tim boyd

Let's be honest: no spare, a few bucks cheaper to make the car. And for every customer that orders that $200 spare tire... ka-CHING! It's all about the $$$, nothing else. ************************************** Harry....that may have been the case years ago, but now, no consumer goods company can get by over the long term with that type of attitude. Trust me on this (I've had to make these types of decisions myself in the past)...it's not about the dollars, its about the tradeoffs of how those dollars are spent. What represents the best use of that hypothetical $200....given what you know about the customer and their preferences/usage/value tradeoffs? Most customers get a better value if that money is spent in other ways on their behalf (increased standard equipment levels, or bigger brakes, or improved acceleration, or larger standard wheel/tire, or the latest safety or fuel economy technology, etc.) than by covering the situation where someone gets a flat tire and cannot (using the alternatives provided) get their vehicle to a place where the tire can be fixed. TB

Guys....I can't state the exact reason why or why not a given car no longer carries spare tires, but among other factors are: - increased weight of the spare tire, which reduces performance, and sometimes places cars in the next-up federal government emissions test weight class, which can have negative implications for performance and fuel economy ratings, among other factors. - increases rear overhang (distance between centerline of rear axle and edge of rear bumper), which further increases overall weight, and goes against current customer design preferences which favor shorter rear overhangs (with current rear impact and bumper standards, there has to be quite a distance of impact zone, which partially takes up space that used to be used for spare tire clearance) - flat tires are very, very rare these days. When they do happen, many cars include an aerosol kit which is very effective at allowing temporary transportation to a place where the tire can be fixed. - cost of the tire and the spare - one of the toughest things a car manufacturer has to deal with today is tradeoffs on cost - where does the customer get the best value for his/her very hard-earned dollar? Cars that tend to be geared toward the average (non-enthusiast) customer may retain spare tires, but many cars these days (I think many of you would be surprised at the number) no longer contain spare tires oftentimes for the reasons stated above. Sometimes customers have the option to add a spare tire at extra cost, but in those cases, few customers exercise that option. . Hope this adds a bit of insight - note that these comments are very generic to the auto industry as a whole, and do not necessarily apply to any one manufacturer or carline. TIM

I could not agree more. Bob absolutely NAILED his build of that model. TIM

The F-Type Coupe is a two-seater while the Mustang, Camaro, et al are four-seaters....big difference in terms of design and capability.. and proportions required to make room for those in the second row. I also like the F-Type Coupe but the Mustang should be compared to 2+2's out there....not two seaters, while the F-Type should be compared to other two seaters like the Corvette, Aston Vantage, et al. As for the XK, I absolutely loved the coupe version of the first generation XK8/XKR ( which is a 2+2), but the current generation (2006-2014)of that product just doesn't do it for me for some reason. Personal taste, i guess.....TB ... PS - when you see a '15 Mustang on the road, bet you change your mind.....!

Ordered a '15 GT Convertible a couple of weeks ago...but probably won't get it till January or February (perfect timing for a convertible here in Michigan!!!). And yes, I still ordered the Spoiler Delete! Harry....what are you thinking of getting? TIM

Cool story....great example of why Mustang is a cultural phenomenon...everybody (it seems) has a connection to it somehow. Congrats to you and your daughter....TIM

Oscar was co-publisher of Car Model magazine for quite some time, later on it was Bob MacLeod on his own. For those of you who follow this sort of stuff (I always did), for a while in the mid-;ate 1960's Joe Oldham was edtior of Car Model. Yes, that Joe Oldham. The one that went on to author many muscle car era articles for the east coast car magazines, and then much later was edtior for Popular Mechanics for the better part of two decades during which it became a huge (in terms of circulation) heavyweight in the magazine world. He is now retired by pens a column in Hemmings Muscle Machines and wrote a cool book a couple of years back about his memories (including a bunch of street racing in NYC) of the muscle car era. Nearly as interesting, it is my understanding (Gregg/Harry, correct me if I'm wrong) that Robert Schleicher, who authored numerous articles in Car Model and Model Car Science, is a major domo in Golden Bell Press and publisher of Model Cars magazine. And the creator/long time publisher of Collectible Automobile magazine Frank Peiler, won first place in the Car Model/AMT/Meyers Manx Dune Buggy contest back in 1969. As we've said above, what goes around, does indeed come around! TIM

