Chuck Kourouklis

There's a musical theme to the car, so the shifter is supposed to be a microphone, iIrc. They used a drum kick pedal for the throttle, too. Shouldn't be too hard to scratch up. Revell's A-bones seem to have some potential as a beam axle source, and I think a triangulated four-link with plastruct or evergreen box sections for the joints shouldn't be a big deal. Just wondering about that big X in the middle of the frame...

Hear, Hear, Harry. Where manufacturers determine what's "good enough", they'll take their lumps for it where they cut corners. I think they actually anticipated that. I don't think the old deuce parts were recycled out of incompetence, I think Revell made a very deliberate decision on what they were going to develop from scratch and what they would carry over. And the continued proportioning problems on any subject that doesn't have handy CAD files to draw from indicates they're still working from an old paradigm - developing masters first, then pantographing down to scale for the tooling. I believe they forecast X number of sales with the 85% version we got, and Y for a 100% version, and decided that the difference between X and Y was not enough to justify the expense in that old-fashioned master development for the suspension bits. And hey, toss in the notion of backward compatibility with the older Deuces, and there's your justification. But "good enough" is not nearly that arbitrary. For one thing, this whole discussion has indicated the dropped beam front axle as a possible dividing line for the Roaster kit - had they just included that feature, yeah, there still woulda been bitching about the rest, but I think the lion's share of the controversy here would have been tamped way down. And for another, the Polar Lights '66 Batmobile (and maybe even AMT's 2010 Camaro) are proof of concept that digitally scanning from the 1:1 should go a long way to eliminating those little proportioning problems. I'd argue that mathematically correct in all three dimensions, with accurate componentry and without any other changes to general parts breakdown as Revell has refined it over the years, is a reasonable general parameter for "good enough".

Thanks, Mr P!

Well the thing is, Bill, if you point out that most of the Roaster model's chassis is wrong, you're working from an irrefutable premise. You turn the model upside-down, you see triangulated links of a sort (and the airbags), but not the Roaster's four-link setup. You see the old K-member instead of the big fat X on the 1:1. And of course, there's that tube axle up front. The proof is right there, such that if you did a picture of the 1:1 in bas relief, Helen Keller could have run her fingers over the picture and the model's chassis and told you immediately that they're not the same. But for whatever reason, some folks start breathing heavy at anyone with the temerity to hint at the emperor's true state of dress. They throw panicky language like "bashing" and "train wreck" around. And they take your basic unassailable premise - parts of the kit are wrong, here is the proof - and exaggerate it into a demand for a perfect kit, which is ridiculous on its face and easily argued with. They can't dispute your basic point, so they make a caricature out of it in a desperate attempt to gain some kind of traction for bullying, if not a real argument. The true mystery, where I think there's some outright pathology involved, is why they feel compelled to do that. Nobody has presented even a remotely logical reason for it. And what's more, I've already explained all this! NOTHING seems to encourage a tactic in these discussions like publicly and explicitly discrediting it first. I've torn that moth-eaten old "Kit Assembler" sham to pieces more times than I can count.

What HE said. ^ And didja get a load of that premature deployment of the whole "perfect kit" angle, John? A perfect example in action, here. It's as if there's a group of self-appointed defenders of Revell's honor, who somehow feel it's their place to take offense when a kit gets criticized. Time and time again, I've PUT it to this crowd: if somebody criticizes an object you had nothing to do with developing, just what is it to you? What are your stakes, that you should take criticism of that object so personally, you somehow justify it in your mind to take personal shots at the critics? A person "attacks" an object; you attack the person. Why? Nobody has even begun to provide an answer for this, because there IS none. Oh, but we've seen some wonderful rationalizations. The favorite saw that people keep coming back to, no matter how conclusively history gives it the outright lie, is that key personnel at Revell/Monogram are so stupid that they'll hack their own financial nads off by refusing to produce any more new tooling if they don't like the feedback they get. And then, if any discrepancy is brought up it all becomes "whining and moaning", which has hectored some national-caliber talent clean out of offering any pearls of wisdom for all the pious squealing those pearls elicit. There are some top guys we could stand to hear from, who have useful information they'd be willing to share but for the one-time-too-many they've been called "rivet counter". Somebody explain to me how that particular brand of neo-McCarthyism is helping this hobby grow. Now if you miss an error in a wheel arch or a drip molding, at least that can be chalked up to a lack of prescription eyewear. And yes, the Rat Roaster is obviously geared to a different, less critical audience than the other three 2012 offerings. It's Revell's most o b v i o u s l y compromised kit of 2012, with essentially an entire chassis that's not correct for the prototype; but If Revell's cost-benefit analysis pays off, they'll take the critical drubbing and laugh all the way to the bank. So, why? WHY all the righteous chiding about whining and moaning, and all the proselytizing about that mythical "perfect kit" that once again, nobody asked for?

