formed so that it was cheap to produce and very thin for realism. Whoopee !!!!!!!!!!! My first idea for a kit was going into production. Also a first for the model hobby.

About four weeks later, production started on the Attempt I and I stopped by the injection molding machine to see how it was coming out. Being packed into the box was a gray sprue that had the wheels, engine parts, etc. I must have set a record for the quarter mile in my dash up to the boss' office with the question, why ? I was told that the three cents that the 'chute added to the cost of the kit had to found somewhere and the chrome shot was the easiest way out. In my best "kings English" I tried to explain that a kit with no chrome would equate to a "still born". I suggested that we mold about a dozen or so, for historical reasons and then use the mold for a door stop.

After a short delay, the chrome shot was restored to the kit and thats "the rest of the story". The kit was never a big money maker but, it did add a little to the "bottom line".

Maybe a bit of history here on the 1/1 is in order here: The 4-banger that Mickey Thompson used to power the Attempt I was a Pontiac V-8 cut down the middle. This was done to qualify for a certain class of racing at the Bonneville Salt Flats. He also built a car that used 1/2 of the 4 cylinder engine but mercifully Revell declined to kit that car. There must be a model "god" after all.

Bob :shock:

This is sort of off the topic, But this is part of what makes this message board so cool. Here I am reading a first hand account of the development of one of my favorite kits, by a legend in the industry. Welcome Bob, it is an honor to have you amongst us.

[Biscuitbuilder]

good question zeb 1. Biscuit builder ................any thoughts on this on this question of a "cancelled kit" ?

Bob :?:

Bob,

I think this falls in the category of "Urban Rumor". unfortunately. A short history of Mickey Thompson's Indy Cars might help:

1962--first effort. 3 rear engine cars, designed by John Crosswaite, built by Mickey Thompson, powered by Buick aluminum stock block V9's (engine that was used in the 61-63 Buick Special compact cars. One car made the race, driven by Dan Gurney (Gurney's rookie year), DNF due to transmission failure.

1963--Harvey Aluminum Special. This was the so-called "Roller Skate" car, which chassis had its fuel tanks outboard of the tube frame construction, almost like side pods, but faired into the bodywork, and a very wide nose, giving "wind splitting" to the front wheels. Wheels and tires were 9:00-12,, Halibrand making the magnesium rims, Firestone building the tires, which were branded as "Allstate", for Sears & Roebuck associate sponsorship. These were the smallest diameter wheels and tires ever used at Indianapolis. I believe 5 cars were built, but only 2 qualified, powered by hopped up small block Chevy stock block engines. While they were neat looking, they were not particularly successful, both cars going out of the race with blown engines. These were, however the first cars to make the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race using stock block Chevy engines.

1964--Sears Allstate Specials. These were the 1963 cars, hastily modified with revised bodywork to allow for the use of 8:00-15 front tires, 9:00-15 rear tires, by Firestone this time. These wheels and tires were the result of USAC (based on the great tire availabilty controversy at Indianapolis in 1963) mandating a standard, one-size-fits-all tire size for all entrants at all USAC Championship Series races. These cars were, for 1964, powered by the new Ford 4-cam Indy V8 engine. It was one of these now very ill-handling cars, driven by Dave McDonald, which spun into the inside wall at the north end of the pits, triggering the HUGE fiery crash at the end of the first lap, taking the lives of both McDonald and Eddie Sachs, taking some 9 cars out of the field, and injuring several other drivers, including Johnny Rutherford and Bobby Unser, both of whom suffered serious burns. These cars never again raced at any other USAC race.

1965--Harvey Aluminum Special. This car, built around a section of titanium tube (a leftover piece of stock from one of the many military ballistic missile programs) which served as the chassis and fuel tank. The engine was a highly modified Chevrolet small block V8, and the car was front wheel drive, the last front drive entry ever at Indianapolis. The very ungainly-looking car was driven by USAC sprint car driver Bob Mathouser, and failed to qualify, its engine disintegrating completely on the front stretch of the Speedway at about 3pm on the afternoon of the last day of qualifications in May, 1965 (Bump Day).

