Jump to content


Stacey David's Rat Roaster by : REVELL


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

#381 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 - 11:46 AM

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.   

The '40 Ford was part of the Pro-Modeler line.  The Convertible.  I forget the exact progression as to which came first, but there were the Standard Coupe, Street Rod Convertible, and Street Rod Coupe kits in non-Pro-Modeler boxings.   

 

And there are few subjects as Iconic as the 69 Charger and that tooling hasn't left the catalog since its introduction, and neither has the 48 Ford in one form or another.  The only one that was a bit odd was the 70 Torino.  

 

But the reason I brought up Pro Modeler is the idea that there's enough of a market out there willing to pay a little bit more for a little bit better quality kit.  And it's never panned out for anyone who's ever tried it.  

 

Anybody who's ever run a resin business can tell you how many "commitments" they get when they're working on a new item, but how those same people tend to get short arms and deep pockets when they actually cast and release the items.  That was the mentality in the '90's and during the rise of the internet and message boards - that modelers were getting more and more demanding and would actually pony up the cash to buy better quality kits.  But it turns out that message boards are a really poor indicator of the modeling public.  They're not a representative sample of the group as a whole.  They - "we" I should say - don't really indicate what the larger group is about.  10 guys on a message board who say they want something don't factor out to mean 10,000 in the rest of the modeling community.  In the end it's just 10 guys on a message board.  That was a lesson that had to be learned the hard way, not just in car modeling, but the other genres as well.  We on these boards tend to think that if there's 3 guys on here complaining about something, there must be 3,000 out there who don't post on boards who have the same complaints, and there's not.  There's just those 3 guys on a board, complaining.     



#382 niteowl7710

niteowl7710

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Location:FayCoPA
  • Full Name:Doing the grunt work so the U.S. Postal Service can deliver your mail.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

The '58 Corvette (which spawned the non-P-M '59) was also in the line.

 

But I have to wonder if the P-M line was unsuccessful because people weren't willing to pay a couple of bucks extra for extra content, or the fact that the extra content (with the exception of the Daytona Charger's P-E Grill - which was subsequently included in every reissue of it - so it couldn't be expensive to create) was an expanded set of instructions and a bigger box.  While all of the kits are good kits, well engineered, etc, they're hardly a "high-water" mark for Revell and something we all lament the downfall of ever since.  Unlike the Fujimi Enthusiast Series where they've never produced a set of kits as detailed and parts-heavy since then.  Revell's kits (for all of their various issues) haven't gotten substantially worse since the late-90's when the P-M kits series debuted.  The '40 & '48 Ford Convertibles and '69 Charger provided the basis for tooling that as Brett points out have been in the catalog in some form ever since then.

 

The P-M line suffered from "Factory Stock-itis".  Now I realize it's how *I* build, but a Factory Stock '40 Ford probably didn't sell as well in it's P-M run as the subsequent Street Machine versions did in theirs.  Same thing for the '48 Ford.  I bet the pre-chopped "Custom" sold far more kits than the bone stock Convertible did.  Still wish they'd do non-chopped Street Machine or something out of that tool so I could build a replica stock coupe, but I digress.

 

The P-M line also spawned right at the time when THE major upheaval in the industry took place.  No one can really look at the end of the 1990's and the resulting all but destruction of AMT/MPC and the random floating of Revellogram that took place for the next half decade as a good thing.

 

Revell never seems to tip it's hand as to it's sales figures, but we know that PRICE isn't the be all and end all of things these days. 

 

Example 1 - Moebius - They're a bit more transparent, and as a result we know that the first runs for the Hudson, the LoneStar, the Chrysler & Great Dane Trailer all sold out en-route on the boat.  Those kits are all more expensive than Revell's price point, even without considering the larger price of Big Truck kits.

 

Example 2 - Aoshima - Again a bit more transparent., and as a result we know the first runs for the Toyota 86/FR-S & BRZ as well as their version of the Aventador all sold out.  If you didn't have those kits on Pre-Order directly out of Japan chances are you didn't get one until several months later when the 2nd run was done.  The entry point (without shipping/importing) is $8-10 higher than Revell.

