[[Template core/front/global/utilitiesMenu does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
  • Announcements

    • Dave Ambrose

      General Usage   05/10/2017

      If someone is acting badly, either in a forum or a private message, please report it. There are conveniently located buttons for sending the post to the moderators. 
PARTSMARTY

WHAT BUGS YOU

Recommended Posts

This may have been done before but what are a few of the things that bother you about kit designs

There are sveral things for me but a few are-

1-molded in the chassis exhaust systems

2-not having separate oil pans on some so we deal with the seam

3-having pictures on the box with white or redwall tires and not including them

What do guys dislike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thick glass and bumpers molded on threes where it shows where you cut them off after they are mounted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Body emblems molded so faintly they disappear under paint. Bold 'em up! Or, at least put the emblems on the decal sheet, as Revell has been doing lately (thank you!).

Molded-in chrome headlights instead of separate clear lenses.

Decals stripes that don't actually fit the kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that REALLY bothers me is scaling and proportion issues.

If the scaling is done right (you know, measure accurately and divide by 25...or whatever the scale happens to be) and the model actually LOOKS like the car it's supposed to be, I can deal with just about anything else. Proportion issues themselves arise from incorrect scaling and measuring of angles between adjacent features. These are the things design professionals are paid to get right. 

If I have to correct the basic major work that well-paid "professionals" didn't bother to get right, I'm less than content.

I don't think there's ANY excuse for scaling errors.

For instance, I currently have several 348 / 409 Chevy engines on the bench from different kits. No two of them measure out the same. How can this be? Externally, they are all identical in reality.

Any two competent adults with tape measures should be able to measure the basic dimensions of two identical engines on opposite sides of the planet and get the same numbers, and when they divide by 25, they should again get the same numbers.

But somehow, this seems to be beyond the capabilities of some kit-design personnel.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that REALLY bothers me is scaling and proportion issues.

If the scaling is done right (you know, measure accurately and divide by 25...or whatever the scale happens to be) and the model actually LOOKS like the car it's supposed to be, I can deal with just about anything else.

If I have to correct the basic major work that well-paid "professionals" didn't bother to get right, I'm less than content.

I thought about listing something like that...but then I kinda like finding little shape mistakes and correcting them and ending up with a model that's just a little bit more real looking than the next guy's....B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about listing something like that...but then I kinda like finding little shape mistakes and correcting them and ending up with a model that's just a little bit more real looking than the next guy's....B)

I have some old Palmer kits you'd just love...   :D

Image result for palmer model corvette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mold lines in chrome.

Somewhat annoying I agree, but in most cases, a necessary result of the cost-control aspect of the tooling design process.

In order to be able to get parts out of a mold or die, for a two-section die or mold, the parting line of the matched tool faces HAS to be at the widest part of the shape to be molded. This usually results in a parting line on ends of bumpers that are designed to be made in two-section dies or molds with no expensive sliding sections.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some old Palmer kits you'd just love...   :D

Image result for palmer model corvette

You should let some air out of that Vette before it goes pop :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat annoying I agree, but in most cases, a necessary result of the cost-control aspect of the tooling design process.

In order to be able to get parts out of a mold or die, for a two-section die or mold, the parting line of the matched tool faces HAS to be at the widest part of the shape to be molded. This usually results in a parting line on ends of bumpers that are designed to be made in two-section dies or molds with no expensive sliding sections.

I completely understand the cost aspect.

 

I know I'm dreaming here, but it would be nice to have 2 chrome options when buing a kit.

1-  Just as is right now.

2- No chrome. Less cost for the manufacturer and for the buyer, no more stripping chrome and even worse, the clear they use underneath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thick glass and bumpers molded on threes where it shows where you cut them off after they are mounted.

Unfortunately, the styling of so many bumpers (certainly by the 1950's) meant rounded, finished ends that while great looking on the real car, present a real problem with getting molten styrene to flow into such an area--necessitating a sprue attachment point right there to make sure that there won't be problems with "shot shot" (where the plastic doesn't flow into that part of the mold--so some sort of sprue attachment simply has to happen at that point on many bumpers.

A similar problem arises with designing the tooling so as to make those bumpers removable from the mold--there cannot be any "undercuts" to prevent the easy release of such parts from the mold once the model kit plastic has cooled, solidiified--simply put, there just has to be a a mold parting line there to allow for tha.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand the cost aspect.

 

I know I'm dreaming here, but it would be nice to have 2 chrome options when buing a kit.

1-  Just as is right now.

2- No chrome. Less cost for the manufacturer and for the buyer, no more stripping chrome and even worse, the clear they use underneath.

Ahh, but consider this:  That clear coat serves three vital functions:  1) It gives a very polished, high-gloss surface on which to apply the literally few molecules thick coating of pure aluminum (which is what vacuum-plating has ALWAYS been--going all the way back to the WW-II era!)--and that is almost a black art, as was explained to me back 40 years ago, when I was doing box-art models for AMT Corporation and visiting their now legendary plant at 1220 Maple Road in Troy MI, on average about once every 6-8 weels (approximately 250 miles from my long-time home town of Lafayette IN). and 2) That clear coat, in addition to making (ideally) a high-gloss surface for the vacuum plating, also provides adhesion, so that the aluminum plating doesn't simply flake off in a heartbeat, and 3) The second clear coat protects that micro-thin layer of aluminum from simply seeming to disappear (pure aluminum is a very reactive metal--easily affected by contaminants in the ambient air around it--such stuff in the air in one's home (regardless of the existence or lack thereof) such as cooking fumes, and most certainly tobacco smoke can eat that micro-thin plating away in a very short time.

