Is "weathering" the chassis actually realistic???

[Harry P.]

I was looking at a post of a builder's latest model, and he had gone to great lengths to "weather" the chassis. There was all sorts of oxidation, rust, streaks, etc., etc., all meticulously done, and I'm sure it took a bit of skill to create all the different finishes and effects on the various chassis components... and a few of the replies commented on how "very realistic" it looked, but it got me to thinking...

By the time a real car's chassis gets to the point where the underbody components would show signs of age, the entire chassis would be basically all one shade of gray. Think about it! A car is driven in the weather, over puddles, through dirt and mud, etc. Very soon, a new car's chassis is covered by a pretty uniform coat of medium gray generic "dirt". If you don't believe me, take a look at the underside of your car the next time it's up on a rack getting an oil change or a brake job. I guarantee you, you'll see almost nothing but gray, not the individual components in their factory-original but "weathered" colors.

If actual realism is the goal, wouldn't it be far more prototypically realistic to paint everything medium gray instead of painting everything in different colors and "weathering" the chassis?

[Zoom Zoom]

But that wouldn't be any fun, Harry!

Now...show us how you think it should look....

Aren't all chassis supposed to be black?

*runs, hides again, for the second time today*

[Guest Davkin]

I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement about all cars on how the chassis would weather. It depends on so many factors, such as how old the car is, how often it is driven, what kind of weather it's driven in, what kinds of roads it's driven on, do they salt or sand the roads there during winter, how often it's washed, where it's parked etc, etc. I do know when I worked on my '64 El Camino it was quite rusty under there. Tehre were some gray/black areas for sure but there was plenty of rust as well. However my '96 Caprice and my '99 Crown Vic showed/show almost no rust, but they weren't/aren't grey either, but during the winter I run my cars through a car wash that sprays the underside at least once/month, they salt the roads heavy here.

David

[Mike]

Add to the "daily life" effects, the undercoating that's sprayed on at the shops to protect the chassis from the elements. I remember seeing the guys at my dad's shop do this many years ago and it was all black/gunmetal grey in color when they were done. I would have to agree that it's pretty uniformly black/gray but there are a few rust spots that will appear due to road salt etc.

[Harry P.]

*runs, hides again, for the second time today*

Runs and hides???

Whatchootalkinbout, Willis???

[Jairus]

Harry, you are mostly correct. Much of the underside of a daily driver becomes uniform to an extent. The variables are oil and heat. Hot exhaust pipes continually burn off any dust and dirt as well as will heat shielding. Oil leaks will create a darker shade to any dirt collected around the transmission tunnel and the 5th member.

Low clearance from parking lot speed bumps will scrape crossmembers.... ###### caught in the undercarrage will whip around and knock off dirt making circular markings in the dirties collected from years of use.

Basically, when weathering the underside of a model, you are writing a story about where the vehicle has been. CSI at it's finest!

Great thread!

[Harry P.]

I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement about all cars on how the chassis would weather. It depends on so many factors, such as how old the car is, how often it is driven, what kind of weather it's driven in, what kinds of roads it's driven on, do they salt or sand the roads there during winter, how often it's washed, where it's parked etc, etc.

David

What I'm saying is, even taking differences of geography, weather, etc., into consideration, pretty soon any car's chassis would become covered in a more or less uniform shade of "crud". (oil leaks aside, Jairus... ). The chassis components would never "weather" without all of them picking up a fairly uniform coating of crud. For example, if the rear axle came painted black from the factory, and the driveshaft was "steel" and the shocks were blue, after a few months on the road all of those components would be pretty much covered by a coating of uniform "dirt" color. You'd see very little black, steel and blue anymore.

[RodBurNeR]

I agree if it's a daily driver and yet would have black areas too from oil,grease and road grime. The most rust you would see on a daily is maybe on some bolts, minor stuff here and there. However, on a car that has been sitting in the weeds will have a fully rusted chassis. I know this because i bought a 70 impala that was sitting in the weeds, i was under it when i took it in for dual glasspacks and also was under my '67 galaxie which was a part time driver. Both had rust, but the impala had more. Also when i worked in a body shop, i was helping the owner/buddy restore a '67 galaxie. He bought 3 different cars from salvage to get parts, body panels and such. One we flipped on it's side to cut the rear end loose (was easier and car was junk). These are the only times i have seen them rusty.

I would say that if you are trying to put a car back in 60s and it's say.....a 1966 model.....it's not gonna have rust. I think a 40-60 year old car would have some though....just depends on how it lived it's life.