 

Bottom line subject matter is what sells.  I'd love to know how the Olds & Ford did.  From a "second-hand" view I know that I attended one of the first shows that was held after the '50 Olds was shipped out from distributors.  I arrived 90 minutes after the doors opened, and it was SOLD OUT of every vendor.  Now if Revell included photo-etched scripts, an expanded instruction sheet (since I ESPECIALLY LOATHE the retro box and part number with no paint call out/description they've decided to institute this year), and just corrected all the piddly errors that plague some of these kits would they not have sold out the same kits?  Is that extra $3-5 really going to make or break the "correct" subject matter?

 

Rounding this back to this kit.  It has "0" appeal to me regardless to how they did it, because I don't care about the subject matter, but it's certainly a kit that destined more about what the shiny bits look like than the dirty underside.  That doesn't let Revell off the hook by any means, they should be constantly prodded to produce their best by constructive criticism.  They are the #1 company in the U.S. at the moment, and don't think they should be allowed to slide on their laurels.  Revell is never going to close their doors and go pout because we critique their kits, there should be a "striving towards excellence" culture there. 

 

However the thing that would stop a kid or adult that's new to the hobby from ever building another Revell kit (or perhaps model in general) is long gone from Revell's kits.  Pretty much every kit that Revell has produced in recent years (especially after the Hobbico purchase and infusion of operating capital) is reasonably easily built.  If you give someone a Rat Roaster, some paint and glue at some point in the future they will have something that resembles a '32 Ford hot rod.



#383 Danny Lectro

Danny Lectro

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Location:NY, USA
  • Full Name:See my signature.

Posted 08 February 2013 - 02:26 PM

 

Danny, what's the date code on the topside of the floorpan on your kit?

 

Mine, and the only flash on the entire kit, around the transmission case:

 

b2a4fae0-d1fc-436f-96e7-defbaaf78d4e.jpg

 

09957365-3297-418e-8d2b-4e40b1cf3d22.jpg

Mine has the same date code, however, I don't have as much flash around my engine. I do see some around other parts, like the chassis and some of the suspension. So, less flash on individual parts, but more parts have flash.



#384 jbwelda

jbwelda

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,514 posts
  • Location:witless protection
  • Full Name:William Just

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:54 PM

>there's enough of a market out there willing to pay a little bit more for a little bit better quality kit. And it's never panned out for anyone

>who's ever tried it. 

 

really? thats gotta come as a shock to Tamiya et al.

 

i would rather one imperfect rat roaster than twenty flippin Gremlins of all things. yes i know they are different companies but faced with the garbage model mfgrs dish out regularly, i am digging this one. the front cycle fenders and their in-scale mounting brackets are worth the price of admission to me.

 

given lemons, lemonade is a good outcome.



#385 mrknowetall

mrknowetall

    MCM Avid Poster

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

Posted 08 February 2013 - 03:58 PM

Well written, well said! The Rat Roaster is sort of like Revell "fast food", as opposed to their '50 Olds and '57 Ford kits, to name a few. If the Ford and Olds kits are steak, Stacey David's '32 is a cheeseburger. I like a good cheeseburger from time to time. I'd like a good steak all of the time, but we can't always have steak, can we?

#386 Draggon

Draggon

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Location:Home of the Fremont Drag Strip
  • Full Name:Glenn Asher

Posted 08 February 2013 - 04:17 PM

 

 

i would rather one imperfect rat roaster than twenty flippin Gremlins of all things. yes i know they are different companies but faced with the garbage model mfgrs dish out regularly, i am digging this one. the front cycle fenders and their in-scale mounting brackets are worth the price of admission to me.

 

 

 

Agreed Bill! I think this is the closest to a really traditional 32 we've seen. Take the old highboy, just add the R.R. chopped windshield and the wheels and tires, and presto-change-o! I mean, sheesh, now we have something that can lead to that McMullen roadster. All we need are decals. By the by, the Revell Olds was long long waited for, but the Roaster seems to get a whole lot more attention. What I like is that the Doc's ratty version, and another members blue appear close to box stock. Sure would be nice to finally build a model that didnt need major surgery to the stance correct.



#387 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 09 February 2013 - 02:35 AM

>there's enough of a market out there willing to pay a little bit more for a little bit better quality kit. And it's never panned out for anyone
>who's ever tried it. 
 
really? thats gotta come as a shock to Tamiya et al.
 


I guess you missed the part where I said "American car modeling". Besides, Tamiya is pretty much the Revell of Japan, their kits aren't really high-priced exotics in their domestic market.

