Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Revells next release from the Model A Roadster tool - a 30/31 Coupe


Recommended Posts

To everyone following this thread, I apologize if I seem overly critical.

From everything I've seen so far, both upcoming Revell model-A kits look like they're going to be home-runs.

But with a little tweaking, if it's economically feasible, they would both be out-of-the-park.

Once again...no one is asking for a "perfect kit". But it would be nice to have the things that hit you immediately (at least if you're familiar with the 1:1s) done pretty close.

We all know Revell is capable of producing consistent excellence; they've demonstrated it many times.

PS: I personally am incapable of producing "perfect" work, but in the shop I contract with we all strive every minute of every day to get the things right that will be noticeable, and we try to do it, as I've said previously, before the client sees the car, before it's painted, and most definitely...we try to foresee problems BEFORE they become costly in terms of time and money to correct. Do-overs until we get it right is NOT our SOP...and would be impossible if we were to maintain acceptable costs and profits. We HAVE to catch things during the process...not after it's effectively too late to correct them.

I don't understand how any business can operate any other way.

a 3.6 gpa and 4.0 are both As. the 3.6 makes you much less crazy.

Edited by southpier
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Good question. Here's a quick fix till a more skilled photo manipulator than I brings better resolution, maybe:

ScreenShot20150618at9_42_50PM-vi.png

Now it's all well and good, far as this discussion's gone afield, I suppose. But beyond all the claims of how corrupt photos of 1:1 subjects are as a comparison basis, and the byzantine logistics faced by minimal kit development staffs, and the fact that the prime movers are good guys driven by passion and doin' it for the love the very best they can, and what there's a market for, and language difficulties and licensing and time zones and culture shock and sprawling gestations and missed deadlines ad nauseam infinitumque, it STILL, after all the rationalizations, misdirections and voluminous justifications, comes down to one question:

If somebody points out a part that doesn't look entirely right, just WHAT is so inherently offensive about that?

What is it to any fellow modeler that he should take such personal umbrage as to resort to anything from another rotten little "rivet-counter" drive-by, to falsely attributing behavior to critics that just isn't there, to declaring who's a real modeler and who isn't? ANYTHING to have some chilling effect on a discussion that's not only topical, but should be expected when we see preview shots of a future product?

Now I certainly don't know everything there is to know about comparing a 3D miniature to a 1:1 photograph. But amidst all the talk of lens distortion and focal length and perspective - as if none of us who've compared models with photos could ever have accounted for these factors on our own, by the way - what I have found is the more correct models out there seem to agree with 1:1 photos just fine, FANCY THAT. Also, that I was in fact able to come up with a pretty convincing conversion of my own by analyzing photos of a 1:1 and the mathematical proportions they express. And when I've seen a grid comparison between a side profile of a model body and a 1:1 that appeared to show discrepancies difficult to account for with camera artifacts, I've asked an honest question about it and gotten a field of crickets for a response.

And having seen an actual example of how test shots can go weirdly awry of a pretty decent tooling mockup, I can only imagine my own blood boiling as the overseer of that whole process. I can just barely get my head around the exasperation of being denied manufacturer CAD data or wrangling engineers a world and a language away, and I can't help but sympathize. But in the end, a target missed is a target missed and if you want an accurate product, it doesn't much matter why.

And I don't know everything there is to know about refinements from test shot to production; but what we have seen in previews has wound up on the shelves so elfin' frequently that the notion of waiting for the production kit is almost nonsensical at this point, at least from one of the domestic manufacturers. Neither the production '70 'Cuda nor the production '62 Impala proved us wrong about the fender arches in preview shots. Hell's raised months ahead about the tubular front axle in the Rat Roaster, and what winds up in the box you take home? Grille bars look funny on the '67 Camaro in previews, and what shows up on the shelves? The Kit That Must Not Be Named is clearly going way off the rails in October '12 preview shots and it arrives seven months later living down to every expectation. NOBODY'S talking about final judgments here, just the details looking off in previews that almost ALWAYS wind up that way in your hands.

Discussion about this stuff is NOT going away. It has no reason to, it's TOPICAL. Just WHY anyone besides a designer or manufacturer himself should find it offensive, or necessary to temper that discussion in some way or make it conform to what HE thinks is proper, is a question I've asked countless times before. And now I pose it again.