We had a customer that hauled logs and sold for a living. He had an 84 chevy pickup that we LITERALLY rebuilt many times over for him. He busted the box apart several times, we welded it, chained it a few times before putting a new/used bed on. We put several different engines , tranny's in and even had the cab off at one time. This truck had RUST all over the chassis.

Now on the other side of the coin....yeah i think some guys get carried away while rusting a model car or truck. Some look like spackle with brown airbrushed on lol

I have seen some with so much rust there was no seperation between the exhaust and chassis rails

Let's talk about DENTS! Now i have seen some very unrealistic dents. I saw some cars with HUUUUUGGEEEE BOULDER SIZE dents in the roof that were supposed to be "drivers".......man , don't use a hammer to put a "ding" in the model

I guess the candle and lighter thing is quicker.....but it's so much nicer or more realistic looking if you "gouge" areas and maybe heat it up a little too....but don't put your fist into it, a pinky would be good enough.

[Zoom Zoom]

Runs and hides???

Whatchootalkinbout, Willis???

It was just this morning, how could you forget LOL!

[Harry P.]

It was just this morning, how could you forget LOL!

But that was hours ago!!!

Actually yeah,I did forget about that post. My memory isn't exactly the best...

Wait...what were we talking about again?

[mademan]

I dunno about anyone else... but when I go to the carwash..... I spray under the car too.

and i wash the (nice cars) twice a day... once on the way to work, and once either at lunch, or after work when I do a lap around the city. driving through puddles = a no no.

when I sold my last Cadillac it was 15 years old, and looked failry new, from the body, to under the hood, and even the undercarriage. The people who bought it and took it to get looked over at their mechanics couldnt believe how clean it was.

the one car wash by my house has a long wash wand, with a large bend in it, and another upwards bend at the end.... specifically for washing under the car.

My 64 caddy is the same way.... clean all around , all the time

[Art Anderson]

Harry, you are mostly correct. Much of the underside of a daily driver becomes uniform to an extent. The variables are oil and heat. Hot exhaust pipes continually burn off any dust and dirt as well as will heat shielding. Oil leaks will create a darker shade to any dirt collected around the transmission tunnel and the 5th member.

Low clearance from parking lot speed bumps will scrape crossmembers.... ###### caught in the undercarrage will whip around and knock off dirt making circular markings in the dirties collected from years of use.

Basically, when weathering the underside of a model, you are writing a story about where the vehicle has been. CSI at it's finest!

Great thread!

Jairus,

Exactly!

For starters, if weathering a model, any model, do some real research. Persuade a garage owner/operator to let you look at cars up on a lift, WITH a camera, to capture what the grime, rust, mud etc., really looks like. Digital camera's really can make short work of this sort of thing, don't worry about "beauty shots", get the details. Note what old oil stains on the bottom of the oil pan look like, what a fresh, wet oil stain looks like. Look at how the dirt and grime is laid on, there will be some pattern to it, based on the forward motion of the car, for example.

Also, think about where the car is being driven: If in city or suburbs, almost always on pavement, then the undercarriage dirt will be a lot less, and likely a different color than if the car is out in the country, on rural roads, particularly if gravel roads. Even think about the part of the US the car you are weathering might be from--for example, in say, Illinois or Indiana, that sort of rural road dirt will be brown or tan in color, but if in the deep south, or say, in the Ozarks, even Oklahoma, then the road dirt will have a reddish brown cast to it, just like the red clay soils in the fields along the gravel road.

With tires, keep in mind that tires pick up road dirt and grime, it lodges IN the tread, but not on the surface of the tread--friction with pavement will keep the tread surfaces nice and black.

Also, photograph the exterior of a weathered car--note how road grime builds up, where it builds up, and what the overall pattern of it is (like down the sides of the car, after it's been driven in the rain, or say on slushy winter roads.

A lot to consider, but realistically done, after some good research, and reference pics you've taken to refresh your memory when at the workbench, something like that could be absolutely stunning!

Art

[James W]

To correctly weather the chassis of a car you must first paint all the components in the original colors (painted, unpainted, metalic, rubber, etc) then apply grime and wear appropriately.

Depending on the use of the vehicle the grime will be different. Rain and highway miles will keep the undercarriage fairly clean. A truck that has not been off the farm in a couple decades is going to be mostly the color of the soil it drives on.

Most models that depict weathered vehicles are going to start out as some kind of 'factory stock' builds and then go from there. The research is the key to realism.

This however, dose not mean that a well done weathering job has to have all the right markings and levels of sheen under the mud.

If the finished project looks cool, I'm going to say, 'Cool, good looking model!!! '

[84vanagon]

I'm lucky,

I don't live in the rust belt anymore.

