Jump to content


1/25 Revell '70 Plymouth HEMI 'Cuda 2'n1


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

#221 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:35 AM



Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again.  Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcars...5&showentry=107

 

For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad.

 

 

But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand what the flaws are (beltline to shoulders looks too tall, inner scoop ridges are too short, wheel lips are too fat), and I even agree they should be addressed, so interpreting my "no kit is perfect" comment as an attempted justification as to why these flaws exist is not the case. I don't know exactly why Revell (or any other company) doesn't get it prefect every single time, but I do realize debating how close to perfection each of us perceives this kit to be is only good up to a certain point, and that point is different for each of us.

 

And yes, all three example I posted how noticeable differences in the wheel lip areas alone, and that was intentional--t o show they are all different. And yes, they are all different from what we see on the 1/25 scale model, but as I said already, I agree that the model's wheel lips could be better, so I have no need to try to justify why they aren't. I think most of us would rather see them improved than debate why Revell hasn't done that yet, but will it happen? I guess we'll see in November.



#222 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:06 PM

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you.  You'd be far from the only one making reference to it.

 

I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them.  And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about.

 

It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place.  That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.



#223 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:16 PM



It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place.  That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

 

I agree 100%, and that's probably why there's frustration when Revell brings out a new kit and it doesn't seem to be on the same level as previous "best efforts" on their part. We know they can do it, and they have done it, but for whatever reason(s), they don't do it on every new kit.



#224 midnightprowler

midnightprowler

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,803 posts
  • Location:East Bethel, Minnesota
  • Full Name:Lee

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:43 PM

But after the last 2 tries at this kit, there is no excuse not too be as good or better than the 57 Ford.

#225 freakshow12

freakshow12

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:melfort saskatchewan canada
  • Full Name:fred mckee

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations.  be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.



#226 martinfan5

martinfan5

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,225 posts
  • Location:Los Santos, San Andreas
  • Full Name:Jonathan Stephens

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:51 PM

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations.  be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

If we the automobile modelers did not nitpick and complain about what the model manufactures did not get right,  we have a lot more inaccurate kits out there,  to a point they do listen to us, and by us throwing fits like little spoiled kids over things, we get better kits in return, well, for the most part.

 

I ask you this, do you really want to see just how accurate model kits would be if we did not care?,  I know I sure as heck dont

 

Remember, they are in the business to make money,and the less they can spend on tooling/R&D and so on, the more that goes into their pockets, and if they know they can get away with it, they will. 



#227 Drake69

Drake69

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • Location:Central VA
  • Full Name:Allen Manley

Posted 23 April 2013 - 04:41 PM

Just PLEASE let this not come with DONKS. That's all I ask.

 

Dog dish wheels and factory mags are perfect for this kit.



#228 Rob Hall

Rob Hall

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,124 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona
  • Full Name:Robert Hall

Posted 23 April 2013 - 04:43 PM

Just PLEASE let this not come with DONKS. That's all I ask.

 

Dog dish wheels and factory mags are perfect for this kit.

I think Revell is done w/ the 'donk' style kits, and big wheel hi-riders are a GM thing anyway...looks like it will have stock and Pro-Touring style wheels w/ lowered suspension.


Edited by Rob Hall, 23 April 2013 - 04:44 PM.


#229 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 23 April 2013 - 05:28 PM

It was actually not even about the whole "perfect kit" thing with you, Case - that's why I posted that bit before I quoted you.  You'd be far from the only one making reference to it.

 

I just thought it was significant that the 1:1 pics in themselves actually diverge far less from one another than the model does with any one of them.  And while there's certainly dissension from one builder to the next as to exactly what level of inaccuracy is acceptable, I'd counter that if the model is accurate from the start, there won't be anything (or at least, a great deal less) for people to disagree about.

 

It's the very fact that the model has provided room for debating its closeness to "perfection" that's the problem in the first place.  That '57 Ford, or Revell's '64 Impala, or their 1/25 '69 Camaro really tighten down the margin for any dispute, by comparison.

Funny you would invoke the 57 Ford as a comparison, since it's the same designer doing the 70 Cuda. That particular designer has a 50 year history in the model industry and is a member of the industry's Hall of Fame.  