#388 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,020 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 09 February 2013 - 03:45 AM

I don't know what the reason is, but whenever someone points out obvious flaws on anything that could have and SHOULD have been noticed and corrected, there's always a contingent that screams "NOTHING'S PERFECT!!!" and "PERFECTION IS IMPOSSIBLE". It's always the case, in every field of endeavor.

 

We had a chopped and sectioned '49 Merc in the shop several months back that came to us after having been in shops all over the city. The car was painted a nice shiny metallic burgundy and had a lot of custom touches that could have made it a show-stopper. Unfortunately, when you started looking close, everywhere you looked there was a glaring flaw that COULD HAVE and SHOULD HAVE been corrected before the car was painted, or before some of the custom bits were plated.

 

The curves on the door window-frames were choppy, not smoothly continuous, and they didn't match from side to side. There had been no thought given to HOW glass was actually going to fit the new windshield and backlight openings. There were obvious jagged edges on some of the chrome pieces, simply left raw and plated over. These and several other immediately obvious shortcomings ruined what COULD have been a world-class car. And do you know what I heard form some of the folks responsible for this half-assed mess? NOTHINGS PERFECT !!!

 

But I wasn't looking for perfection. This car had already consumed $150,000 of the owner's money to get to this point, so I was curious as to how much it would have taken to go from decidely second-rate mediocrity to good-enough. I did the numbers. At MOST, another $3-$4000 in pre-paint, pre chrome labor would have done it, if someone had caught the flaws in time.The paint itself was flawless, but perfect paint won't cover poor fabrication and bodywork, or poor panel fit. But the REAL sad part is that, had the bodyman/ fabricator been competent, it wouldn't have cost one single dollar more to get it right....at least right enough so that the ILLUSION OF PERFECTION would have been the initial impression, rather than being immediately slapped in the face by unexcusably obvious mistakes.

 

Again, I don't know why it is that so many things that COULD have EASILY been first rate with VERY LITTLE OR NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT OR EXPENSE end up being just average, or even less, and if you point out the flaws, people scream "THE PERFECT _____WOULD COST TOO MUCH, CAN'T BE DONE, WOULD LOSE MONEY" ad nauseam. NOBODY is looking for a "perfect" model...just a level of 'good-enough' that really IS GOOD ENOUGH.



#389 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,758 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:19 AM

Regarding posts #488 and #490...

 

Well said, gentlemen. You can't hit the nail any more on the head than the both of you did in those two posts. If anyone reads any of this thread, those two posts are the "must reads" that should put the tired old "perfect model" nonsense to bed once and for all.



#390 oldscool

oldscool

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Full Name:Gerald Goff

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:19 AM

I never expect a kit to be perfect but I do expect to purchase a quality product. My complaint isn't with accuracy but with poor quality control.

I just opened my Rat Roaster kit to find chrome sprues that are not even fully covered by the plating and a fair amount of flash on them. I don't own an airbrush so I don't do Alclad.. I also opened my new 57 Ford kit to find good chrome but a badly warped chassis pan and a somewhat less warped frame. All of the Revell kits I purchase have some degree of warpage.

Why does Revell go to the trouble and expense of turning out kits made from beautiful new tooling if quality control screws the pooch?



#391 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:22 AM

Well the thing is, Bill, if you point out that most of the Roaster model's chassis is wrong, you're working from an irrefutable premise.  You turn the model upside-down, you see triangulated links of a sort (and the airbags), but not the Roaster's four-link setup.  You see the old K-member instead of the big fat X on the 1:1.  And of course, there's that tube axle up front.  The proof is right there, such that if you did a picture of the 1:1 in bas relief, Helen Keller could have run her fingers over the picture and the model's chassis and told you immediately that they're not the same. 

 

But for whatever reason, some folks start breathing heavy at anyone with the temerity to hint at the emperor's true state of dress.  They throw panicky language like "bashing" and "train wreck" around.  And they take your basic unassailable premise - parts of the kit are wrong, here is the proof - and exaggerate it into a demand for a perfect kit, which is ridiculous on its face and easily argued with.  They can't dispute your basic point, so they make a caricature out of it in a desperate attempt to gain some kind of traction for bullying, if not a real argument.

 

The true mystery, where I think there's some outright pathology involved, is why they feel compelled to do that.  Nobody has presented even a remotely logical reason for it.  And what's more, I've already explained all this!  NOTHING seems to encourage a tactic in these discussions like publicly and explicitly discrediting it first.  I've torn that moth-eaten old "Kit Assembler" sham to pieces more times than I can count.


Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 09 February 2013 - 07:32 AM.


#392 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:27 AM

Regarding posts #488 and #490...

 

Well said, gentlemen. You can't hit the nail any more on the head than the both of you did in those two posts. If anyone reads any of this thread, those two posts are the "must reads" that should put the tired old "perfect model" nonsense to bed once and for all.

 

Thanks, Mr P!



#393 Greg Myers

Greg Myers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,545 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Full Name:Gregory Myers

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:37 AM

All good points. Let's take it a step further, why doesn't the modeling press take the model companys to task, I.E. do some investigative reporting. Dig into the subject. Talk to the principals. Why DID they choose to do the kit the way they did? Why did they choose to do a completely new tool and then just reuse the old chassis parts?

Other automotive sources go this route looking into the What, where, whys,whos and whens of reporting.



#394 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,992 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:21 AM


NOBODY is looking for a "perfect" model...just a level of 'good-enough' that really IS GOOD ENOUGH.

 

That's the catch- how "good" is good enough? How far do you take it? How far does Revell take it? How much detail, accuracy, or scale fidelity does it take to be "good enough" for you, me, and the other 249,998 people who will buy this kit?

 

Revell decides what's "good enough," period.  Not me or you, nor anyone else on this forum...unless Ed Sexton is lurking  :blink:.



#395 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,758 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:48 AM

Revell decides what's "good enough," period.  Not me or you, nor anyone else on this forum...unless Ed Sexton is lurking  :blink:.

 

 

Right... the manufacturer decides what's "good enough."

 

But ultimately it's the consumer who really decides whether it's "good enough."

 

The vast majority of people who will buy this kit either don't know about all the mistakes, or they really just don't care, or both. True enough. But the fact that "good enough" is good enough for most buyers (and by extension a good business move by the manufacturer to cut whatever corners they figure they can get away with) doesn't mean that those modelers who expect more accuracy and fewer obvious mistakes in a newly-tooled kit are supposed to just sit there and shut up. Especially not on a model car forum!



#396 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:59 AM

Hear, Hear, Harry.

 

 

Where manufacturers determine what's "good enough", they'll take their lumps for it where they cut corners.  I think they actually anticipated that. I don't think the old deuce parts were recycled out of incompetence, I think Revell made a very deliberate decision on what they were going to develop from scratch and what they would carry over.  And the continued proportioning problems on any subject that doesn't have handy CAD files to draw from indicates they're still working from an old paradigm - developing masters first, then pantographing down to scale for the tooling.  I believe they forecast X number of sales with the 85% version we got, and Y for a 100% version, and decided that the difference between X and Y was not enough to justify the expense in that old-fashioned master development for the suspension bits.  And hey, toss in the notion of backward compatibility with the older Deuces, and there's your justification.

 

But "good enough" is not nearly that arbitrary.  For one thing, this whole discussion has indicated the dropped beam front axle as a possible dividing line for the Roaster kit - had they just included that feature, yeah, there still woulda been bitching about the rest, but I think the lion's share of the controversy here would have been tamped way down.

 

And for another, the Polar Lights '66 Batmobile (and maybe even AMT's 2010 Camaro) are proof of concept that digitally scanning from the 1:1 should go a long way to eliminating those little proportioning problems.  I'd argue that mathematically correct in all three dimensions, with accurate componentry and without any other changes to general parts breakdown as Revell has refined it over the years, is a reasonable general parameter for "good enough".



#397 Guest_G Holding_*

Guest_G Holding_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:17 AM

 

Right... the manufacturer decides what's "good enough."

 

But ultimately it's the consumer who really decides whether it's "good enough."

 

The vast majority of people who will buy this kit either don't know about all the mistakes, or they really just don't care, or both. True enough. But the fact that "good enough" is good enough for most buyers (and by extension a good business move by the manufacturer to cut whatever corners they figure they can get away with) doesn't mean that those modelers who expect more accuracy and fewer obvious mistakes in a newly-tooled kit are supposed to just sit there and shut up. Especially not on a model car forum!

 

 

OUCH.....I AGREE 100%

 

 

And I am still getting 2 kits  B) 


Edited by G Holding, 09 February 2013 - 09:18 AM.