Many of us are old enough to remember early Revell kits with vacuum-plated parts whose plating would literally "fade away" within a few months upon exposure to air--not sure what enabled that, unless there was no clear top coating applied.

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat annoying I agree, but in most cases, a necessary result of the cost-control aspect of the tooling design process.

In order to be able to get parts out of a mold or die, for a two-section die or mold, the parting line of the matched tool faces HAS to be at the widest part of the shape to be molded. This usually results in a parting line on ends of bumpers that are designed to be made in two-section dies or molds with no expensive sliding sections.

Of course, the complex shap?es of bumpers for say, American cars circa 1949-the end of chrome-plated steel bumpers with the 5mph-hit-with-no-damage-mandate from the US Congrress in the early 1970's, would be do do such bumpers in multi-part assemblies, with joints at each bumper guard (but what to do about bumpers for which bumper guards were an extra-cost option?)   A multi-part die with moving "slides" might be an option, but already on boards like this, modelers bitch about the price of a kit--the more complex the tooling, necessarily the higher the price (after all, sales of any model kit simply MUST amortize the cost of tooling, and fairly quickly--if you want that company to design, tool, and introduce more new kits!!!!

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some old Palmer kits you'd just love...   :D

Image result for palmer model corvette

Such as what? I'm serious. (I'm at work where they have photobucket blocked, so I can't see whatever you posted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, but consider this:  That clear coat serves three vital functions:  1) It gives a very polished, high-gloss surface on which to apply the literally few molecules thick coating of pure aluminum (which is what vacuum-plating has ALWAYS been--going all the way back to the WW-II era!)--and that is almost a black art, as was explained to me back 40 years ago, when I was doing box-art models for AMT Corporation and visiting their now legendary plant at 1220 Maple Road in Troy MI, on average about once every 6-8 weels (approximately 250 miles from my long-time home town of Lafayette IN). and 2) That clear coat, in addition to making (ideally) a high-gloss surface for the vacuum plating, also provides adhesion, so that the aluminum plating doesn't simply flake off in a heartbeat, and 3) The second clear coat protects that micro-thin layer of aluminum from simply seeming to disappear (pure aluminum is a very reactive metal--easily affected by contaminants in the ambient air around it--such stuff in the air in one's home (regardless of the existence or lack thereof) such as cooking fumes, and most certainly tobacco smoke can eat that micro-thin plating away in a very short time.

Many of us are old enough to remember early Revell kits with vacuum-plated parts whose plating would literally "fade away" within a few months upon exposure to air--not sure what enabled that, unless there was no clear top coating applied.

Art

I understand the purpose of clear.

 

My point was, if the manufacturer offered a version of a kit without chrome, the buyer who want's to either go the Alclad/Spaz Stix method or have it sent out for plating would not have to deal with stripping the clear if the parts weren't plated to begin with. I have no problem stripping chrome, but the clear underneath can many times be a nightmare to get out of well detailed parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, double post, the site is not agreeing with me today.

Edited by Psychographic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comes to chrome mold lines, one major bit of kudos I must deal Revell/Monogram:

From the Black Widow forward, they've managed to mold a '57 Chevrolet front bumper/fascia in a way that not only looks more accurate than nearly any previous attempt, but also hides the mold seams on the rear edges for a totally clean wrap from front to side.

No kiddin', don't think there's been near enough said about this accomplishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gluing together halves that could be molded as wholes.

Worse on older kits, but carburator halves, master cylinder halves, exhaust manifold halves, I don't even like gluing seat halves together. Thank God we evolved past tire halves. But every now and then a new head scratcher shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe mold lines are a necessary evil, but my pet peeve with chrome is when a runner goes to a spot that will be highly visible when the part is removed.  Doubly so when it's some brightly coloured plastic underneath.

 

One thing I do like very much is the move away from one piece interior tubs to separate sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AMT GTX/SuperBee instructions that direct the builder to glue a Road Runner "beep" horn to the firewall as a wiper motor. The actual wiper motor is on the chrome tree.

Blank sidewall tires really leave me frustrated as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. excessive flash and mold lines

2. chrome. Always too bright, looks too toy-like

3. ride height. I have yet to build a car kit I haven't had to modify. I'm talking about slamming the kit, I'm just talking about making it look normal.

4. molded in emblems. Please don't.

5. Crappy instructions. AMT is bad for instructions that really don;t do much instructing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Proportion issues, especially when it comes to tires and wheels. 

/

2. Not a "design" issue, but there are some subjects I`d really like to see that seem to largely ignored, and have been for quite a while.Subjects from the 70`s and 80`s are few and far between. I mean, why can`t we have a convincing and very nicely detailed `70-`73 Camaro, or `71-`72 Chevelle? Or a whole host of mid 70`s - early 80`s Camaros and Trans Ams? Yes, the real 1:1 were pretty weak at the time, but the `79 Camaro outsold every other year Camaro. Same goes for the Trans am, which to my knowledge, had it`s best sale year in `79. I`d also like to see some Mustangs from that time period as well. And we still don`t have a Firehawk. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gluing together halves that could be molded as wholes.

Worse on older kits, but carburator halves, master cylinder halves, exhaust manifold halves, I don't even like gluing seat halves together. Thank God we evolved past tire halves. But every now and then a new head scratcher shows up.

I've been building model airplanes since I was about 5, so things in "halves" don't bother me at all. Pretty normal for me, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Box art pictures that do not represent what the actual product is. I prefer to see the built model beforehand, Mold seams on chrome parts that require complete stripping and doing over, Not enough choices in modern wheels, and tires. Licensing laws that prohibit Model manufacturers from accurately  representing the product they are making like in the good old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now