 

I know I always have a little different perspective on these discussions since I often know a little more of the human element that goes into these kits. 

 

And the 57 Ford has its issues - take a look at the inside of the fins compared to the 1:1, though that could have more to do with molding limitations than a design flaw.  



#230 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 23 April 2013 - 06:28 PM

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it?  John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions.  Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans.

 

Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda.

 

... we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.

 

Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcars...5&showentry=107



#231 moparfarmer

moparfarmer

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts
  • Location:Winnipeg Manitoba Canada
  • Full Name:Wayne Farmer

Posted 23 April 2013 - 07:16 PM

Here we go with the whole "there's never been a perfect kit" thing again.  Item #1 on this list: http://www.modelcars...5&showentry=107

 

For anybody paying attention, the point of that whole exercise is not just that all these tropes have been refuted, but that they've been refuted in advance. Ya need some new material, people, and bad.

 

 

But what you've demonstrated, Casey, is that the prototype deviates from ALL of your examples:

 

2012-10-06160608.jpg

 

Now there's a big difference in the angle of the model versus the varying angles of the 1:1 profile shots, but where the differences in the 1:1 can just about be accounted for in factors like camera lens distortion, subject angle and focus, you can't say the same about where the model goes off course.  Every single example you use points to a front wheel arch that's flattish and over-prounounced, and an upper fender-door-quarter surface that's a bit beefy relative to the surface just below the crease (the black one, less so, thanks to the same focus and lighting issues creating the illusion of a blending rear wheel arch).  And the top two shots only bludgeon Ron's and Bill's points about the two-scoop hood home.

 

By the way, there's room to point this out and still acknowledge that the new model overall is just stupid better than any previous Revell/Monogram 'Cuda.  It's probably good enough (straight down to chromed taillights which can be done-in-one with a fine-tip red Sharpie). Thing is, we're just coming off a '57 Ford that's everything you could want out of a Revell model - way better than "good enough"- and a '50 Olds only a little shy of that standard.  Revell can be more consistent than this, and they have been in the recent past.  But nobody's gonna encourage them to do so by rationalizing every little instance they go wide of the target.

The black car seems to be a poor restoration job compared to the other two.  Looks like a lot of bondo/putty used to smoothen out the lines.  Not a very well done car...



#232 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 24 April 2013 - 04:41 AM

Yeah, but it's more than just the designer, now, isn't it?  John Mueller's credited as the designer for some disasters that would have turned out very differently if the master patterns and molds had simply lived up to his intentions.  Between Racing Chumps and Trumpeter, ya gotta wonder if they made so many Charmin rolls out of his plans.

 

Do we know that the same people crafted the masters, for instance? And whatever the Ford's got in the fins or in the side window framing, it's nothing nearly so loud as what's going on with the 'Cuda.

 

 

Fwiw, Fred, item five on that same list has already anticipated your last point: http://www.modelcars...5&showentry=107

Having seen some of the Trumpeter masters (a couple of them still reside in the very building I work in) in the flesh, I have to say that it wasn't the pattern makers that let those designs down, it was definetly in the tooling.   

 

And still, I've asked, and nobody has ever responded - what are the acceptible innacuracies and what are the unacceptible innacuracies?  Since perfection is obviously an unobtainable goal (and save the pre-written "nobody is asking for perfection" schtick...) it seems like roof lines and wheel openings/fender flares seem to garner the most "outrage".  Because it's a little hard to follow the logic of "we can live with this" for one subject with flaws and "this is unacceptible rubbish" for another subject with flaws.  And everything has its flaws - they always have - and they always will.   

 

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one. 



#233 gtx6970

gtx6970

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,920 posts
  • Location:Northern Ky
  • Full Name:Bill Allphin

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:21 AM

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one.

 

 

 

agreed 100%

 

You can please all of the people some of the time.

or

You can please some of the people all of the time.

 

you can pick only one



#234 azers

azers

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 24 April 2013 - 06:25 AM

If it was perfect there would be nothing for us modelers to do except assemble it. Where is the fun in that. How many of us ever just just build from the box. I don't. I for one am looking forward to getting several.