Just in case somebody has an answer this time.

Or, to demonstrate the absence of any logical response once more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Here you go:

Somebody says a part or a body shell looks off and explains why. Many of the responses he gets clearly indicate a level of personal offense at him bringing up that problem - from people who had nothing to do with the actual development of that model. Some go so far as to express outrage at the very idea he should have the nerve to point that problem out. Some responses devolve straight down to personal attacks.

WHY? WHAT JUSTIFIES that personal offense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Here you go:

Somebody says a part or a body shell looks off and explains why. Many of the responses he gets clearly indicate a level of personal offense at him bringing up that problem - from people who had nothing to do with the actual development of that model. Some go so far as to express outrage at the very idea he should have the nerve to point that problem out. Some responses devolve straight down to personal attacks.

WHY? WHAT JUSTIFIES that personal offense?

I'd say the far more entertaining aspect of the entire process is that as the kits change, different people who are each in their own way more familiar/passionate about whatever the subject matter might be find the faults...however the personally offended always remain the same apologists and torch bearers...coincidence? HAR HAR I say...

Edited by niteowl7710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But beyond all the claims of how corrupt photos of 1:1 subjects are as a comparison basis, and the byzantine logistics faced by minimal kit development staffs, and the fact that the prime movers are good guys driven by passion and doin' it for the love the very best they can, and what there's a market for, and language difficulties and licensing and time zones and culture shock and sprawling gestations and missed deadlines ad nauseam infinitumque, it STILL, after all the rationalizations, misdirections and voluminous justifications, comes down to one question:

If somebody points out a part that doesn't look entirely right, just WHAT is so inherently offensive about that?

What is it to any fellow modeler that he should take such personal umbrage as to resort to anything from another rotten little "rivet-counter" drive-by, to falsely attributing behavior to critics that just isn't there, to declaring who's a real modeler and who isn't? ANYTHING to have some chilling effect on a discussion that's not only topical, but should be expected when we see preview shots of a future product?

Now I certainly don't know everything there is to know about comparing a 3D miniature to a 1:1 photograph. But amidst all the talk of lens distortion and focal length and perspective - as if none of us who've compared models with photos could ever have accounted for these factors on our own, by the way - what I have found is the more correct models out there seem to agree with 1:1 photos just fine, FANCY THAT. Also, that I was in fact able to come up with a pretty convincing conversion of my own by analyzing photos of a 1:1 and the mathematical proportions they express. And when I've seen a grid comparison between a side profile of a model body and a 1:1 that appeared to show discrepancies difficult to account for with camera artifacts, I've asked an honest question about it and gotten a field of crickets for a response.

And having seen an actual example of how test shots can go weirdly awry of a pretty decent tooling mockup, I can only imagine my own blood boiling as the overseer of that whole process. I can just barely get my head around the exasperation of being denied manufacturer CAD data or wrangling engineers a world and a language away, and I can't help but sympathize. But in the end, a target missed is a target missed and if you want an accurate product, it doesn't much matter why.

And I don't know everything there is to know about refinements from test shot to production; but what we have seen in previews has wound up on the shelves so elfin' frequently that the notion of waiting for the production kit is almost nonsensical at this point, at least from one of the domestic manufacturers. Neither the production '70 'Cuda nor the production '62 Impala proved us wrong about the fender arches in preview shots. Hell's raised months ahead about the tubular front axle in the Rat Roaster, and what winds up in the box you take home? Grille bars look funny on the '67 Camaro in previews, and what shows up on the shelves? The Kit That Must Not Be Named is clearly going way off the rails in October '12 preview shots and it arrives seven months later living down to every expectation. NOBODY'S talking about final judgments here, just the details looking off in previews that almost ALWAYS wind up that way in your hands.

Discussion about this stuff is NOT going away. It has no reason to, it's TOPICAL. Just WHY anyone besides a designer or manufacturer himself should find it offensive, or necessary to temper that discussion in some way or make it conform to what HE thinks is proper, is a question I've asked countless times before. And now I pose it again.

Just in case somebody has an answer this time.

Or, to demonstrate the absence of any logical response once more.

Chuck....figure I owe you a bit of a response on some of the points you've raised....so here goes.