1966--Wynn's Specials. These were more conventionally designed rear engine cars, using Chevrolet small block based engines, having an odd 3-valve setup, two intake valves, and one large exhaust valve. Neither car qualified, and Mickey Thompson never again returned with cars, to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway.

As for any model kit, there were none. In those days, just as with today, it took a minimum of one full year to get a new model car kit from the idea stage to production, and almost no Indy car was known about until perhaps 3 months or so before the 500. If a car had won, and had been particularly famous in doing so, it would have stood a good chance of being kitted as a plastic model--if not, then not. The only model kits of Indianapolis cars in 1963 were the 6 older kits from Aurora (the Famous Race Cars series), and the 1955 Kurtis KK500C kit from Monogram. For 1964, Industro-Motive Corporation issued their '63 Lotus Ford kit, with markings for both Jim Clark and Dan Gurney. Also in 1964, AMT Corporation introduced their 1963 Lotus Ford kit, along with Parnelli Jones' 1963 Indianapolis Winner, the Agajanian Willard Battery Spl Watson/Offy roadster. In 1966, IMC revamped their Lotus Ford kit to represent (rather crudely, BTW) Jim Clark's 1965 Indy 500 winner, revising the color and markings in 1967 for Clark's 1966 2nd place finisher. In 1968, MPC issued their famous (and highly desireable!) 1:20 scale STP Turbine Car #40, Parnelli Jones' famed and ill-fated "Silent Sam". In 1969, MPC went further, introducing 1:25 scale kits of the STP Turbine Lotus 56, and Dan Gurney's Eagle, done both as Bobby Unser's Rislone Spl Turbo Offenhauser powered car, and as Gurney's All American Racers Ford powered Olsonite Eagle, with two versions optional (Gurney's Gurney Weslake stock block car, and Dennis Hulme's 4-cam Ford powered entry). And that is it for Indy car model kits of any significance introduced in the 1960's.

On the slot car side of things, in late 1963, Indianapolis native and modeler par excellence', Bob Clidinst, mastered a series of USAC Championship car bodies in 1:32 scale, and molded them in resin for use as slot car "club racer" body shells for a fairly large group of Central Indiana slot car racers, who met weekly, to run oval track races, using USAC rules as adapted to slot cars. One of these body shells was that of the 1963 Mickey Thompson Harvey Aluminum Specials--the only hard-bodied slot car body of that car I've ever seen (got one in my stash still, somewhere!). Buzco, I believe, produced a clear plastic 1:32 scale slot car body shell of the same car, likely pirating it off a Clidinst body. Other than that, I know of know other Mickey Thompson Indy Car slot car bodies. I believe this clear plastic body came and went in 1964 (clear slot car bodies were being introduced and discontinued almost daily back then).

Biscuitbuilder (who built Indy car models almost exclusively 1966-83)

[Guest zebm1]

Hot Dawg!! Luved tha history lesson.

On tha Clear plastic body shell, we only raced 1/25 scale slot cars, so my M/T racer would have been in that scale. Tha club I belonged to, Tampa Area Model Racing Association (TAMRA) 1963-1966 allowed us to use Indy car bodies in tha F1 Class. J. Lamphier closed tha slot track and opened a 1:1 Speed Shop at tha same address,Triangle Automotive, he did primarily Roundy-rounders and was responsible for giving Will Cagle his 1st Late Model ride, 1958-59 in a 58-59 Ford convertible I believe. Jack was really a Ford man, but in 1967 he built a 1966 Chevelle Late Model that was soooo low that tha Holley on his 366 chubby small-block was higher than tha hood line. Had a torsion bar 10-spline rear axle and completely adjustable front end, caster, camber, A-frames and adjustable front coil springs.

Oldest online image of Cagle I can find--so far, Golden Gate Speedway, Tampa, FL-1968; Cagle #97, Billy Gill #24 1968 Govenor's Cup Champ.

As to Mickey Thompson not showing at Indy again, wasn't 1996 tha year that M/T and his wife were assasinated in their front driveway --an as yet still unsolved murder?