Interesting...if I think to the Lonestar Roundup in Austin, TX I attended a few months ago....plenty of graybeards to be sure...but even more of the 20-35 crowd....they were everywhere and having a great time. Come to think of it, pretty much the same at the Detroit Cobo Autorama or Goodguys shows I attend. While I too wish there were more current kit topics, but from a kit manufacturer standpoint, a hot rod, pre muscle car era, or muscle car era kit probably will have a much longer active/productive/relevant lifespan, and if the shows I attend are any indication, that will continue even as the "AARP Modelers Generation" start to pass away..... TB

Danno....this is one of those "stranger than life" stories...or as you say so correctly, funny how life turns out. Being an architect was actually career choice #2...#1 was (surprise) being a car designer/stylist, but this was the point at which Nader his crowd were getting underway and I did not want to be designing cars that were rolling tanks (or so I thought). So I worked in an architect's office one summer during high school but I really did not like it. At that point I was disillusioned and gave up on college. After working year after high school I took some business classes at a local university. I decided to actually do all the homework and reading and see what happened. Straight A's. So I decided to go ahead and work through college. Took five years and was hired at Ford the day I graduated. The first 20 years were marketing assignments, including three years at the healm of Ford SVT. Then I was promoted to a position that dual reported to the Group VP of Marketing and the VP of Design (J Mays). After three years, I was asked to become the Business Director of Design (sort of like a Chief of Staff job). So in 2001 I transferred to Design. I don't know of anyone else in the industry that successfully made that move (Marketing to Design). I that position years later, I was asked to put together a strategy on a particular subject, working with several company leaders. The strategy was agreed at the top, and then I was asked to become the leader of that group. So the last five years of my career was, I wasn't designing cars, but I was globally responsible for three advanced design studios globally that were, and working on many other strategy projects involving Design, product, etc, etc. I've often thought how blessed I was that I did not go into architecture. I am so much better off than I would have ever been as an architect, and for much of my career, worked side by side or for some of the industry's top automotive leaders and car designers. Not to mention my continued role in the model car world. Strange how life turns out, indeed. Best regards..TIM

Scott...thanks for your interest on this...here's one other that was in Car Model sometime in late 1972 or early 1973....from the '72 Washington DC MPC Contest....won Best in Show without the trailer and the matching pickup...the judges didn't read the instructions and disqualified the matching components...(just like the 1/1's back then, the judges were instructed to remove the header extensions so the car could fit on the trailer...there was even a compartment in the trailer expressly designed to hold the header extensions...but the judges 'forgot"....GRRRRR!!!!! ...working front suspension and steerable wheels/tie rod/drag link.... entirely scratchbuilt frame (from plastruct rod) and interior paneling (from .015 and .010 sheet styrene).... ...hard to see in there but there's a blower pop-off valve on the intake manifold with two tiny springs....and note the header braces.... More pix of this one... http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/boyd-scale-funny-cars-/boyd-funny-cars-models/ The one in the August '71 issue of CM above won 2nd seniors at both the 1971 MPC Detroit and Dayton shows....Scott Sullivan (yeah, that one) beat me in Dayton.... TB

Lookin' really, really sharp so far and a great stance! Will be watching this one closely as it comes together. TIM

Heh guys....yeah...it's me. That would have been my third big contest win (after 4th place nationwide in the 1968 Dodge/Car Model/MPC Funny Car Contest and 1st place senior/Best Detail at the 1969 Flint MPC Contest). The two cars in the photo still exist...the '69 Charger is relatively intact after being reassembled when Car Model asked me to mail it in to compete at the 1970 MPC National Championship (it qualified with a Best of Show at the 1970 Indy Contest) and they sent it back to me in a box with no packing. Needless to say, it was in a million parts. They sure didn't get any plus points from me for that maneuver. The 'cuda was a hurry-up build from a 1970 MPC annual kit which came out just before the contest. The bodywork eventually sunk so I built a second body from the MPC '69 Malco Mustang Gasser kit. The chassis in its original form (complete with a working "Hydra-Slide" chassis and the second body are in relatively pristine shape and there are a number of photos at my Fotki site. http://public.fotki.com/funman1712/tim-boyds-124th--12/1970-mustang-funny-/1970-mustang-funny-/ (15 more pictures at this link) JB...yeah I was a stereo/rock geek back then. My "system" was based around an Olsen AM/FMS receiver and two Utah floor speakers (for those of you not familiar with these brands...let's just say they were known for their volume, not their quality of sound...!) When I started working at Ford in 1978 after graduating college, my first expenditure was a set of JBL4311BX studio monitors - the speakers that were supposedly used in the studios where the best rock bands mixed their albums. I still have those bad boys today, some 36 years later, in my family room downstairs. They seldom get asked to jam these days, but when the do, they still kick it out just like the day I bought them. The rest of the stereo system these days is comprised of Kenwood components. Thanks everyone for your interest and your kind comments....and there are a few more pictures of me and my work in those old Car Model Magazines....always fun to look at them....TB PS - just realized this model is 44 years old! Cheez Louise, where does the time go????