If it's a bad winter the TXDOT might have to SAND the bridges and intersections twice a season.

Both my cars, 15 and 25 model years old, still have the factory finishes under them. A thinned wash of grey will suffice on finished and aluminum surfaces, with surface rust on non finished parts.

In the case of my "newer" ride semi to glossy black will be needed to depict the areas of oil leaks!

Plus don't forget to add some "new shiny" bits here and there, if you're building a "daily driver" that is in service daily. We have to keep NAPA in business!

[Zoom Zoom]

What looks realistic on a model will always be open to conjecture, because again we're talking about a model and not a real car.

I love the look of the chassis that started this conversation. To me it looks a lot more realistic than most, purely because of the neat effects from how it's painted and weathered. Most chassis are fugly and nasty, while that one gives it a weathered look that's perhaps been steamcleaned. One of the best builders out there commented on that chassis on another forum, and said it looked "amazingly realistic". Is it truly realistic? Perhaps not...but I love the impression of realism that the paint detailing has accomplished.

There are many stages to making a model "realistic"...model cars are anything from a craft to an art form at all levels of obsession, and as such anything goes because they're models giving an impression in scale. I'd rather see people trying new/fun techniques on models and not get caught up in a lot of IPMS-style nitpicking over this or that. I could nitpick a Wingrove model to pieces, but where will that get me?

[Harry P.]

I could nitpick a Wingrove model to pieces...

Really??? You think his models are that poorly done???

[Harry P.]

To correctly weather the chassis of a car you must first paint all the components in the original colors (painted, unpainted, metalic, rubber, etc) then apply grime and wear appropriately.

Yep, that's it. A car starts out all clean and shiny underneath, with all the various components in their factory original finish... but typically (unless you steam-clean the chassis of your car constantly) soon everything gets covered over in a fairly uniform coating of crud, dirt, road grime, whatever you want to call it... like Art said, in whatever color the local "dirt" happens to be... and the original colors of the individual components become less obvious. A chassis doesn't "weather" component by component, with each component always retaining its factory color with no other stuff covering it.

If you're depicting a typical car that's been driven (a daily driver), then to be realistic (i.e., an accurate representation of the real thing) the weathering ought to look similar to the photo above. A lot of chassis "weathering" I've seen, while obviously requiring a lot of talent and patience to get the final effect, isn't really realistic at all, that is, it doesn't look like what a real car would look like, but as Bob mentioned, it sort of gives an "impression" of realism because people look at it and marvel at the various finishes and tones, etc.

[Zoom Zoom]

Really??? You think his models are that poorly done???

Not in the least! I've noticed details on his models that don't quite match the 1:1 cars. Doesn't make them any less awesome to look at and admire, and most certainly I don't see that as poor work whatsoever; quite the contrary. But are you admitting that you think someone's work is poorly done because it's not to your standards, and that people who think the work looks great/accurate don't know what they're talking about? It could very easily be construed that way, even if completely unintentional. Ideally this subject (which is an excellent subject, BTW) could have/should have been discussed without veiled reference to a model currently being shown on this forum (and at this point is far from finished), and with some good backup in the form of photographs of how that detail can be done, and has been done, in scale.

[Harry P.]

Not in the least! I've noticed details on his models that don't quite match the 1:1 cars. Doesn't make them any less awesome to look at and admire, and most certainly I don't see that as poor work whatsoever; quite the contrary. But are you admitting that you think someone's work is poorly done because it's not to your standards, and that people who think the work looks great/accurate don't know what they're talking about? It could very easily be construed that way, even if completely unintentional. Ideally this subject (which is an excellent subject, BTW) could have/should have been discussed without veiled reference to a model currently being shown on this forum (and at this point is far from finished), and with some good backup in the form of photographs of how that detail can be done, and has been done, in scale.

I only made a "veiled" reference, instead of a specific one, to the model in question because that was the one that just so happened to get me thinking on this topic, NOT because I think it's somehow poorly done or "doesn't meet my standards"! I specifically did NOT want to "call out" the builder as having creating a "bad" model, because that's not my point or intent... but simply put, seeing that model sparked my post. The fact is, in my opinion that model is not "poorly done" at all... I never said that! In fact, I freely admit that I don't have the skill to paint a chassis like that, so hat's off to the talent and craftsmanship of the builder. I think I mentioned that I recognized the skill and craftsmanship involved to create that look in my initial post.

My question, as I stated to begin with, is simply whether that type of weathering is actually an accurate representation of the "real thing".