1. As a whole, the hobby has strongly benefited from critiques of test shots on this and other boards. We've seen improvements in a number of kits between the early test shot phase and the final result.

However, when one "cherry picks" relatively small (e.g., the firewall on the possible '30 A Coupe kit) and possible (e.g. the blower in this same kit) inaccuracies, or decisions by the kit designer to render a kit in one way vs. another (e.g. the design of the roof opening), and does so without the knowledge of the entire kit as a reference point (these "issues" might - just might - be more than offset by other features of the kit which have yet to be known)....and then, goes on to suggest that these very same items should be corrected before the kit comes out, or the manufacturer doesn't care about their work or the hobby...that is where I have a concern.

While many readers of this forum do not buy or subscribe to model car magazines, it may be instructive to point out that I did an article on creating a 1/25th scale chopped '30 Model A Coupe traditional hot rod in the other model car magazine (October, 2014 issue). It took eight pages, and substantial aftermarket resources to create a reasonably accurate replica. (One person who posts here and on other message forums chided me publicly that it would take over $200 in aftermarket expenditures to replicate the model the way I did - he's wrong about the amount but he has a correct/valid point that my approach required an expenditure well beyond one, or even two kits, just for parts alone - not to mention the time - probably nearing 100 hours - it took to build the model).

Now, just maybe (if these images including the one you captured above can be believed) modelers will be able to recreate not just one but two hot rod Model A Coupes by buying a single, self contained kit, and in a fraction of the time it presently requires to build a replica of this build genre. To even delay such a kit two months (or more likely, multiple months given the reality of the model kit tooling scheduling challenges I mentioned above) over three parts that might - emphasize might (for two of the three "indiscretions") be incorrect, is robbing the vast majority of the modeling public the timely joy of digging into this future might-be model kit. As I said earlier, any model builder who is reasonably experienced can "correct" two (the blower and the firewall) of these three items in a matter of minutes. (As for the roof opening, maybe the kit was designed that way on purpose to show off something we don't yet know about the interior, or maybe there was an issue with molding the part in a way that is sturdy and of high quality that we as laymen do not fully understand.)

2. I thought we had closed the argument about comparing miniatures to photographs during the "brou-ha-ha that wasn't" regarding the rear quarter panel lengths in a soon to market kit from Moebius. But apparently not. So let me add a professional insight here.

By way of background, about 2/3rds of my way through my career with one of the leading automotive companies, I was promoted and transferred to the Design Department where I reported directly to the Group Vice President, Design (the highest ranking Design executive in the company), and where I was assigned to oversee business development/strategy and function in some ways as a Chief of Staff. For the last five years of my career, I was additionally assigned lead management responsibility and oversight of the company's three Advanced Design Studios around the world. While I hasten to add that I was not a professionally trained Designer, I learned a great deal during that time working alongside some of the industry's top automotive design professionals.

From this experience, I can say without reservation that the only way to have a truly meaningful and fully accurate discussion/design review of properties, when it came to evaluating proportions and overall design integrity, was to either review the properties (scale and/or full size) in person, or to have them photographed in exactly the same camera angles using exactly the same camera equipment and settings. Thus, I can say with professional experience that comparing photos of model car test shots with photos of 1/1 scale cars and coming to 100% accurate conclusions about the basic shapes and proportions of a body is difficult at best, and fraught with inaccurate conclusions at the worst. I do agree with you that these comparisons can yield accurate conclusions about discrete design elements - such as the overdone fender flares on the '70 'cuda - but even with well-intentioned grid comparisons, when it comes to overall body proportions, such comparisons can and sometimes do lead to false conclusions.

3. I also am concerned that there seems to be developing a "sport" or sorts, or even a contest among this and other Board Forum members, to see how quickly one can identify and report "mistakes" with new and upcoming kits. Objective reporting on this topic can be a big plus - as I noted above - but when inaccurate conclusions are drawn (as often happens), and/or it descends into a diatribe of "the model companies don't care"/arguments that the kit "must be fixed"/it will "only take a couple of hours to make such a fix"/and similar trains of thought, AND when it begins to create a sense of disappointment and reduced purchase intent within the larger Forum community, then I have a problem.