Interesting topic here. As someone who worked for 11 years in an executive position in the Design Department of one of the OEM's, I can assure you that creating 3D replicas from 2D pictures and line drawings is very, very difficult to accomplish with an exact degree of accuracy. Starting from data scans of the real car is much better, but even that requires a good deal of experience to translate into 3D sculptures. Combine the very real difficulty of being asked to create 3D scale sculpture without having the benefit of seeing the real thing in person, along with differences in language and time zones (the East Coast of China is 12-13 hours ahead of US time zones, depending on the time of year), and you can only begin to understand the challenges of these Craftsmen - and let me assure you, they ARE Craftsman - in the assignment that they have been given. Like Chuck's view on this topic, I think 3D data scans of the real car are a key "next step" in improving body accuracy of scale kits where the original OEM design data no longer exists. For various reasons, which I will admit I partly but do not fully understand, several of the kit manufacturers don't see it this way right now. TIM

Not exactly germane to the topic at hand, but don't forget about the AMT 1/16th scale '57 Nomad kit introduced during the Jim Snedden years at AMT. Kit #T- or Y-483, it came on the market in 1977 and has a current value of $70 according to the Bob Shelton/Bill Coulter kit pricing guide. At the time, AMT commissioned me to build one of their 1/16th scale Nomads in box stock form, to be used at their annual national sales representative meeting and for other purposes. I painted it Testors Metallic Gold with Pactra Clear, but I just can't remember if it was the '55 Nomad or the '57 Nomad that I built for them...whichever one it was, i remember it being a pretty competent kit - not breaking any new ground (as Revell's 1/16th scale funny car kits did earlier), but generally well detailed, relatively easy to assemble, and a big - in fact, really big! - model that required a ton of Bare Metal Foil to complete! TIM

I just got photos today from Alan Barton of his relatively recent box stock XR-6 build (including the fenders). It looks super-sharp. (UPDATE: Alan just posted a few pictures of his XR-6 - see post #18 - thanks Alan!) I've heard back from several people on this topic (including the comments posted here); maybe interest in this kit (at least among the highly involved modeling community represented by Model Cars magazine readers and participants in this Forum, is higher than I thought. Very, very cool. TIM

Steve...those are way cool pictures - thanks for those and the feedback on the article....TIM Harry - no worries in the least! Layout (and the photos - you work magic on those!) look great. Thanks...TIM

Thanks Harry for adding a print publisher/editor perspective, and for what it's worth, I fully agree with you. TIM

Steve....me too! Nicely stated...TIM

According to today's Wall Street Journal, Source Interlink Media Distribution, a SIM company that handles distribution of many magazines to newstands, is basically ceasing operations. According to the WSJ story, this came after one of their biggest magazine sources said earlier this week, they would no longer do business with SIM Distribution. While the article did not mention the closing of the various SIM magazines this past Thursday and the concurrent rebranding of that company, the two events could be related in that they are both part of SIM overall. If you have access to today's Wall Street Journal, definitely check out the article. TIM