[Casey]

[Casey]

On 12/8/2006 at 3:30 PM, bob paeth said:

With the development costs these days in creating a model kit, "short-cuts" are looked for to bring out a "new" kit for not much money. I feel that some of these compromises are better than not having the kit at all.

An example of a "short cut" kit is Revells' "Miss Deal" There was not one new part "cut" in the development of this kit. It did, however, come out OK.

I know Bob passed away a few years ago, but how can this statement be true? Is he saying the Studebaker sedan body shell mold section already existed (but never released? I thought I read that story somewhere...) and was combined with the Parts Pack Hemi engine? What about the chassis/floorpan? Was that shared with another kit or used previously?

[Mark]

30 minutes ago, Casey said:

I know Bob passed away a few years ago, but how can this statement be true? Is he saying the Studebaker sedan body shell mold section already existed (but never released? I thought I read that story somewhere...) and was combined with the Parts Pack Hemi engine? What about the chassis/floorpan? Was that shared with another kit or used previously?

The Studebaker body tool was likely new, but was based on a wooden master done at Revell for a stock '53 Stude kit.  Revell stopped work on theirs upon seeing AMT's kit at a trade show.  When Revell dropped their Studebaker kit, the masters for some of the parts were likely done but had probably not yet progressed to the toolmaking stage.  Had Revell done a stock kit, might it have had opening doors and trunk like other car kits they were making in the '63-'66 period?

The Miss Deal chassis is NOT new; it is an extensive rework of the Parts Pack custom chassis (actually a C1 Corvette unit).  A few new parts were tooled: roll cage, seat, rear suspension, likely a few others.  But the wheels, engine, front suspension, and frame were based on tooling for Parts Packs that were no longer being offered by then.

[440 Dakota]

I know really late to the party and kinda off topic for the direction this thread went but here's why the funny car glass in the Nova in case anyone's interested

[Luc Janssens]

neat topic, reminds me of something, Monogram never released a second version of their '71 Plymouth Satellite tool (which was standard practice back then) was it tooled?

Where's Bob Johnson when you need him

 

[Art Anderson]

31 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

neat topic, reminds me of something, Monogram never released a second version of their '71 Plymouth Satellite tool (which was standard practice back then) was it tooled?

Where's Bob Johnson when you need him

 

Luc, it is quite possible that no "2nd Version" was planned back at that time.  While Monogram did have a tradition of at least designing a "second edition" of model kits, I don't believe that was an ironclad thing.  (Too bad Bill Lastovich is no longer around--he was my guru, my pipeline into what was happening at Monogram, back in the 80's)

Art

[Mark]

35 minutes ago, Luc Janssens said:

neat topic, reminds me of something, Monogram never released a second version of their '71 Plymouth Satellite tool (which was standard practice back then) was it tooled?

Where's Bob Johnson when you need him

 

Maybe there is one that just never got released.  I've got a bagged test shot of the Monogram '64 GTO that includes the optional "street machine" parts; I got it long before the 2-in-1 version was released...

[Art Anderson]

21 minutes ago, Mark said:

Maybe there is one that just never got released.  I've got a bagged test shot of the Monogram '64 GTO that includes the optional "street machine" parts; I got it long before the 2-in-1 version was released...

Mark, a test shot of any new model kit will have all the parts that are considered for the first, and say, the second release. I see that with all the Moebius test shots I get here.

Art

[Muncie]

isn't this the second kit from the '71 Satellite - different hood and a couple of other minor changes - the GTX has been reissued a couple of times

[Mark]

15 hours ago, Art Anderson said:

Mark, a test shot of any new model kit will have all the parts that are considered for the first, and say, the second release. I see that with all the Moebius test shots I get here.

Art

But sometimes that second version takes a few years to surface.  The GTO for example probably sold well enough in the stock-only version, to delay the 2-in-1.  Monogram likely waited for sales to start slipping on the stock one before releasing it with the added parts.  Then there's the AMT '62 Thunderbird, which has optional parts that didn't get released until after the company changed ownership...