This goes back my original point above, which IS valid and highly applicable to this forum thread. The confidence of posters to make these claims comes from two things - knowing everything there is to know about a subject (which is impossible unless you are a staff member at the company that is developing the kit), or not knowing what you do not know. And the latter is very much the case here in these posts about what is wrong with future kits.

4. When I read threads like this one (and the blower shape thread that is also current in this forum), I sometimes think that maybe I am too close to the subject due to my past/current involvement (paid, and mostly unpaid) with the model companies over the last 40 (yikes) years. Knowing just enough about the challenges of developing and producing a kit....maybe it has made me "soft" on this subject. On the other hand, I keep hoping that maybe if I, and others Forum members who have also been involved supporting the model companies, can add a bit of our insight, it might help other members of this Forum better understand why things are the way the are with this hobby we love.

5. Would I have designed the kit exactly the way it appears? Not completely. You all know very well my position about SBC's in Ford hot rods. The firewall does appear undersized. As stated earlier (and assuming this one repeats the chassis in the Model A Roadster kit), I would have gone with a transverse rear leaf spring and Halibrand Quick Change. But these are decisions that are not mine to make. It's not my money on the line here. Revell and their kit designer made those decisions. And just like the landmark Revell '32 Ford Hot Rod series (and the front suspension changes we all had to make to lower the ride height just so), we'll apply our own personal tweaks there and there to make our models more in line with our own design sensibilities. And we'll generally have a helluva good time doing so.

6. Picking up on a point in a different response above, I agree that at one point model car building was not assigned the professionalism and respect that other forms of scale modeling enjoyed. I also believe that for the most part, this is no longer the case. And I strongly disagree that an acceptance of these three '30A Coupe kit "inaccuracies" would further reinforce that once-relevant belief.

What I DO believe is that we as model car builders seem less inclined to invest our personal resources in our hobby - whether it comes to the many members of this and other forums who refuse to buy the model car magazines that are a key and vital source for our hobby, to a very vocal willingness to complain about model car kit prices (which are mostly well below those of other scale kits) and an unwillingness to buy more expensive, complex model car kits and aftermarket offerings that more closely approximate those of the military/armor/aircraft/fuure/shipbuilding categories of modeling. I suspect these habits, much more than minor inaccuracies in a yet-to-be introduced kit, still undermine the small remaining gap between model car builders and other scale model hobbyists.

7. Finally, back to the original subject of this thread, my preliminary thoughts are that this "kit which has not been announced" could possibly be one of the best hot rod kits the hobby has ever seen. If that indeed turns out to be the case, the many posts of this thread bemoaning the "inaccuracies" may - just may - turn out to be six pages of a Forum thread that are mostly inconsequential to those who will eventually buy and build this kit. But even I don't know everything there is to know about this subject and possible future kit, so I can only suppose this may be the outcome, I can not say it with confidence.

I've said more than enough here so I am going to back out of the discussion now and let it carry on going forward without any further comments on my part.

Cheers...TIM

Edited by tim boyd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thing about cars built in a "Hot Rod" style, the first thing your eyes are drawn to are the engine and firewall. Just sayin' :rolleyes:IMG_0135-vi_zpszvpfqged.jpg

DSC08869-vi_zpsqhnb9k0u.jpgIMG_29701_zps2eef81ea.jpg082708NHRAMuseumCruiseNight044-vi.jpg That just might be the point of this style build." relatively small (e.g., the firewall on the possible '30 A Coupe kit) and possible (e.g. the blower in this same kit) inaccuracies" indeed. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall this kit (should it be released for consumption) looks awesome and I will absolutely buy multiples for the chassis parts alone. I can live with the too-tall blower, I'd more likely use the 3-2 intake option anyway. I can live with the shape of the top insert and honestly I think the shape looks better than the correct alternative.

The shape and fit of the firewall absolutely sucks. Being very familiar with full size 30/31 Model A's my eyes went straight to it the instant I saw the photos. If I end up using this coupe body for a project (and I'm sure I will at some point) I'll be grafting an old-tool Revell firewall to it.

Here's some things I like about this kit.

- The body is 1 piece with correct molding around the base of the roof section (unlike older Monogram version)

- What appear to be early style Halibrand wheels

- The same awesome looking I-beam front end from the up coming roadster kit

- Vintage small block Chevy speed parts like the Cal Custom valve covers and 3-2 intake setup

- Nice looking over the frame small block headers - Finally!

