Jump to content


Stacey David's Rat Roaster by : REVELL


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

#361 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 07 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

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...

#362 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,371 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:21 PM

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.



#363 Kaleb

Kaleb

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,492 posts
  • Location:Central Ar
  • Full Name:Joshua

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

It's only plastic, rather a form of.

Edited by Kaleb, 07 February 2013 - 06:26 PM.


#364 Dr. Cranky

Dr. Cranky

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,414 posts
  • Location:Transylvania, Florida
  • Full Name:Virgil "Doctor Cranky" Suarez

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

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

 

IMG_0166-vi.jpg



#365 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,972 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:43 PM

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.



#366 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,972 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:52 PM

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.  :lol: ), 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?  :unsure:



#367 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,371 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 07 February 2013 - 06:59 PM

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

 

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



#368 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 07 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

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.



#369 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 08 February 2013 - 12:01 AM

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?:

 

deucegap.jpg

 



#370 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,179 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:44 AM

 

 

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 by Ace-Garageguy, 08 February 2013 - 05:39 AM.


#371 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,972 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:08 AM

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.



#372 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,179 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 February 2013 - 05:37 AM

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.



#373 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,179 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 February 2013 - 06:51 AM

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 by Ace-Garageguy, 08 February 2013 - 07:08 AM.


#374 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 08 February 2013 - 07:20 AM

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...   



#375 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,179 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 February 2013 - 07:31 AM

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..



#376 Bernard Kron

Bernard Kron

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,701 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Full Name:Bernard Kron

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:45 AM

As long as everyone is winding up and clarifying their position on this release, here's mine. My disappointment in the RR lies in the the fact that it's a novel, idiosyncratic car, the reflection of one man's taste in rod building, and that in choosing to do this subject Revell created a model that had the potential to be less compatible with the rest of the Deuce 1/25th scale family than it might have been. As it happened the problem is now quite real, and it was compounded by significant variations in dimensions, fit, and parts design. The lack of additional details from the 1:1 that would have expanded the appeal of the kit, such as the I-beam axle and the optional hood sides, only served to diminish my enthusiasm for the kit. Ironically, I'm pretty neutral on authenticity and accuracy, whereas compatibility and features are very important to me. On a going-forward basis the kit is less useful to me than it might have been. I will find myself keeping an eye out for reasonably priced examples of the older Roadster release in order to get nice features like an unmolested body and hood top and those nice, highboy friendly, louvered hood sides, a more universal interior design, and a known and well documented general dimensional compatibility with the other three body styles currently in production.



#377 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 08 February 2013 - 08:55 AM

Well, I wouldn't refer to the kit as "junk" merely because it has a few problems.  I just won't buy the kit... And, do you really equate asking "Why?" with "whining and moans....."?  Golly!

 

What HE said. ^

 

And didja get a load of that premature deployment of the whole "perfect kit" angle, John? A perfect example in action, here.

 

It's as if there's a group of self-appointed defenders of Revell's honor, who somehow feel it's their place to take offense when a kit gets criticized.  Time and time again, I've PUT it to this crowd:  if somebody criticizes an object you had nothing to do with developing, just what is it to you?  What are your stakes, that you should take criticism of that object so personally, you somehow justify it in your mind to take personal shots at the critics?  A person "attacks" an object; you attack the person. Why?  Nobody has even begun to provide an answer for this, because there IS none.
 
Oh, but we've seen some wonderful rationalizations.  The favorite saw that people keep coming back to, no matter how conclusively history gives it the outright lie, is that key personnel at Revell/Monogram are so stupid that they'll hack their own financial nads off by refusing to produce any more new tooling if they don't like the feedback they get.  
 
And then, if any discrepancy is brought up it all becomes "whining and moaning", which has hectored some national-caliber talent clean out of offering any pearls of wisdom for all the pious squealing those pearls elicit. There are some top guys we could stand to hear from, who have useful information they'd be willing to share but for the one-time-too-many they've been called "rivet counter".  Somebody explain to me how that particular brand of neo-McCarthyism is helping this hobby grow.
 
Now if you miss an error in a wheel arch or a drip molding, at least that can be chalked up to a lack of prescription eyewear.  And yes, the Rat Roaster is obviously geared to a different, less critical audience than the other three 2012 offerings.  It's Revell's most o b v i o u s l y compromised kit of 2012, with essentially an entire chassis that's not correct for the prototype; but If Revell's cost-benefit analysis pays off, they'll take the critical drubbing and laugh all the way to the bank.  
 
So, why?  WHY all the righteous chiding about whining and moaning, and all the proselytizing about that mythical "perfect kit" that once again, nobody asked for?


#378 b_lever1

b_lever1

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Location:portage la prairie manitoba canada
  • Full Name:bob leverington

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:26 AM

other than the front axle  front fenders and tires not to many parts for THX 138 i have spend years finding parts to make this car in model form. believe me you have to scratch build most everything because i all ready have 6years building and still not finished .!!! i stand corrected the front axle is not the correct one i have yet to buy one of these kits but it will not stop my purchase there is lots of good parts


Edited by b_lever1, 09 February 2013 - 09:10 AM.


#379 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,972 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 08 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

The wheels can be modified to fit the (sometimes hated) Goodyear Blue Streak Sports Car Special tires (and others) with some work:

 

RRwhlsMod1.jpg

 

RRwhlsmod2.jpg

 

 

And two pics showing the 5W's firewall and the Rat Roaster's firewall in place on the 5W's body shell:

 

5Wfwn5Wshell.jpg

 

RRfwon5WShell-1.jpg



#380 johnbuzzed

johnbuzzed

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Location:Indian Land, SC
  • Full Name:John "the Buzzard" Buzzerio

Posted 08 February 2013 - 10:01 AM

I find it hard to believe that Revell offered this kit for the discerning car modeler- it's a model of a real car that can be seen on TV, in a show with a host who promotes model car building and a contest for the purpose of bringing more people into the hobby.  Is the discerning car modeler the only type of person who watches this show?  Probably not. 

 

We discerning modelers have come to expect reasonable accuracy in a kit, especially one that is supposed to build into a replica of a one-of-one subject.  If proper research went into the design of this kit, we wouldn't be having this long discourse.  I'm not bashing the kit or the manufacturer, but I am wondering how stuff like this happens.  Money, or lack of same? I don't think so.  The manufacturer has the power to charge whatever it wants to for the kit, we all know that.  The axle and other inaccuracies could have and should have been done correctly from the start.

 

And to touch on the Pro Modeler series: In my opinion, those subjects were also not high on the popularity list, kinda like the Accurate Miniatures subjects.  I'm not saying they were bad kits.  If Monogram had produced the old standby '55 Chevy, Deuce and maybe a '40 Ford- you know, what people picture in their minds when they think "hot rod"-  then maybe the series would have fared better.