#235 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 24 April 2013 - 07:00 AM

If it was perfect there would be nothing for us modelers to do except assemble it. Where is the fun in that. How many of us ever just just build from the box. I don't. I for one am looking forward to getting several.

 

Before Chuck responds to this  :D , let me add that I'd be perfectly happy with a kit which required me to do nothing but clean up mold seams, paint and assemble it. I can live with that.  B)



#236 Chuck Kourouklis

Chuck Kourouklis

    MCM Ohana

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

Posted 24 April 2013 - 08:54 AM

lol, nice timing, Casey.

 

 

Having seen some of the Trumpeter masters (a couple of them still reside in the very building I work in) in the flesh, I have to say that it wasn't the pattern makers that let those designs down, it was definetly in the tooling.   

 

And still, I've asked, and nobody has ever responded - what are the acceptible innacuracies and what are the unacceptible innacuracies?  Since perfection is obviously an unobtainable goal (and save the pre-written "nobody is asking for perfection" schtick...) it seems like roof lines and wheel openings/fender flares seem to garner the most "outrage".  Because it's a little hard to follow the logic of "we can live with this" for one subject with flaws and "this is unacceptible rubbish" for another subject with flaws.  And everything has its flaws - they always have - and they always will.   

 

As I see it, if they release this kit as it stands, it's still going to be number one with a bullet, and if they "fix" it, I doubt it will do substantially better, we're definitely into the 99.9th percentile - and you'll drive yourself crazy chasing down that .1% that will never be satisfied - but let's face it, that .1% are the folks that tend to populate message boards like this one. 

 

Oh, the "nobody's asking for perfection" bit ain't the only "schtick" I have prewritten (and the invitation remains open at the blog for anyone who, y'know, wants to actually challenge the logic of it). I also started answering your question sight unseen back in post #290, the very one you quoted - sorry I missed it, or I would have addressed it much sooner 'cause the answer is not nearly so tricky or vague as the question frames it: NOT ALL FLAWS ARE CREATED EQUALLY.  Some shout; some sit there quietly until you mine them out after hours of comparison to the 1:1.  There's no use pretending that all flaws are subject to .1%-scale analysis.  The ones which truly are within that .1% tolerance create less margin for controversy because they are generally closer to the subject, so sorry, that old  "pleasing all people all of the time" saw is not of much use in our particular context.

 

I can tell you where I'm personally coming from on this: where I can instantly tell, from comparing a master with my memory of a given subject, where that master goes off course, then reinforce those impressions with a bit of research, I'm gonna call it out.  And I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

 

My recollection of a '57 Ford Custom was pretty fair, and the model gave me a strong initial impression. I ultimately found the side window perimeter framing not quite thick enough maybe, but that was only by poring and poring and poring over several different 1:1 profile shots.  As for that extra material webbing the area between the deck lid and the tops of the rear fins, you can file it away with not much more effort than it takes to remove parting lines if it even bothers you in the first place.  Front bumper pan is covered, so bingo.  Far as I'm concerned, best and closest in a long time from Revell, and where it's off, it's really marginal and fairly easily fixed.  And oh, don'cha know - the '57 Ford thread here is relatively unburdened by dissection, error highlights, and Photoshop or GIMP corrections.  How about that.

 

THE VERY FIRST SIGHT of that 'Cuda master was a wtf moment, and - this is the important part - not just for me.  It seems someone is resolutely determined to flatten wheel arches at Revell, so I was actually grateful to see the crease into the fender a little rounder than the lip below; a little filing should do ya right nice about there.  Is the upper drip molding just a little too sharp and flat in the transition from the A-pillar?  I personally could slide that one 'cause it won't be near the adjustment I made to the '95 kit. It was that upper fender/door/quarter surface that sucked my eyes right to it, that has drawn the most commentary, and there's another rub for ya: this ain't no filled fin that might escape your first glance, it is a proportioning deviation gross enough for MANY, apparently, to catch it immediately, 1:1 unseen for comparison.  And fixing it looks bitchy.

 

You're approaching this as if there's some arcane sliding line impossible to place for a given group of modelers, but there are at least some firm general guidelines.  The closer the model is to the 1:1, the less controversy there will be.  If a lone quibbler picks on the number of bolts you have molded to the starter solenoid bracket, that's one thing.  If you have pages of internet discussion where people are showing things pretty drastically off with grid lines and 1:1 comparisons, or making dramatic improvements with a bit of photo manipulation, that's quite another.  