- Inclusion of '32 grill (which I think the up coming roadster should have offered)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, Tim. Because yours wasn't the only content I was addressing and because we don't disagree so sharply on a lot of what you said, I'm just going to trim down a bit to keep this from going on too long:

...1. As a whole, the hobby has strongly benefited from critiques of test shots on this and other boards. We've seen improvements in a number of kits between the early test shot phase and the final result…


Sure, and to go on to the conclusion of that point, even the Kit The Must Not Be Named has a certain seductive pull in its drag version, enough that one sorely wishes they had gotten the body right. But honestly, Moebius has the more visible track record of refinements from previews to production. Not to say that Revell doesn't - I couldn't help but notice what looked like some re-engineering of the front suspension pin bosses in the '62 Impala to help center the front wheels better - but if you see something off in Revell previews, history shows more often than not it'll be exactly that way when you buy it. And not that I personally care whether or not the firewall or blower or Deuce roof pad get refined, 'cause I see a scat-ton of other stuff I gotta have between this and the '29.

2. I thought we had closed the argument about comparing miniatures to photographs during the "brou-ha-ha that wasn't" regarding the rear quarter panel lengths in a soon to market kit from Moebius. But apparently not. So let me add a professional insight here.

By way of background, about 2/3rds of my way through my career with one of the leading automotive companies, I was promoted and transferred to the Design Department where I reported directly to the Group Vice President, Design (the highest ranking Design executive in the company)...

From this experience, I can say without reservation that the only way to have a truly meaningful and fully accurate discussion/design review of properties, when it came to evaluating proportions and overall design integrity, was to either review the properties (scale and/or full size) in person, or to have them photographed in exactly the same camera angles using exactly the same camera equipment and settings. Thus, I can say with professional experience that comparing photos of model car test shots with photos of 1/1 scale cars and coming to 100% accurate conclusions about the basic shapes and proportions of a body is difficult at best, and fraught with inaccurate conclusions at the worst. I do agree with you that these comparisons can yield accurate conclusions about discrete design elements - such as the overdone fender flares on the '70 'cuda - but even with well-intentioned grid comparisons, when it comes to overall body proportions, such comparisons can and sometimes do lead to false conclusions.


Oh no, Mr B. That argument is far from settled for me. Not when I don't see the comparison discrepancies in the more accurate models that I do with the problematic ones, and not when I can reverse-engineer a conversion as accurate or more so than any of the other ones I've seen, strictly from profile photos, of that '50 Olds.

Of course, I didn't work from just one photo on that. I took a mean of digital caliper measurements across a slew of 'em, and I focused on one specific relation: that between the lower borders of the front and rear side windows. Most of the shots were as perpendicular-to-profile as possible, but even in the more oblique ones, that ratio didn't vary much. I risk sounding as if I boast on this, but really, it's just a straight mathematical proportion that got such a solid result. And it was derivable from 2D photos.

What has been instructive is an attempt to zero in on what's off the the '70 'Cuda wheel arches in their curvature, not just the depth of their lips. It's clear once you've been through a few shots that perspective and focal length can cause the same sweep to vary wildly from shot to shot. But these factors are perceivable without a background in design, and accounted for by many of us.

And while I realize in retrospect how badly I inadvertently dismissed the very thoughtful input of a fellow poster in the exchange I was thinking of, my attempt to augment whatever knowledge I might be lacking went without a definitive answer: a car's greenhouse and its lower body have a fixed relation on largely the same vertical plane. We had a shot of a 1:1 and a shot of the model body with at best minuscule angle variations off a dead profile. Maybe the height perspective varied a bit, but that should have had little ultimate effect on the fact that the greenhouse didn't look in the same position from the model to the 1:1. If the model is correct and if photo artifacts alone can cause that apparent shift in those horizontal elements relative to one another, then somebody with the right background should be able to explain HOW.