Just because I brought up the topic doesn't mean I "don't approve" of someone else's work... and besides, whether or not I, or anyone else for that matter, "approves" is totally irrelevant. My approval of the model isn't the topic being discussed here (and I never made any remarks as to whether or not I "approve" of the model anyway), I just brought up what I thought was an interesting question, with no implied criticism of the model or anyone else's responses to the post. I'm not placing my "standards" on other's work... I'm not saying he's wrong in doing it that way. A model is a personal expression, and the builder should do whatever he wants to do, regardless of anyone else's "standards". Sheesh, I'm just talkin' here...

Isn't that what a forum is for?

[Zoom Zoom]

Relax Harry, I fully understand where you are coming from, I'm playing devil's advocate because I've been known to write things before that had unintended consequences when I was trying to make a point or discussion. It's a great topic for discussion or an article. I just know that a lot of modelers have much thinner skin than you or I and don't see critique/discussion in quite the same context.

[Art Anderson]

Yep, that's it. A car starts out all clean and shiny underneath, with all the various components in their factory original finish... but typically (unless you steam-clean the chassis of your car constantly) soon everything gets covered over in a fairly uniform coating of crud, dirt, road grime, whatever you want to call it... like Art said, in whatever color the local "dirt" happens to be... and the original colors of the individual components become less obvious. A chassis doesn't "weather" component by component, with each component always retaining its factory color with no other stuff covering it.

If you're depicting a typical car that's been driven (a daily driver), then to be realistic (i.e., an accurate representation of the real thing) the weathering ought to look similar to the photo above. A lot of chassis "weathering" I've seen, while obviously requiring a lot of talent and patience to get the final effect, isn't really realistic at all, that is, it doesn't look like what a real car would look like, but as Bob mentioned, it sort of gives an "impression" of realism because people look at it and marvel at the various finishes and tones, etc.

Harry,

The pic you show is an excellent example of what I was thinking about when writing my post above. On that chassis, you can see only a few hints of the paint used on the various components when that car was produced. As an older car, from the 50's through the 70's, what coatings were used at the factory have pretty much gone away, such were the materials used on chassis, body underpans from almost the beginnings of automobiles until the advent of catalyzed finishes and robotic painting that are now in use in just about every automotive assembly plant in the world. Corrosion control on steel or iron was so in its infancy as to be largely ineffective (even ships at sea, until the advent of catalyzed epoxy or urethane paints, suffered from this, salt water eating away unprotected steel hull plating as fast as 1/8" per year in some cases!).

About the only rust preventive coating available until the advent of say, Rusty Jones, or Ziebart, to new car buyers was a coating of a very oily tar, some sprayed on in production (mostly the rear wheel wells), on the bottom side of a new car at the dealership. This had only negligible effects however, as the tar dried out, it tended to peel away, taking at least some of the "rustproofing" paint coatings underneath with it, leaving those areas open to rusting. Worse, that tar undercoating could just simply blister and crack, leaving entry points for water (or SALT water in snow country) to get in between the undercoating and the sheet steel, leading to the rusting out of floor pans, even "boxed" frame rails.

Notice the black coloring of the rear axle center section: It's surrounded, outboard, by surface rust, where the black paint used in manufacture has worn away. Chances are, had whomever shot that picture touched that, it would have been mostly dried grease, grease from a rapidly spinning universal joint, along with traces of the heavy oil used in the differential leaking slightly over time, from the front seal around the differential input shaft. This likely would also be visible at the rear of the transmission hump in the floor, around the front U-joint as well.

One can also see by the coloration of the bottom of the floor, and on frame members, that rust is mixed with road grime, be that dust, or from the incessant splashing of murky, dirty water on paved surfaces in rain storms or winter slush. One can clearly see how mottled it looks, tiny "peaks" of rust poking through that coating of dirt. This is a very common look, not only for the era of car your pic shows, but all the way back to the days of Model A's (saw the very same stuff on the first Model A Ford I bought in 1963).

