Stacey David's Rat Roaster by : REVELL

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yes, I am aware of what a spindle mount wheel is and how it's retained, which I tried to convey in my comment using "style" to indicate the RR's wheels were similar to, but not exactly like the spindle mount Sprint wheels.

I think these'll be quite popular.

My apologies then. I do think the wheels look good and agree that, with the tires in the kit, they'll be popular.

[Harry P.]

I have read this whole topic, I am not sure why Revell would even think of making this "junk" BUT they MUST have a reason And I think they will do fine while making a lot of money

22 pages of whining and moans.....I like the kit and will get a couple....And I am sure revell will send all the purists a master cylinder

SHEESH !!

But don't you question at all why a newly-tooled kit of a very specific car, not just a generic '32 Ford, has so many inaccuracies? I realize we're not talking about the fate of civilization here, but considering that this is a model car forum, you don't question that? At all?

[mrknowetall]

Bingo! Lots of pissing and moaning about this, that and the other, as regards the Rat Roaster kit. The Rat Roaster isn't perfect. We know that. It could be better. We know that too. Will Revell sell a bunch of the kit? No doubt.

They (Revell) had to start somewhere, and I'll bet that the proceeds from the sale of the RR will bring us sometning "more better".

BTW, I know Ed Sexton on a professional (business) basis. Fairly well. He's paying attention to the various model forums, as is Roger Harney. They do what they can do, given the amount of money they have to invest in new tooling. More often than not, they do an excellent job, as witnessed by their recent '57 Ford, '50 Olds, and '62 Corvette kits. All released in the past four months.

No plastic kit is EVER perfect, and they know that.

Edited February 8, 2013 by mrknowetall

[Longbox55]

I'm amused by the whining about the "missing" master cylinder! It's not even visable from underneath on the actual car, as it's hidden inside a frame cross member.

Check at 0:14, you'll see where it is.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Longbox55

[mrknowetall]

Not entirely true, but close. The '32 five window body has a completely different firewall that matches the curvature of the five window body, but not the roadster or three window bodies. Go figure. The nineties '32 three window and roadster kits share the same firewall. You'll find that the mid-nineties '32 roadster body, in terms of cowl proportion and dimension(s), is very close to the Rat Roaster body, and the RR firewall is a fairly decent fit on the older '32 roadster body.

Does all that make sense?

Edited February 8, 2013 by mrknowetall

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well first, the master cylinder seems as if wouldn't be invisible, but second - check out the 1:1 frame crossmember and the rear suspension arms, for example, and the master cylinder kinda recedes into the least of the problems with the undercarriage.

We're rather far from even the zipcode to pretend anybody's asking for a perfect kit here. Pointing out deviations Stevie Wonder would notice doesn't exactly a "whiner" make. Let the record show who's turning it personal. Again.

[Guest G Holding]

Bingo! Lots of pissing and moaning about this, that and the other, as regards the Rat Roaster kit. The Rat Roaster isn't perfect. We know that. It could be better. We know that too. Will Revell sell a bunch of the kit? No doubt.

They (Revell) had to start somewhere, and I'll bet that the proceeds from the sale of the RR will bring us sometning "more better".

BTW, I know Ed Sexton on a professional (business) basis. Fairly well. He's paying attention to the various model forums, as is Roger Harney. They do what they can do, given the amount of money they have to invest in new tooling. More often than not, they do an excellent job, as witnessed by their recent '57 Ford, '50 Olds, and '62 Corvette kits. All released in the past four months.

No plastic kit is EVER perfect, and they know that.

I would say THANKS to both !

[Ace-Garageguy]

Man !!! I just got a GREAT idea !!! Revell should make a reality TV show with all of us shouting at each other about the RR kit, it's shortcomings and why some insist they don't matter. Betcha THAT would rack up some sales, eh? Models getting thrown against the wall, stepped on, all KINDS of good stuff. Am I a genius, or what ???

[Harry P.]

But then is MCM's cover date accurate ? Does Either matter NOPE

If I had control over it, the cover date would be accurate. Every time.

And by your own admission, you never build any model stock or straight out of the box, so obviously accuracy or fidelity to the subject matter doesn't mean much to you! But not everyone approaches the hobby the same way that you do. To a lot of people, accuracy does matter, and they do expect a kit to have the details done right.

[Longbox55]

Man !!! I just got a GREAT idea !!! Revell should make a reality TV show with all of us shouting at each other about the RR kit, it's shortcomings and why some insist they don't matter. Betcha THAT would rack up some sales, eh? Models getting thrown against the wall, stepped on, all KINDS of good stuff. Am I a genius, or what ???

Can't be any worse than the bulk of the "reality" shows that are already on the the tube!