And one other possible sticking point involves the notion of 100% correct conclusions - fact is, we don't have to get anywhere near 100% correct to see where the firewall or the blower deviate from the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. I also am concerned that there seems to be developing a "sport" or sorts, or even a contest among this and other Board Forum members, to see how quickly one can identify and report "mistakes" with new and upcoming kits. Objective reporting on this topic can be a big plus - as I noted above - but when inaccurate conclusions are drawn (as often happens), and/or it descends into a diatribe of "the model companies don't care"/arguments that the kit "must be fixed"/it will "only take a couple of hours to make such a fix"/and similar trains of thought, AND when it begins to create a sense of disappointment and reduced purchase intent within the larger Forum community, then I have a problem...

For number 3, that's certainly one perspective. I'm gonna offer another:

Years ago, you'd have the occasional slam on a manufacturer, and the post would just largely speak for itself in that act. Only more recently have nitpicking and slamming manufacturers become ANYTHING LIKE the "sport" of belittling and attacking people for calling out what they see, and that latter has been going on for years. I try to stay off the ground of slamming manufacturers myself, but you go through some of the more notorious threads 'round here, it's as if various critics under constant character assault finally gave up and started serving some BS back, possibly along with some outliers who figure that if people are going to be so infantile about kit criticism, they might as well bait those True Believers with an actual excuse or two.

Whichever seems to apply more I leave to those reading along to decide.

We're not quite on the same page about parity between military and automotive kits, but after that, I have very little disagreement with the rest of what you had to say.

Edited by Chuck Kourouklis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me that if the blower was the correct height the scoop would be under the to edge of the grille shell. Maybe - MAYBE - they noticed this early in 3D and stretched the blower to bring the scoop above the grille shell. I doubt they could raise the motor because that would create interference with the interior. I'm not making excuses, but I have talked to folks at Revell about situations where they have to make compromises due to plastic thickness that throws things out of wack and this seems like the type of thing they have to do at times. I know the carbs on the 70 cuda were stretched to bring the shaker scoop up into the hood opening because this was an example of a part they gave me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...... model car builders seem less inclined to invest our personal resources in our hobby - whether it comes to the many members of this and other forums who refuse to buy the model car magazines that are a key and vital source for our hobby, to a very vocal willingness to complain about model car kit prices (which are mostly well below those of other scale kits) and an unwillingness to buy more expensive, complex model car kits and aftermarket offerings that more closely approximate those of the military/armor/aircraft/fuure/shipbuilding categories of modeling. I suspect these habits, much more than minor inaccuracies in a yet-to-be introduced kit, still undermine the small remaining gap between model car builders and other scale model hobbyists. .....

do you mean financial resources?

and what does "gap" refer?

i don't want to add to the seemingly growing hoard that picks apart every post, but i am trying to understand your comments.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I don't believe anyone who posts in ANY thread related to a pending model kit - and let's stop pretending that this isn't a PENDING model kit, Revell didn't Whoops gee-golly-willickers accidentally show it off in a major media piece by mistake - about the errors they see is doing so out of some point of malice, or at least I don't. If Revell or it's backers don't want to see blanket bashing of their products, then maybe the should be a little more savvy in regards to at least PRETENDING to respond to comments. Because as Chuck points out 95% of the time stuff that is pointed out in test shots ends up being EXACTLY what the kit winds up containing.

I will give Kudos to Revell for fixing the back bumper guard problem on the Del Rio. How many pages of debate did that problem cause? Now puzzle over how many kit sales Revell would have lost from plopping that out with the wrong bumper and letting a certain group of people rampage around the internet claiming people who think it's a major problem are just kit assemblers. Now puzzle over how many ADDITIONAL kit sales they garnered by delaying the kit for a couple of months and resolving the bumper issue...I know they sold one more than they would have - to me.

But therein lies the problem...and I'd say the divide between car modelers and the "IPMS" builders. Instead of having a problem with the bumper being wrong, a lot of people were just too excited to have a Del Rio wagon to care. Revell could have very easily just issued a blurb - anywhere - that said "We know the bumper is wrong and A)We used an existing part to complete the display model and the right bumper is included, or B] Thanks for bringing the bumper issue to our attention, we're gonna fix that. Poof all talk of "lazy" Revell stops instantly months ago...but for some reason the Elk Grove Village crew lives in some insulated bunker that's immune to the outside world of actual builders. We as builders are not (as some of the Hobby Popes like to act) too stupid to understand how kit production works, or that mistakes happen particularly between kit design and what China produces. But no, it was radio silence from Chicagoland that let that debate brew and fester until the kit finally came out this week.

