Jump to content


Stacey David's Rat Roaster by : REVELL


  • You cannot reply to this topic
454 replies to this topic

#301 zaina

zaina

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 390 posts
  • Location:grand island, ne
  • Full Name:andy lesiak

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

The tab is there just like all the other dueces to mount it but there is no master cylinder

#302 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,267 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 05 February 2013 - 06:15 AM

Did anyone notice the fact that this kit doesn't have a master cylinder? Or am I just not seeing it in the box or the instructions?

Noticed that.  The tab is still there, but no master cylinder.  Probably interfered with the new exhaust routing? 



#303 azers

azers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Location:sultan
  • Full Name:Joe l. Spitzer

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:22 AM

Im gonna try that on my 1:1 rod. Eliminate the mastercylinder because the exhaust is in the way. Lol.

#304 Chuck Most

Chuck Most

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,029 posts
  • Location:Ithaca, Michiganistan
  • Full Name:^See Above

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:34 AM

Im gonna try that on my 1:1 rod. Eliminate the mastercylinder because the exhaust is in the way. Lol.

Don't. The 'Fred Flintstone Braking Method' isn't quite as effective as you've been led to believe. :lol:



#305 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,247 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:40 AM

Master cylinder? We don't need no stinking master cylinder. Dang parts-counters. :lol:



#306 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:30 AM

Hey, give 'em a brake.

 

*ducking*



#307 azers

azers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Location:sultan
  • Full Name:Joe l. Spitzer

Posted 05 February 2013 - 12:25 PM

Theres a new market. Asbestos soled shoes. Hahaha.

#308 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:21 PM

'Cause the marketing tie-in with GearZ is apt to draw in more casual modelers.

 

And if you have a pool of more casual modelers, why sink the money into masters for a 100% kit when you can save it with amortized masters for the majority, develop new masters just for the most obvious unique bits, get an 85%-correct model, and figure the remaining 15% probably won't even get noticed by anyone except the lunatic fringe?

 

Further proof, by the way, that a critical drubbing means shag-all to Revell's bottom line, or else we wouldn't keep seeing examples of this "meh, good enough" paradigm.  And to be fair, they did try harder on the other three 2012 new tools.

 

**EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies.


Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 05 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.


#309 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:27 PM

That's above my pay grade, Case.

 

B)



#310 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,015 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:34 PM

OK, OK, back to the Rat Roaster. I have yet to have my kit delivered, so I am curious if the instruction sheet shows the master cylinder at all or not. I wish Revell would have the instruction sheets available online once the kit appears on their 'site. It would make things much easier.  :D



#311 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,461 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:36 PM

**EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies.

 

Yeah, that was me. I figured better not to make waves. But since you saw my post and answered, well, waves made!  :lol:

 

But to get back to your comment about drawing in more casual modelers, Chuck...

 

Since this is an all-new kit, wouldn't it have been just as easy to get it right than to get it wrong? Seriously... the excuses about why they cut this corner and that corner and why they left out this part and that part just doesn't make sense when you're talking about a new kit and not a re-release. Why not just make the freakin' thing right and satisfy both the "casual" modeler and the "lunatic fringe?"



#312 Draggon

Draggon

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,854 posts
  • Location:Home of the Fremont Drag Strip
  • Full Name:Glenn Asher

Posted 05 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

I just cked my instructions and there is no master cylinder.



#313 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:29 PM


 

Yeah, that was me. I figured better not to make waves. But since you saw my post and answered, well, waves made!  :lol:

 

But to get back to your comment about drawing in more casual modelers, Chuck...

 

Since this is an all-new kit, wouldn't it have been just as easy to get it right than to get it wrong? Seriously... the excuses about why they cut this corner and that corner and why they left out this part and that part just doesn't make sense when you're talking about a new kit and not a re-release. Why not just make the freakin' thing right and satisfy both the "casual" modeler and the "lunatic fringe?"

 

Philosophically, I'm bang-on your page, Harry.  Pragmatically, I'm guessing it would have cost more to do the master patterns for the correct rear suspension and front axle than to recycle the previous patterns, to say nothing of the valve cover breathers, master cylinder, external door hinges, and other little bits m.i.a.

 

It seems they did it the cheapest way you could still call the tooling "new".  Frankly I'm glad we got a new firewall, a TKO and such great new rubber out of the deal.



#314 Longbox55

Longbox55

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,622 posts
  • Location:Danville Il
  • Full Name:Bill Burmeister

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:32 PM

The master cylinder is tucked inside the X member of the frame on the 1:1, however, there should a master cylinder for the hydraulic clutch mounted on the frame.