#398 Darin Bastedo

Darin Bastedo

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts
  • Location:Kingsport TN

Posted 09 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

I've Read this topic with interest, and found a number of people who have made some interesting points. Like always I try not to comment on the model itself until I hold it in my hot little hands. Now that I have one here is my take on it;

 

First let me say I tend to come to the subject of scale fidelity and accuracy from a slightly different perspective. I've been building Models for the better part of 40 years. Had this kit, or anything close to its quality come out back in the '70s when I started building, it would have been met with accolades by the modelers. I'm old enough to remember when the typical kit merely bore a close approximation to the real car. Back then the only '32 fords available were the AMT (almost toy like) MPC (look at the recent  American Grafitti re-release) and the Monogram (Roadster only, fenders molded to the frame and no easy way to do a fenderless car) Take a look at any of these and tell me that even this compromised kit isn't far superior to any of those options.

 

Second, I grade kits on what I can build it into. I have absolutely Zero interest in the 1:1 Rat Roaster, but can understand that if that is what you want to build how you could be disappointed with the kit. Also I Can understand if you are disappointed that there is no I-beam axle as there are many cars I could build with that as well. That said this kit has some great stuff in it.

 

1. I love the wheels and tires. There are a lot of things I could do with those.

 

2. Buick Portholes, I see me adding those to my custom Hudson Hornet tonight or tomorrow.

 

3 The Engine. I can put that in anything from a t-bucket to a 69 Camaro. Heck the short block and tranny would be a great start on a pro-touring engine build.

 

4. The Front cycle fenders and bobbed rears will look great on a vintage hot rod build.

 

5. The seats look cool and would work in many period customs

 

6. the guitar is a nice touch

 

7.  The Gear shift is kinda cool too, and would look good in any hot rod build.

 

8. Having a stock firewall that isn't resin is nice too.

 

I'll probably buy several of these over the years because the parts are so nice. Is it a perfect replica of the 1:1? nope, but it is a really nice model kit. 



#399 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,992 posts
  • Location:Milwaukee, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:18 PM

The only bummer is the "bomber" look is lost when the seat covers are installed, but they will no doubt find their way into other builds:

 

c1a7a0a7-225b-4502-910f-bf9d265bd2f4.jpg

 

 

6. the guitar is a nice touch

 

It's very unique:

 

b163b463-72b1-4772-96d9-ca5800584697.jpg

 

 

I do like the gearshift lever, but can't tell what the shift knob is supposed to be, based on its cone(?) shape?:

 

4e5fe880-bdcb-4c14-bcbf-832acf5f0c09.jpg

 

 

 

8. Having a stock firewall that isn't resin is nice too.

 

 

Easily one of the kit's best parts:

 

3f14fcce-3bbe-4ada-bb00-cfe95d52cdc3.jpg

 

 

I know some think the hood portholes are cheesy, but I think they're one of the details which makes this car stand out. To me, they seem like a bit of a nod to past styling, but now incorporated into the hood in a position where they could actually have a function. When I first saw the car with the hood on, I was hoping there were injector stacks which lined up with the portholes, and though two more would be needed to jive with a traditional V-8 Hilborn style mechanical fuel injection setup, they at least show Stacey's aware of American automotive history and styling:

 

aedfef07-02ef-4566-ac12-c6312dacc10d.jpg

 

 

The windshield frame is really nice, too, and probably long overdue:

 

aed1d395-a06a-4c1b-91eb-89509a181912.jpg

 

 

The front cycle fender are also prime for using on other builds. Here's a close up shot of the mounting bracket:

 

5f628156-8458-4182-bfab-bba042d65e1e.jpg

 

d3f23f07-e0f5-4ac5-8868-89fa91967ee5.jpg

 

Not my best photography, but you can at least make out the classic shape of the front fenders, and hopefully see they have a nice, think edge bead detail:

 

1a0876d5-69d1-499d-a885-4dcee1c93153.jpg

 

 

Here are the chrome parts:

 

07e32637-398c-4ea1-b821-36c553232e12.jpg



#400 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 09 February 2013 - 07:27 PM

There's a musical theme to the car, so the shifter is supposed to be a microphone, iIrc.

 

They used a drum kick pedal for the throttle, too.  Shouldn't be too hard to scratch up.  

 

Revell's A-bones seem to have some potential as a beam axle source, and I think a triangulated four-link with plastruct or evergreen box sections for the joints shouldn't be a big deal. Just wondering about that big X in the middle of the frame...