Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Aaronw

Members
  • Posts

    3,420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Aaronw

  • Birthday 11/19/1967

Previous Fields

  • Are You Human?
    yes
  • Scale I Build
    1/25

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://modelfireapparatus.com/
  • Yahoo
    none
  • Skype
    none
  • Facebook
    none

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Coast of California
  • Full Name
    Aaron

Recent Profile Visitors

15,204 profile views

Aaronw's Achievements

MCM Ohana

MCM Ohana (6/6)

  1. If you can afford an SUV that starts at $350,000, then buying a $40,000 replica is probably an after thought, like most of us buying a nice office chair or fancy swing arm amp for the model bench.
  2. Scale is kind of like aftermarket parts. Like aftermarket parts a larger scale can help to create a "better" model, but it also offers more opportunity to fail. A good paint job in 1/24 may be marginal in 1/12 scale. The larger scale offers more detailing potential, but also requires more detailing. Small stuff nobody would miss in 1/24 may be a glaring omission in 1/12. More detailing offers more potential to do that detailing poorly. As far as scratch built models go, that also goes two ways. A lot more skill and work goes into a 100% scratch built model, but the final model may not look any better than an average builder can do with a plastic kit, despite 50x the work being put into it. Just think about the work and skill hand fabricating everything just to get to 75% of the quality the guy with the plastic kit had just opening the box. How can you judge something like that fairly, what are you even judging, skill involved or simply which one looks better? The scratch built model took oodles more skill, but the box stock plastic model is the better representation. There is a good reason models are usually highly segregated into categories.
  3. I see this brought up a lot with aircraft models and subsequently disproven comparing 1/32 to smaller scales. The idea being 1/32 has bigger parts so is more kindly to aging eyes. If you actually look at kits, the smallest parts tend to be about the same size regardless of scale. The larger scales just tend to have finer detail with many more parts. A larger scale kit literally just scaled up from a smaller kit would be unsatisfying for most. As the scale gets bigger, the detail increases, so a 9 cylinder radial engine in 1/32 might have 10-20 parts (individual cylinder jugs, crank case, wiring harness, exhaust collector etc) while in 1/72 it is probably just 1-3 parts with most detail cast in and all parts larger than the smallest part in that 1/32 engine. This is the same reason why smaller scale kits don't cost a lot less. Material costs are a relatively small portion of kit costs, 2 kits of different scales are not just resized, they have to be re-engineered and have entirely different tooling made for them. The result is a 1/48 scale airplane kit costs $1-2 more than a 1/72 scale kit because that is the material difference, although the finished model is about 1/2 the size, it did not take 1/2 the time to design, mold and package.
  4. No idea on the electrical consumption front, I'm just happy to see that unlike many Toyota is exploring other technological options. EV's work great for some uses, not so much for others. EVs also have their own issues, charging and its toll on the grid will need to be addressed. Lithium extraction is and will continue to be a serious problem. Gasoline and diesel have issues but they are well known and there is a long history of addressing them. Currently as a fuel it is too useful to go away anytime soon. I like options, instead of hoping EV is the solution to all our power issues I'd prefer that we continue to see options explored and then use the most appropriate for each niche. Imagine where we would be if in the 1880s,"they" declared steam power was good enough and pressured those tinkering with internal combustion and electric drive systems to give up and just focus on steam.
  5. Agree, EVs have their place but the push to make EV the answer for everything is misguided in my opinion. A great option in densely packed urban areas with relatively short drives and lots of charging opportunities, not so much in areas where things are more spread out. I'd really like to see the push for other than gas / diesel include more options. Toyota has been a leader in hybrid technology and they are now looking at hydrogen as a fuel source. Unless people reign in their fear of nuclear power the added demand of EVs is going to stress the grid. EVs currently account for about 1% of the cars on the road, it will get interesting when they account for 10%, 20% 50%.