#315 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,247 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:13 AM

Another possibility is that no one in the Rat Roaster deal-to-production loop is sufficiently a 'car-guy' to even have noticed the absence of a master cylinder or the correct front axle, etc. etc. After all, the old-tool front axle sorta looks like the one in the RR. This isn't as unlikely as it seems, because there has been a definite trend in business over the past many years towards thinking that management doesn't need to actually have any hands-on understanding of product. Leave the details to the grunts, who may not actually know what they're doing, and focus on marketing partnerships and related hooey.

 

Anybody remember the o-rings on the Challenger solid-fuel rocket boosters that caused the first Space Shuttle disaster? If critical details like that can be glossed over by upper management, it's not that surprising that there are detail discrepencies on a car model, now is it?



#316 Matt T.

Matt T.

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Location:A-Town, Empire State
  • Full Name:Matthew T.

Posted 06 February 2013 - 07:32 AM

Stacey David hisself probably signed off on this kit. Revell presented him with the box art build and he must have said "Looks great!"

 

We have to remember that, for the car guys that don't build model cars, model cars are just office/book shelf decoration or "kid stuff."

 

The lack of an under-floor master cylinder, or a correct I-beam even, isn't a deal breaker when you look at this as an "arm's-length replica."

 

Or, maybe Stacey did say something, but it was too late to retool. Either way, he had to sign off on it - his name is on it.



#317 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 871 posts
  • Location:Fairfax/Bay Area, CA

Posted 06 February 2013 - 08:49 AM

Anybody remember the o-rings on the Challenger solid-fuel rocket boosters that caused the first Space Shuttle disaster? If critical details like that can be glossed over by upper management, it's not that surprising that there are detail discrepencies on a car model, now is it?

 

OUCH.

 

True, though.

 

At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford.



#318 Bernard Kron

Bernard Kron

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,706 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Full Name:Bernard Kron

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:19 AM

...At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford.

 

I feel it's unproductive to speculate on the internal goings on and motivations at Revell. The observation regarding some of their other recent releases is the interesting part to me. There's no doubt in my mnd that Revell has, and will continue to, produce some very fine kits. Indeed, I'm sure that for every corporate drone buzzing around within its wall there is an equally committed modeler driving the corporate mission forward, often quite succesfully.

 

But, ... I have a copy of the Rat Roaster kit. The more I look at it the less I like it. If it's my future source for Deuce roadsters it has increased the number of fixes I will have to do to make it universal enough to be suited to a variety of variants. The smaller than expected number of "plus" features has made it difficult for me to be enthused about it. Even the cool wheels and tires, as nice as they are, use a mounting system where the wheels, at least, are not easily adaptable to more standard systems. The bottom valance at the rear is Rat Roaster specific (although how they could avoid this, if they intended to model the Rat Roaster, is unclear). Much of the interior is toy like and, again, Rat Roaster specific (compare it to the previous interior, despite the dashboard). The hood is useless. etc., etc. As much as I welcome a fresh tooling of a 1/25th Deuce roadster, if this is to be our only one I remain unconvinced that doing the Rat Roaster, particularly at this level, was such a good idea...


Edited by Bernard Kron, 06 February 2013 - 09:31 AM.


#319 mrknowetall

mrknowetall

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Location:Wilmington DE
  • Full Name:Don Banes

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:14 AM

Has anyone mounted the new Rat Roaster body on the old tool '32 frame?  The bodies look pretty similar, along with the wheel well inserts.



#320 Bernard Kron

Bernard Kron

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,706 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Full Name:Bernard Kron

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Has anyone mounted the new Rat Roaster body on the old tool '32 frame?  The bodies look pretty similar, along with the wheel well inserts.

 

As I mentioned above, I'm doing a review of the Rat Roaster kit on another forum, comparing the RR with the earlier "Goodguys" release as well as the other 1/25th Revell Deuces currently available. I'm checking for compatibility and differences. The body has two significant changes, the firewall covered earlier on this thread, and the rear valance which is Rat Roaster specific with two small extensions that surround the gas tank as well as an inset for the license plate (see pictures below). The modified rear valance would need to be cut back for a full fendered conversion of to be correct for a stock bodied car. As a result the wheel well panels are different. However the mounting tabs are identically placed and the two panels can be interchanged betwenn the two kits.

 

I'm focused on anoth project I'm trying to get done by next week so I haven't moved on to the chassis as yet, but an initial examination indicates that the RR frame is very close to, if not identical to, the older issue chassis. I should get to a more formal comparison in a couple of weeks.

 

Roadster-Bodies-Wheel-Well-Panels-Web.jp

Roadster-Wheel-Well-Installation-Web-1.j
Roadster-Bodies-Rear-Ends-Web.jpg
 


Edited by Bernard Kron, 06 February 2013 - 01:47 PM.