Steve, excellent three sentence summary of a multi=page, many months in the development article. When i sat out to do that comparo, I wanted to send some messaged to the model companies.: 1) stop repeating the exact same topic across three or four manufacturers (these were the days when AMT, MPC< Revell, and Monogram would all do their versions of new topics like the third generation Camaro/Firebird), 2) if you persisted anyway, your kits were going to get ranked and there could only be one winner 3) unrealistic body proportions - which were a frequent problem with some of Monogram's new kits at the time - were a key factor in evaluating kits and were going to be called out, and 4) ease of assembly was also a key factor in how kits were going to get ranked. Don't know how effective it was in achieving any of those objectives, although I do think all four elements improved in the following years. I do know that the Monogram team noted their third place finish and expressed a desire to do better in the future. (They didn't challenge my conclusion, or complain, though). And when AMT/Ertl, Lindberg, and Revell all introduced their 1997 F-Series pickup kits, each company did a different configuration of the 1/1 scale lineup rather than them all being SWB 4x4 XLT's.... Also Steve I think I would probably agree with your current rankings as well. IF someone forced me to do it, I'd come out the same. But I still really like the original AMT kit! Best regards....TIM *************** PS - this reminds me that about seven or eight years ago, Revell contacted me and told me they were doing a new, full detail '57 Chevy kit. They wanted to know whether I thought they should do it as a Bel Air or as a 150/Black Widow. Now remember, this was back when Walmart and their ilk were dictating the fate of our hobby. I told them I thought that the 150/Black Widow would be a way cool kit topic and that was my personal favorite, but from a marketing /kit volume/sales standpoint, the Bel Air was a safer bet. I would imagine they asked others the same question, but to their everlasting credit, they swallowed a brave pill and went with the 150/Black Widow. IMHO, the success of that kit helped give Revell and others (Moebius???) the impetus to go ahead with some of the more "specialized" kit topics we've seen in recent years. TB

Scott...thank you so much for the nice compliments. Hope we do get a chance to meet somewhere down the model car road. Best Regards...TIM

Thanks Chuck for the comments. Regarding the paragraph above, we do depart a bit from each other and here's why. Paint does play visual tricks, but that occurs both in 1/1 and 1/25th scale. The OEM's widely use blacked out window trim (both on the outside and underneath the window itself) to hide the actual scale of the supporting structure underneath (which will quickly become even more of an issue with the recent Fed's changes in rollover structure standards). If a non-paint scale buildup is done, it will duplicate the 1/1's roof structure (a, b, c pillars et al) but will not provide an accurate portrayal of the appearance of the OEM 1/1 scale car, due to the visual tricks played by the 1/1 scale car's blackout treatments. This is a factor, for example, on the '90 LX, (though I doubt it changes the overall conclusion about the roof shape - probably lessens it to a degree, but certainly doesn't account for 100% of the explanation for the difference in the real vs. the kit). So does BareMetal foil play visual tricks - or in the following case, it emphasizes what was an otherwise undiscovered error. I'm about 30 minutes away from finally completing a full paint detail build of kit that I've long considered the very best of its marque, including the chassis, engine, interior, and a body that appeared to me to be 100% correct. After I got the chassis installed in the body and the red lines and wheels installed, it has now drawn into question whether the rear wheel arch/cutout is correctly shaped along its rearmost semi-vertical edge. It doesn't look right to me. I'm going to have to check this very closely against my 1.1 scale references. I would have never noticed this (I have had the kit in my hands for probably 15 years now) had it not been visible on a painted and bare metaled body, along with the tire/wheel assembly to provide visual reference. Speaking of wheel well openings, this is one of the areas where you and I are in complete agreement - that all the kit manufacturers need to put a lot more emphasis on validating and correcting their in-process kits. I could rattle off a number of new kits introduced in the period since 2005 with incorrectly shaped wheel well openings. It's not just that they are incorrect, it's that this incorrect visual reference then upsets other parts of the body appearance. One example - many, many people have pointed out the incorrect flairs of the wheel openings on the '70 'cuda. But the incorrect shapes of the front wheel well openings themselves (when viewed in profile - straight on from the side) not only are incorrect but they then disorient the eye to other correctly-rendered design features, and that impacts the overall appearance of the completed model. These are not huge errors by any means, but little elements that should be done more correctly. And Revell is not the only one with problems here, by the way. Chuck, thanks again for your added perspective on this subject, and the examples you cited! TIM

JB...smile....cool to know that the kit is of interest to more than just myself....TIM PS - I built mine without the fenders for just the reason you state....TB

Danno.....thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I did consider for a bit the Wild Dream/King T Double Kit. But most people seem to know about that kit and the follow-up MPC releases (at least us hard core hot rod modelers since these were both Oakland Roadster Show winners back in the day,,,of course, now that I write that, the XR6 was also an Oakland winner....hmmm....maybe I better double check my logic on this!) The others I have in mind are ones that most people don't know about....the other feature model buildup is done but I've got to get busy and finish the text and the other box art photos for "Part 2", now that "Part 1" is finally in print... TIm

Harry....varying post and theories on this regarding both mags - not clear as to the correct answer (at least from the posts I saw). There was no R&C at all in the new org chart they showed....TIM