In an engine bay, certainly in cars built before our modern era, there would have been little in the way of road splash--even a Model A Ford, from the factory, had a pair of sheet metal "trough-shaped" sheet metal pans, bolted to the underside of the frame rails and under the bolt heads holding the oil pan in place, to keep the vast bulk of road-splashed water from coming up the sides of the engine. As cars grew more complex in their structure, inner fender panels took over this function, of course, at least to some extent. What dirt there was in engine bays tended to come in through the grille, then pass through the radiator core, and collect on the engine, and the sides of the bay itself, the inner surfaces of the fender wells. Even the firewall got that dirt on it. One thing that those who would lightly weather an engine bay almost always miss is the brake master cylinder. Master cylinders were almost never painted, just raw cast iron, which rusted quickly in service. Now, we all know that DOT-3 brake fluid makes a great paint stripper for styrene model car bodies--it did the very same thing to the firewall around the master cylinder mounting point--every time a mechanic (or your dad) topped off the reservoir of the master cylinder, he stood the chance of dribbling a bit of the brake fluid onto the firewall, which stripped that paint in short order, leading to a rusty area right there. In the engine bay, particularly on cars built before sealed batteries, there would be a fair amount of rust on the battery box, from overfilling the cells with fresh distilled water, leading to spillage of water/sulphuric acid there. Battery terminals, even though made of lead, as are the clamps on battery cables, will be corroded, even having battery acid salts crystallized on them, and the bolts? RUSTY.

Engines were, and still are, prone to all manner of road dirt, that dust that inevitably comes in by way of the grille or cooling slots up front. Wherever there is oil, or grease, that dust cakes there, and over time, can build up quite thick. At the bottom, oil pans got the worst of it, due to the almost certain seepage of motor oil from around the front main bearing, and certainly around the oil pan flange, where gaskets of iffy capability only served to keep oil leakage there to a minimum--in dusty country, a dark, oily mud, made up of dust and 10W-30 simply caked on--and then, after the passage of time and miles, might actually break off, taking the engine paint with it. The same is/was true around the oil pan drain plug--those almost always leak a bit of oil, so the dust/road grime buildup there, bound up with oil seepage, makes for more caking of dirt, darker in color than ordinary dust or dried road splash.

Transmission housings were often unpainted from the factory--manufacturers eventually rationalizing that it made little sense to paint gearboxes, given the inevitable leakage of even the heavy oil in a manual tranny, and a certain amount of seepage of automatic transmission fluid from the seals at either end of the unit. So, rusty grease, and road dirt there, much like the oil pan. However, this, and the oil pan would only be shiny if there was SERIOUS leakage.

And so, the list goes on.

Art

[Harry P.]

Relax Harry, I fully understand where you are coming from, I'm playing devil's advocate because I've been known to write things before that had unintended consequences when I was trying to make a point or discussion. It's a great topic for discussion or an article. I just know that a lot of modelers have much thinner skin than you or I and don't see critique/discussion in quite the same context.

Got it...

[FloridaBoy]

As a model railroader also, I am a great proponent of weathering to achieve realism. In model cars, weathering a chassis is credible in certain circumstances. For example, if you are modeling a diorama with a beater, or just a junked car, weathering is almost mandatory. Same with rat rods, trucks, off-road, some dirt bikes, and some street rods depicting a daily driver. If I ever model a grocery getter or factory stock, I would add mild weathering to the chassis, as if it were used on pavement only, and not for that long. I just peeked under my Taurus SHO and my dual exhausts are still silver/steel color, the engine paint is still detectable, and the front transaxle is shiny black, as I just had it replaced. But there was this dusty brown road grime on the oriignal parts, so if I modeled my car, it would receive medium weathering underside.

I think a nifty way to get some hardware in the box stock class is to effectively and functionally paint the underside

Other cars I wouldn't apply any weathering to, such as show cars, show street rods, dragsters as if on display and not run lately, new factory stock, concept cars, tuners, lowriders, donks and other cars that are showroom condition.

That is just my take on it.

Ken "FloridaBoy" Willaman

[southpier]

this is pretty interesting:

[Tom Geiger]

Wow! Suddenly when I wasn't looking it became 2008!

Since I build a lot of weathered stuff, I'll weigh in. Yes, there are a lot of beaters / weathered cars that are way over done. Guys who think that everything must be tetanus like rusty. Cars rusted where cars don't rust, and cars that are very rusty but not rusted at all in the classic spots of rust on that car. It's all a matter of who has done their research.

Research wise, Google and eBay Motors are your friends. I will sometimes spend an early Sunday morning on eBay Motors for the express reason of finding reference photos. The good thing here is that people sell every type of vehicle in every condition. And some sellers include 25-100 photos, many of the car on a lift.

And cars weather / rust at a progression from new to the junk yard. I've worked with models where I've told myself that this one will be a 10 year old car in good serviceable condition. And I've done cars that have been sitting on the ground in a ditch for the past 10 years.

In doing chassis weathering, and rusty cars in general, I've found that you do have to take a bit of artistic license. First, most of the rust on a car is very dark in color and that doesn't translate well onto a model, so I've found I've had to add a top wash of a lighter rust color to make sure the viewer sees the entire area as rust. Hope that makes sense.