Meanwhile I don't recall seeing too many military builders chastising each other, producing excuse laden posts of biblical proportions, or resort to personal attacks towards each other when the newest tank, plane, or boat is riddled with problems. If anything right now there's a savage beat down of Dragon going on across the spectrum of the internet because they've been de-contenting reissues of kits, while still showing all the parts being included on the box and charging full price. The stuff being said about Dragon makes the heated debate about the LX Mustang here seem like afternoon tea time. Yet there's no counterpoint of people defending Dragon and saying that people should just be happy they have a tank to build in the first place. Because military modelers are grown adults producing replicas of something, whereas car modelers see that as too confining and possibly too "grown up" for their "We're just big kids playing with our toy cars!!!" attitudes and name call military modelers as rivet counters. To that end Revell knows they can shovel THIS model right out the door with the roof, blower & firewall exactly as-is because car modelers who want to take the hobby seriously simply aren't their customer base. Because so long as the majority of car modelers view the model companies as borderline deities, that every new release is Christmas Morning @ 10 years old, and of course the fact that car modelers are relentlessly cheap; they know they don't REALLY have to take things THAT seriously in the end.

Edited by niteowl7710
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revell knows they can shovel THIS model right out the door with the roof, blower & firewall exactly as-is because car modelers who want to take the hobby seriously simply aren't their customer base. Because so long as the majority of car modelers view the model companies as borderline deities, that every new release is Christmas Morning @ 10 years old, and of course the fact that car modelers are relentlessly cheap; they know they don't REALLY have to take things THAT seriously in the end.

Yep. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revell has the molds for a bunch of nice engines: Chevy 409 from the Impalas, 427 from the Thunderbolt, Ardun, Cad, Blown Hemi.

Would that not save cost by not molding another engine?

Why not add one or two. Give us a choice to put something different in.

The next release of the kit, add something different.

Sorry, the SBC is just to ho-hum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and after all the " cut it. sand it' change it" rhetoric in this and other threads you miss the most basic premise of 1;1 and modeling hot rodding , the "Engine Swap". "Don't like it ? Swap It." B)http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=103004&hl= Gotta love that blower. :P1930_ford_model_a_with_supercharged_olds

Edited by Greg Myers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread and the couple other ones since they were started and I decided to finally put in my 2 cents as worthless they may be to some of you.

I think the main plot here is totally lost. And this is not the first time I see this and not only in this genre.

I am a rare breed of modeler. I say this because I collect 1:43 diecast AND resin models. I build them too. Customize them, modify them, build them on commission for other people and for myself. I also collect 1:18 scale cheap toy motorcycle models (Ducatti only). I also have probably one of the best 1:18 diecast collections of Ferraris in the country. If it was made in 1:18- I own it. But I also build them. I have parts 3D designed and 3D printed for me and I make my own molds for them and then use them to modify already existing diecast models. These are almost exclusively exotic cars. To many it seems strange that I have completely mixed the hobby of collecting diecast with building plastic models. The other "no-no" in many's eyes is that I am as much a Ferrari guy as I am a hot/street rod guy. Street rods are my passion. I love to build them and here I work almost exclusively in plastic.

Why am I telling you all this?

Because I run into the same discussions, arguments and down right nasty exchanges in all the forums. And the main thing the 1:43 crowd, the 1:18 exotics fans, the F1 buffs, the diecast muscle car fanatics, the plastic kit mob and the 1:24 Franklin/Danburry Mint gang have in common is each clique's selfish, self centered tunnel vision, which gives them the ability to ignore the existence of anything outside their interest.

Folks collecting diecast fail miserably to have the basic understanding of how pressure molding works (actually pretty much same in plastic kits and metal) and therefore b!tch and moan about extra lines or not perfect undercuts. The comparisons that some make between a $500 handmade collectors resin model and Bburago's latest $30 release meant to be sold at gas stations across Europe is just as absurd as the comparisons I read about on here, where a plastic model toy (the true purpose of Revell's product) sold in Walmart is compared with mediocrity causing a Space shuttle to fall apart.