[Brett Barrow]

I've said it before, probably a thousand times - the all time best selling model car kit is the MPC General Lee.

The only company I can think of that ever set out to make perfect model kits was Accurate Miniatures. They made 2 car models and went out of business. Twice.

Discuss the importance of accuracy on model kit sales...

[Harry P.]

I've said it before, probably a thousand times - the all time best selling model car kit is the MPC General Lee.

The only company I can think of that ever set out to make perfect model kits was Accurate Miniatures. They made 2 car models and went out of business. Twice.

Discuss the importance of accuracy on model kit sales...

That's exactly why most car kitmakers cut corners... because they know that 99% of the buyers will either never know the difference, or won't care. They figure it's better to cut corners and save money and maybe alienate a tiny, tiny handful of hardcore modelers, than to go the extra mile and spend the extra $$$ to make an accurate kit just to please a handful of detail-conscious builders.

That sort of thinking doesn't cut it in the military kit world. Those guys demand accurate kits, they're willing to pay the price for accurate kits, and the manufacturers know it and respond in kind.

Model car builders are, for the most part, not demanding when it comes to accuracy (except for a very small segment of buyers), and are not willing to pay premium prices. So we get what we ask for, basically. Or I should say, what the manufacturers know they can get away with and we will still gladly lap up, despite flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies.

[Kaleb]

It's only plastic, rather a form of.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Kaleb

[Dr. Cranky]

Glenn, I had a spare master cylinder and I put it in there. It fit just fine, exhaust and all.

[Casey]

Not entirely true, but close. The '32 five window body has a completely different firewall that matches the curvature of the five window body, but not the roadster or three window bodies. Go figure. The nineties '32 three window and roadster kits share the same firewall. You'll find that the mid-nineties '32 roadster body, in terms of cowl proportion and dimension(s), is very close to the Rat Roaster body, and the RR firewall is a fairly decent fit on the older '32 roadster body.

Does all that make sense?

Yes.

Is it the same on the real cars that the 5W cowl shape is different from that of both the roadster and 3W bodies?

I did more test fitting and comparing tonight, and I there are so many subtle differences, it no longer surprises me this is an all-new kit instead of a continuation of the existing Revell Deuce quadruplets (quintuplets if we're counting the Speedwagon, too?). As Glenn(?) pointed out somewhere here on the forum, the kickup on the frame rail's recess is slightly different, and I verified the frame crossmembers are slightly different, the front axle/spring pieces are different, and even the rearend parts are different. There seem to be enough differences (and room for future changes and additions?) between this new RR kit and the previous Deuces that Revell felt it best to start anew, rather than prolonging the inevitable. Not every kit series (i.e., '69 Camaro) can last 23+ years, so maybe Revell is just being proactive with the Dueces.

[Casey]

Or I should say, what the manufacturers know they can get away with and we will still gladly lap up, despite flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies.

An optimist might call that a happy medium.

But don't you question at all why a newly-tooled kit of a very specific car, not just a generic '32 Ford, has so many inaccuracies?

This is one of those answerless topics, like "good" art (wait, I think that has an answer. ), because the next question is, "How accurate is accurate enough?"

I wonder if the Dank Fink Speedwagon was gone through with a fine tooth comb when it was first released?

[Harry P.]

This is one of those answerless topics, like "good" art (wait, I think that has an answer.

The answer is "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like!"

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Well gee, if accuracy is so inconsequential to Revell's bottom line, you'd think all the "pissing" and "moaning" would scarcely rate the first mention, then.

[southpier]

exactly. is that where the 'to frame' bracket would be on a 1:1 car?

This gap, where to locating pin on the backside of the firewall meets the inside corner on the body's cutout?:

[Ace-Garageguy]

Is it the same on the real cars that the 5W cowl shape is different from that of both the roadster and 3W bodies?

There is ONE firewall design for ALL 1932 Fords...3-window, roadster, 5-window, pickup, sedan, woody, etc. For that reason, and because they're all built on the same basic chassis with the same wheelbase, the hoods will interchange. The shape of all the grille shells is also the same. There ARE differences in the cowl shape FARTHER BACK, but again, the shape of the cowl AT THE FIREWALL is the same across the entire line.

Is the RR a f'glass car? Some of the aftermarket glass bodies have been stretched and widened to better fit the current crop of Americans, so that may be the source of the discrepancy here.

PS. Nice job Dr.C. That's excatly where it could go. (I say COULD because when you build a real hot-rod, you put things where they will fit and work correctly. An underfloor, crossmember mount with low-swung pedals and a forward-facing boostar like this is very common and correct).