 

And sure, there's plenty of gray area between.  Revell can probably dwell there and shift plenty of units, 'cause honestly, we car modelers are a pretty low-standard bunch - and nothing demonstrates that like the fervor with which a fair number of us rationalize "good enough".


Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 24 April 2013 - 03:50 PM.


#237 midnightprowler

midnightprowler

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,803 posts
  • Location:East Bethel, Minnesota
  • Full Name:Lee

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:11 AM

The aircraft modeling community demands far more accuracy than we car modelers seem to.  Trumpeter stopped production on a aircraft kit, before anything was sold, and corrected issues, why not for cars?  Why do we have a "close is good enough" mentality?  As long as we do, close enough is what we will get.



#238 martinfan5

martinfan5

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,225 posts
  • Location:Los Santos, San Andreas
  • Full Name:Jonathan Stephens

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:41 AM

The aircraft modeling community demands far more accuracy than we car modelers seem to.  Trumpeter stopped production on a aircraft kit, before anything was sold, and corrected issues, why not for cars?  Why do we have a "close is good enough" mentality?  As long as we do, close enough is what we will get.

Because car modelers are cheap, the aircraft guys are not,  the old saying,  you got what you pay for, they pay 100% correct kits and get them,  we complain that model kits of cars cost more then $10 , or a not as cheap as they were in 50's( its still the 50's you know), so as whole,  us car modelers do not want to pay for the 100% perfection in the kits



#239 CJ1971

CJ1971

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Full Name:Cliff Caddy

Posted 24 April 2013 - 10:35 PM

I dunno. I know from mustang experience I cant just take a fender from one 66 mustang and put it straight on another without some fiddling around. all cars have slight variences and I think this cuda kit looks very nice. I will build a ton of them in many variations.  be careful what you ask for sometimes. models are by design for kids! lol not us grown men to nit pick them. we have gone a looong time without some cool new offerings and I dont think we should bite the hand that feeds us.


While this might've been a correct observation 30-40 & 50yrs ago, kits are no longer designed nor produced for "kids", well not kids of today. Manufacturers are well AWARE of that. Most kits these days are bought by people over 25-30yrs old minimum. 90% of kids today have NO interest in building model kits, they don't give them the INSTANT satisfaction or gratification they crave.... Like they get from video games. Simple.
Kits are designed to sell, save a few "snap-tites" & curbsides, to us, men, in general, over 30-35yo. People who grew up long before the Sony/Xbox/IPhone/iPad Generation.

Then take into account ALL the after-market companies & their products. Their stuff isn't designed nor made for under 20yos. They're made for the detail freaks etc. People who have $ to burn to make their builds more accurate, better customized etc. Please don't tell me kit makers don't believe this & they only produce kits for "kids". That era has ended, long ago. They know exactly who their most important clients are. They know they can't get away with producing rubbish anymore. We have EVERY right to nit-pick just how good or bad the kits they produce are, whether its a $15 kit or a $100+ kit. It's the 21st Century & technology has come a long, long, long way since 1950. They really don't have an EXCUSE to provide us with highly accurate subjects/kits. I vote with my wallet... Make a BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH kit... I won't buy it. Simple. Make an accurate kit, of a subject I'm interested in, & I'll buy it & usually I'll buy more than 1.

Regarding the 70 Cuda tail-light issue... Has Revell not heard of PE? Is there some reason the Japanese kit manufacturers can add PE sets to nearly ALL of their new kits but Revell/Round 2 have NEVER added PE detailing sets?? Am I missing something here??
It's going on close to 4yrs, ( Nov' being the release date for this 70 Cuda ) to bring this kit to market... Yet how many brand spanking NEW toolings/kits have Fujimi/Aoshima & Tamiya brought to the shelves & will have brought to shelves BEFORE November???

Cliff

#240 zenrat

zenrat

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Location:Mount Martha, Victoria, Australia
  • Full Name:Fred Maillardet

Posted 25 April 2013 - 02:22 AM

Didn't some of the Pro-Modeller kits have PE?