611 replies to this topic

[Danny Lectro]

 

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:

 

 

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.

[jbwelda]

>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.

[mrknowetall]

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?

[Draggon]

 

 

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.

[G Holding]

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 if two "old guys" went to look at one specific car, then (aside from tooling issues re: dimensions), why does the kit have problems?  No disrespect intended, but maybe the "old guys" aren't as sharp as they once were- it happens to all of us.  Perhaps Revell needs some youth in it's corporate structure.  And, do you really equate asking "Why?" with "whining and moans....."?  Golly!

 

 

Sarcasm written, mis understood, poorly quoted makes half of this whole topic wasted bandwidth   I think those "old guys" rock...and I'm older still ! If you READ the post I love this kit, and learned a long time ago about rivets  and that's why I model cars, not Mil or RR. I can see a turd 32 (Boyds) and a well mad kit(RR) and am not gonna whine just build. WHY you ask... I think the answer is Revell will sell a bundle of these to many like myself who will build them W/O problems, unlike some other older worn out kits 

      

[b_lever1]

it sounds like everybody wanted that perfect kit well are people willing to pay 10 times more for the perfect kit? NO i have seen a lot of talanted builders here, but then there are kit builders then there are model builders then there are MODELERS don't let a few things drag a kit down be a MODELER not a kit assembler!!!!!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Not for nothing, but be sure to skip my nearly three-year-old blog on the whole "kit assembler" subject.

 

Now based on the continued insistence that all the "whiners" are looking for a perfect kit, I decided to have a run through this entire thread again. And boy, was it good for laughs - only the Facebook page outstripped this discussion for pointing out again and again that Stacey David was NOT making a rat rod.  

 

But I was looking for evidence that any critic of the Rat Roaster demanded a perfect kit.  I was looking for a sign, actually.  Actually, I was looking for the vaguest indication.  Okay, the flimsiest excuse to actively infer that somebody criticizing this kit expected something perfect.

 

Well, the first post I saw to even mention a "perfect kit" was #345 - NOT from one of the critics, but from someone defending the kit.  I believe the single person who mentions the "perfect kit" most is, why, yours truly... only to point out that nobody's asking for one. Three times at least, by my count.

 

In fact, judging by the big picture in the latter half of this thread, the single most controversial aspect is the non-beam nature of the front axle - implying a strong possibility that if Revell had simply put a dropped beam there, most of us would have overlooked the air bagged rear, the incorrect frame crossmember, the missing door hinges and valve cover breathers and master cylinder, tucked a bunch of these kits under our arms, and waved "thank you" as we went on our way.  Which lands well short of a demand for a perfect kit no matter how aggressively you interpret it.

 

But hey, maybe that's just MY Dr Seuss level of reading comprehension here.  So why don't one of you guys quote a post between 1 and 488 in this thread that shows evidence of a Rat Roaster critic expecting a perfect kit.  Or at least a sign.  Or at least a vague indication.  Or at least the flimsiest excuse to interpret it that way.

[Brett Barrow]

>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.

[Ace-Garageguy]

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.

[Casey]

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

 

That is sort of where I was going with a previous comment (or maybe a thought I never typed out) regarding how the Rat Roaster is very similar to, but not an exact copy of, the existing Deuce tooling. I think it was mentioned in the '62 Vette topic that the mold seams were in different places compared to the '58, so the '62 was in fact all-new, rather than based on the previous '58. There must be some reason Revell created new tooling for these two kits instead of basing them on existing tooling. 

 

 

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.

 

You're just totally ignoring the optional NASCAR version of the P-M '69 Charger Daytona??        

 

 

 

The '48 and '40 Ford convertibles were dubious choices for the P-M line IMHO, too, especially in factory stock dress. The street rod options could been better, too, the "Revell" wheels on the '48 being a major-->    inclusion.

 

I guess as far as the Rat Roaster is concerned, I would've liked to see the kit be more true to the real car as far as the suspension is concerned, but I'm also trying to keep an open mind an give Revell the benefit of time, waiting to see what may be coming in another three years or so, based on this new tooling. If nothing ever does, so be it. I can accept the Rat Roaster kit for what it is, what it isn't, and what it may have been.  Besides, once the '70 'Cuda and '90 Fox Mustang notchback kits arrive we'll have something new to publicly roast.

[Harry P.]

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.

[oldscool]

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?

[Chuck Kourouklis]

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.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

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!

[Greg Myers]

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.

[Casey]

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  .

[Harry P.]

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

 

 

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!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

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".

[G Holding]

 

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   

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

[b_lever1]

in reply to #487 chuck a kit assembler is what my grandpa called me he built live steam engines from scratch i'm just saying if it is not right to some people they should do their best to make it right to them (ie) the graffiti coupe thx138 that was  way wrong but i've spent years working and correcting it to what i hope is perfect andit will may or may not end up that way and agreeing with some others nothing is perfect but i will try in being a modeler and BUILDING IT where can a person read this thing blog of yours