Edited February 8, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Casey]

There is ONE firewall design for ALL 1932 Fords...3-window, roadster, 5-window, pickup, sedan, woody, etc. For that reason, and because they're all built on the same basic chassis with the same wheelbase, the hoods will interchance. The shape of all the grille shells is also the same. There ARE differences in the cowl shape FARTHER BACK, but again, the shape of the cowl AT THE FIREWALL is the same across the entire line.

Is the RR a f'glass car? Some of the aftermarket glass bodies have been stretched and widened to better fit the current crop of Americans, so that may be the source of the discrepency here.

Thanks for the info, Bill. The RR's body is steel, too.

I'm going to do a bit more mocking up today and find out what it'll take to use the RR's firewall with the 5W's body, hood, and hood side panels. So far it look like the rear edge of the 5W's hood needs to be thinned at the underside corners, and the rear edges of the hood sides may need thinning to match the hood.

[Ace-Garageguy]

After looking again at all of the really excelent photos of the kit parts and Dr.C's work, I'm going to lighten up on this poor thing and go buy a couple. There ARE some parts that look pretty interesting, and you can just never have enough '32s. I DO WISH the car had a nice dropped I-beam front end, but hey, you make do with what you got, right? I've already got all the beam-axles I'll probably ever need anyway.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Okay, one more time. I don't have the parts trees in my hand yet to actually analyze the tooling, but IF you're gonna cut all new steel, IT DOESNT COST ANY MORE TO CUT A TOOL FOR AN I-BEAM AXLE THAN IT COSTS TO CUT ONE FOR A TUBE AXLE. They would have used the same hiarpins, spring design, etc. etc. etc. Getting this ONE OBVIOUS DETAIL RIGHT would have gone a long way to make me believe there was a car-culture at Revell.

I have been designing tooling for production in many materials and processes, for many years, including injection molding (parts for medical devices, aircraft and toys, to name a few) and I'm not just blowing idiot smoke.

The additional money it MIGHT have cost to get the beam-axle right is totally insignificant. Period. Some of you seem to imply it would have cost thousands and thousands of dollars. Nope. AND, getting the dimensions and shape of the cowl right ( ALL '32s, real, or repop built to original specs, have identical firewall shapes at the cowl junction, remember ??) would not have cost one additional cent...it simply would have required whoever did the work to do it CORRECTLY in the identical time frame as turned out inaccuracies. Same cost. Period.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Ace-Garageguy

[Brett Barrow]

Okay, one more time. I don't have the parts trees in my hand yet to actually analyze the tooling, but IF you're gonna cut all new steel, IT DOESNT COST ANY MORE TO CUT A TOOL FOR AN I-BEAM AXLE THAN IT COSTS TO CUT ONE FOR A TUBE AXLE. They would have used the same hiarpins, spring design, etc. etc. etc. Getting this ONE OBVIOUS DETAIL RIGHT would have gone a long way to make me believe there was a car-culture at Revell.

I have been designing tooling for production in many materials and processes, for many years, including injection molding, and I'm not just blowing idiot smoke.

Yeah, they goofed on the I-beam, and I said so about 10 pages back. To me it's the one glaring inaccuracy in an otherwise well-done kit. They made a mistake - but if they had caught it (and who knows, maybe they did), would it have been worth the time and money to go back and fix it? Probably not in the long run.

If it were up to me to design an all-new deuce roadster, I'd just shrink the Big Deuce down to 25th and be done with it...

There is a car culture at Revell, Ed's definitely a car guy, but he likes stuff like road-racers. He's definitely not a traditional hot rod kinda guy, probably not that into 32 Fords, but he's a car guy. But he doesn't base Revell's product line on his personal interests, he's trying to appeal to a broad market, and I think they've done a really good job of it since the Hobbico takeover. They've come back from the brink in a big way. Not knowing the difference between an I-beam axle and a tube axle isn't going to throw Revell into a financial tailspin. I don't think the long-term success of Revell lies in getting the "Stacey David Rat Roaster" 100% correct. In 2 years this thing will be forgotten and the tooling will have been transformed into something else. Maybe there will be an I-beam axle in that one...

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just for clarification, I'm over bashing this kit. Frankly, now that I've thought it over, I'm glad Revell brought it out. I see things in it I'll definitely use and I really don't give a rats rear if it's an accurate rendition of the RR. And I'm certainly NOT bashing Revell. I love the new '50 Olds and '57 Ford, two of my personal favorite vehicles. I'm looking forward to seeing the '62 Corvette as well. I'm sure it has huge potential. And some of Revell's recent re-releases are kits I thought I'd never see again. They really made me smile.

All I'm saying is that in a LOT of cases, it costs no more to get things right. But the DESIRE to get things right has to be part of management's mission statement, from the beginning of each and every project..