  6. I know people like to laugh at the idea of powering an electric car with a generator but that is essentially what a Toyota Prius hybrid does, as do most trains. Diesel electric trains arrived in 1925 and have dominated rail travel since the early 1960s. Using a gas or diesel generator to provide the electricity to electric motors is much more efficient than directly powering the wheels with the engine, because the engine runs constantly at its most efficient rpm. Diesel electric buses are being used and they lack the characteristic diesel plume on startup / acceleration. Even after years of use their exhaust stacks are clean, not black and sooty. So yeah, I get it, funny idea, and personally I'd think a hybrid would be smarter for this use, but recharge with a generator isn't actually a crazy idea.
  7. Something else to consider when looking at photos, is if you see something odd, it is not uncommon to see 2wd trucks from the 1960s and early 70s converted to 4x4, because there were just a lot more 2wd trucks compared to later periods. 4x4 options were also quite limited, 1 ton 4x4 trucks were almost always conversions before the mid 1970s. Except for Jeep and Dodge 4x4 was almost always an aftermarket conversion in the 1950s and earlier. Demand was just growing enough by the late 1950s to see manufacturers start offering actual factory built 4x4 trucks (GM 1957, Ford 1959) rather than dealer installed kits. In 1960 only 4% of Ford trucks were 4x4, by 1971 it was up to 6% and in 1979 26% of Ford trucks were 4x4.
  8. So this is #5? 😄 Laughing with you, not at you. Old machinery is neat, and often fairly inexpensive making it easy to unintentionally start collecting. $50, sure I can use another table saw... The little tractor is nice too.
  9. Maybe a 4Runner? it shares a chassis with the Tacoma so are actually a truck and built tougher. The Highlander and RAV4 are built on a lighter weight car chassis (share a chassis with Camry and Corolla). Really hard to beat Toyota for reliability. Sequoia is based on the Tundra so would be another option, but much larger, more expensive and pretty awful fuel economy. I've had a 1996 Tacoma and currently own a 2008 Tundra. Great trucks, the Tacoma was pretty easy on fuel (4 cyl) with a solid 26mpg but I can't say the same for the Tundra, maybe 15mpg. I've also got a 2014 Subaru Forester, it has been a great car, does amazingly well in bad weather, but it is not a truck, and suspect it would suffer from similar issues to your Highlander.
  10. Sorry to hear this, Dave has always been great to deal with.
  11. Hate changing the clocks and agree standard time would be the preferred. I suspect the senate bill picked daylight savings because that is what several states have proposed doing. The reason the states pick daylight savings over standard is because the current law only allows that. States had the option of not doing it, but once they adopted Daylight savings, their only option out is permanent daylight savings, staying on standard is not an option. That would not apply to congress since they wrote the original law. In typical lazy politician mode I'm guessing Rubio (who is behind the bill) just copied and pasted the Florida proposal word for word. I've never understood the concept, if your job requires daylight then do what most people do regardless of DST and adjust your schedule.
  12. I have several old cars, I like them. The idea that they are trouble free is hilarious. They can be very reliable so long as you stay on top of the recommended maintenance which is far more frequent than a modern car. Find something putting out a similar amount of power from similar displacement engine back then and the word reliable is probably never used for it. A truck in the 80s with 200hp (stock) was doing pretty good, it is hard to find a truck today that only has 200hp.
  13. That really isn't fair, on older cars things needed more frequent access for service so they needed to be easier to get to. Many current cars have minimal service requirements before reaching 100,000 miles, basically oil changes and air filter. In the 1980s 100,000 miles was the reasonable life expectancy of many cars and you were certainly going to be getting service done before 100,000 miles if you were hoping to reach that. Even something as simple as oil changes has gone from a recommended every 3000 miles to 5000+. Subaru's are particularly sensitive to oil issues and even they only recommend every 6000 miles, some brands are as high as 10,000 miles between oil changes for normal driving. Figure 15,000 miles a year, that is going to be maybe 2 oil changes a year compared to 5.
  14. It used to be easy to buy used low mileage engines from Japan with something like 50,000 miles on them.
  15. Took drivers training in High School, I think they had a couple of 80s Ford Fairmonts and Chevy Malibus. I did most of my practice time in an early 80s Volvo 242 and a 1976 VW Rabbit. Passed my drivers test in the Rabbit. Several years later I got my class B commercial in an early 1970s Ford C800 fire engine, with a 5 speed manual.
×
×
  • Create New...