To add to this craziness, there are kindergarten level battles, complete with name calling, wiener measuring contests and credentials pulling, over a STREET ROD model, which half of the participants will probably build as a rat rod. You know, that novelty style, where rusted pitchforks are used as fenders, grandpa's tractor donated its nose for a grille shell and lotsa junk in da trunk (literally).

Here is the bottom line. My kid likes to build cars "with the engine sticking out" and has no clue (yet) about the difference between a 1928 and 1932 Ford. I like to build Street Rods. I cut them, slice them, dice them and splice them anyway I find fit in order to make them look the way I want. I had no idea what the firewall on a pristine factory stock model A looks like. I don't care. This may really upset some, but the simple reality is, that me and my kids are the vast majority. And the people who really care about the edge of the roof insert and how round a fire wall is or if the bumper guards on a plastic toy are bigger or smaller are very few and far in between, when compared to the expected world wide sales.

Just like the 1:18 scale crowd completely ignores the elephant in the room called 1:43 and the supercar fanboys ignore all the BMW and Mercedes collectors who couldn't care less what land rocket some sheikh in Abu Dhabi just bought, same way a lot of people on here completely ignore the fact that these kits are sold all over the world and a builder in Romania couldn't care less what the requirements in the 48 states were in 195X.

It puzzles me to see people proudly announcing how they spent $10 for a front axle from Australia, $20 on brakes from Maryland, $15 on a rough resin body from NJ and throw them in a bag with parts from four other kits to come up with what is in one of these hot-topic-kits-soon-to-come and complain about the $24 they would have to spend.

It's a hobby, it's A TOY. It's a KIT, that you have to put together. It's a business, from the other side of the fence. It has some faults. Who cares? Just like any other product out there, you have the choice not to buy it. Don't like it, don't buy it. The chassis/suspension/wheels/tires/brakes alone in the 28/9-30 kit are worth twice the price of the whole kit in aftermarket pieces. And the hypocrites on here, who had no idea about 90% of the issues until yesterday, who proclaim that now they will not buy the kit, are the first ones who would stack up three or four of them in their basement the first chance they have. I personally never buy more than one of the same kit at the same time. But I can guarantee you that I will be getting one of each of the new (hot topic) releases from Revell, the first chance I have. And those who don't buy any, would not make the slightest bit of difference in the big picture.

So built what you like, have fun and stop belittling other people's hard work. It is really tiring to see the same handful of people time and time again calling the glass half empty even when it is three quarters full.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who sees humor in the fact that these Revell threads are getting so predictable that people can just copy and paste the same posts in threads on two completely different kits?

Now here's my post that sort of echos the same sentiments from my other post.

If they fix this thing up, I will get quite a few. If it looks like it does now, I will pass, or get a single one to raid for parts. No matter how much they use the "It's a hot rod" excuse, that roof insert is flat wrong and will take quite a bit of fixing to build an acceptable model. The cowl looks bad from several different angles. The blower wouldn't be usable in the parts box, so that wouldn't leave a lot of reasons to buy this kit. I will get a few of the '29s, because they look pretty good, and Tim Boyd has vouched that they are fairly accurate. The '31 needs a bit of help. Hopefully the fixes are simple enough that they can do them. That's what test shots are for. I do like the SBC, and the carb setup. I also really like the '32 Grille. It won't take much reworking for Revell to really take this kit to the next level. If they do, I will buy a bunch.

My Mother's best friend has a T-Shirt that says, "Life's too short to knit with ugly yarn." I am starting to feel the same way about models. I don't NEED any new kits, so they really have to make me WANT them if I am going to add to my overgrown stash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that I'm not going to change any minds here, but I'm going to assume that not all of the options available are shown in the photo of the test shot, and knowing that it will come with a three two set up I'm going to assume (yeah I know the old adage) that one of the other parts included will be a hood to cover the engine, and since plastic can't represent the scale thickness of a hood, I'm going to assume (there I go again) that the undersized firewall might be a consolation to having the hood fit properly when in place, who knows it might even have a hood that goes over the blown motor, but to show the motor details better wasn't shown in the "leaked" photo. I'm just tossing this out for consideration, there just might be a nice model there if ALL the parts intended to be on it are in place, but if you want to build it without a hood, then you are changing the kit and you're back into being a modeler, not just a model builder.

Edited by horsepower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...