611 replies to this topic

[Chuck Kourouklis]

 

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

 

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.

[Longbox55]

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.

[Ace-Garageguy]

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?

[Matt T.]

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.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

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.

[Casey]

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. 

 

I don't know to what extent Ed Sexton or Revell is involved with each and every kit, but from what I've read, heard, and seen about him, he's not only a "car guy", but he's a model builder, too, as seen by his IMSA Mustang GTO on the cover of SAE from '95:

 

 

 

Every kit has compromises, and we all have our own limits as to what we find acceptable, but the Rat Roaster seems to me to be the most likely candidate for "most compromised all-new kit", and I think Revell knew this kit would sell like crazy even if they skimped on an accurate front axle, omitted the brake master cylinder, and "left in" the inaccurate airbag rear suspension. I doubt most people who buy and build this kit are going to go online and research this-and-that about the 1:1 build, and check everything against the kit parts.  As much as some of us wish it was, it's just not that type of kit. I don't think Revell's trying to pull a fast one on anyone at all. Every kit can't and won't always be what we want it to be, and not every new kit is going to raise the bar for the next new kit, either. While this kit may not meet my our your expectations, it may in fact be exceeding Revell's.

 

The General Lee kit from MPC is a good example of this type of kit, where accuracy comes second (or third, fourth...) and the "Mom/Dad, look, it's that car from the TV show!" type of reaction is what drives sales and makes the kit a huge success. Sure the 1/25 MPC General Lee kit is a turd, but it's widely acknowledged as the best-selling kit of all time, so people must be buying it for reasons other than accuracy.

[Bernard Kron]

...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.

[mrknowetall]

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.

[johnbuzzed]

The MPC General Lee was not a model of any one specific car; who knows how many Chargers were used, abused and ruined over the course of "The Dukes of Hazzard".  The Rat Roaster kit is a model of a one-of-a-kind car, built buy a "car guy", as part of a TV show with an audience made up largely of "car guys".  Revell should have had plenty of time to examine the real car and get the details right before the kit went into production- especially since this is supposed to be an all-new kit.  Maybe they had a "new guy" develop this kit.  Who knows.  I wonder if Stacy David really had anything to do with the creation of the kit or if he just OK'ed the use of the name, his picture, etc.  After all, money talks.

[Bernard Kron]

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.

 

 

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

[Chuck Kourouklis]

It's funny you bring up the DOH example, Casey, 'cause it occurred to me too.

 

And while it's absolutely correct that the General Lee wasn't a single specific car, it's just as true that there probably wasn't one, among all the '69 Chargers sacrificed for that show, had a flush-mounted 500-style backlight instead of the standard flying buttress C-pillars.  That was a detail about the kit that had me going "wtf??" as an 11-year-old consumer, and it's the chief reason I think your basic point stands.

 

Like many of you, I think Revell kinda blew it by not taking advantage of all the Roaster's features to generate some bones to toss the trad crowd and herald another, even more traditional version down the line.  But I say this having to acknowledge some pretty strong work in their other new 2012 kits, and I think the good news here is that Revell has a way of coming around - which is why I would encourage the trad crowd to grouse loudly and repeatedly about the omissions here.  

 

I mean, I know the AMBR judges don't know squat (  ), but even outside of that, traditional movements are building steam, and if you guys are loud enough, Revell might just catch the wave before it washes away.  And if there's another Revell Deuce permutation ahead to play the COPO Nova to the Roaster's Yenko, that would probably be a very good thing.

[Harry P.]

 

OUCH.

 

True, though.

 

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

 

We should be glad that Revell wasn't in charge of the space shuttle program...

[Draggon]

 

Like many of you, I think Revell kinda blew it by not taking advantage of all the Roaster's features to generate some bones to toss the trad crowd and herald another, even more traditional version down the line.  But I say this having to acknowledge some pretty strong work in their other new 2012 kits, and I think the good news here is that Revell has a way of coming around - which is why I would encourage the trad crowd to grouse loudly and repeatedly about the omissions here.  

 

 

I'm hoping that this kit morphs into the McMullen roadster.

 

[mrknowetall]

I wouldn't hold my breath, but you never know. I can see Revell doing a full fendered '32 roadster at some point, along with a '32 pickup. I'm sure they have other subjects in mind away from the 1932 genre. Just my guess. I'd rather see them do a line of Model A street rod kits, which has been a hot topic in the 1:1 street rod world for more than a few years. Again, I'm not holding MY breath on that wish either.

[samdiego]

Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side.

This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also

Edited by samdiego, 06 February 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[southpier]

speaking of '32 firewalls ........... why do they all have an open slot on each side so that light shows between it and the body?

[johnbuzzed]

Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side.

This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also

I really like this one, Sam.  I think it's more... appropriate than the original car.  Along the "Sgt." lines, I would like to see Revell invest some $$$ and do a GOOD replica of Sgt. Rock; maybe a 2-in-1 kit. 

[mrknowetall]

Nice build! 

[Ace-Garageguy]

I wouldn't hold my breath, but you never know. I can see Revell doing a full fendered '32 roadster at some point, along with a '32 pickup. I'm sure they have other subjects in mind away from the 1932 genre. Just my guess. I'd rather see them do a line of Model A street rod kits, which has been a hot topic in the 1:1 street rod world for more than a few years. Again, I'm not holding MY breath on that wish either.

You can already build a full-fendered '32 roadster using all Revell parts. The roadster body fits the fenders in the 3 and 5 window kits with a little work.

 

What they NEED to do is a generic traditional chassis with front and rear suspension and axle options. I've offered to design it for production to fit their existing bodies, but no one seemed to notice. Many MANY rods are built on '32 rails, and having an injection molded-alternative to the expensive resin that's available currently could up the demand for the existing-tool kits as well.

 

As for model A streetrods, Revell produced a '30/'31 sedan delivery, a '30/'31 woody, and a '28/'29 roadster / closed-cab pickup, (ALL of these have been released multiple times, in multiple versions and lotsa different box-art) and are readily available. ALL of them on a GREAT A-model chassis with nice stock and dropped I-beam front ends. Any of the OTHER 1/25 Model A (like the AMT '29 roadster) kits will fit the excellent Revell chassis.

 

As far as what-fits-what-perfectly-out-of-the-box...come on man, hot-rodding, whether in 1:1 or in 1/25 scale is about MAKING STUFF FIT that's not designed to work together.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 07 February 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[Brett Barrow]

Overall, I'm still pretty stoked just that Revell took the time to do a rare single car subject that doesn't have numbers on the side. I'm not in love with this particular rod, but I like it enough to have picked one up. My issues are more with the tooling quality. Twenty years ago it would have been great but it pales slightly compared to the recent Revell stuff. The bigger problem was that my chrome was awful. Warped trees, white shadows and a blotchy topcoat. Replacements are still a few weeks away, so plan B turned out to be this, a car with numbers on the side.

This is a WIP shot of Sgt. Rat, box stock except for the decals and the shifter. I had clearance trouble with the fan motor also

 

That car works so much better with that paint job and the dulled-down engine parts.  I like it! Got me thinkin'...  Thinkin', thinkin', thinkin'...

Edited by Brett Barrow, 07 February 2013 - 05:59 AM.