Well gee, if accuracy is so inconsequential to Revell's bottom line, you'd think all the "pissing" and "moaning" would scarcely rate the first mention, then.

Well first, the master cylinder seems as if wouldn't be invisible, but second - check out the 1:1 frame crossmember and the rear suspension arms, for example, and the master cylinder kinda recedes into the least of the problems with the undercarriage. We're rather far from even the zipcode to pretend anybody's asking for a perfect kit here. Pointing out deviations Stevie Wonder would notice doesn't exactly a "whiner" make. Let the record show who's turning it personal. Again.

It's funny you bring up the DOH example, Casey, 'cause it occurred to me too. And while it's absolutely correct that the General Lee wasn't a single specific car, it's just as true that there probably wasn't one, among all the '69 Chargers sacrificed for that show, had a flush-mounted 500-style backlight instead of the standard flying buttress C-pillars. That was a detail about the kit that had me going "wtf??" as an 11-year-old consumer, and it's the chief reason I think your basic point stands. Like many of you, I think Revell kinda blew it by not taking advantage of all the Roaster's features to generate some bones to toss the trad crowd and herald another, even more traditional version down the line. But I say this having to acknowledge some pretty strong work in their other new 2012 kits, and I think the good news here is that Revell has a way of coming around - which is why I would encourage the trad crowd to grouse loudly and repeatedly about the omissions here. I mean, I know the AMBR judges don't know squat ( ), but even outside of that, traditional movements are building steam, and if you guys are loud enough, Revell might just catch the wave before it washes away. And if there's another Revell Deuce permutation ahead to play the COPO Nova to the Roaster's Yenko, that would probably be a very good thing.

Oh yeah. I'm so gone. They had me at the beauty shots. I got visions of getting both colors dancing thru my head, now...

OUCH. True, though. At least Revell was clearly more serious about the Olds, 'Vette, and '57 Ford.

Philosophically, I'm bang-on your page, Harry. Pragmatically, I'm guessing it would have cost more to do the master patterns for the correct rear suspension and front axle than to recycle the previous patterns, to say nothing of the valve cover breathers, master cylinder, external door hinges, and other little bits m.i.a. It seems they did it the cheapest way you could still call the tooling "new". Frankly I'm glad we got a new firewall, a TKO and such great new rubber out of the deal.

That's above my pay grade, Case.

'Cause the marketing tie-in with GearZ is apt to draw in more casual modelers. And if you have a pool of more casual modelers, why sink the money into masters for a 100% kit when you can save it with amortized masters for the majority, develop new masters just for the most obvious unique bits, get an 85%-correct model, and figure the remaining 15% probably won't even get noticed by anyone except the lunatic fringe? Further proof, by the way, that a critical drubbing means shag-all to Revell's bottom line, or else we wouldn't keep seeing examples of this "meh, good enough" paradigm. And to be fair, they did try harder on the other three 2012 new tools. **EDIT** - woopsie, guess we lost the question about why Revell would cut new steel just to produce a kit with so many discrepancies.

Hey, give 'em a brake. *ducking*

Yup, just precisely what I did. 'Course, I covered 'em right back in a dark color. But they'll take Tamiya primer, and if you airbrush the Duplicolor dye, you can either basecoat with the white or count on other colors being opaque enough to cover the black.

lol Btw, the vinyl seats in the AMT kit might be worth trying out before passing final judgment. They're a stiff vinyl that'll take Tamiya TS paints and Duplicolor upholstery dyes with no trouble. The ones that came in AMT's 2010 Camaro actually look more correct than the plastic ones in Revell's.

Yup, Ace, I think it's entirely a matter of imprecision from one kit to the next (I noticed those discrepancies too). Because the Challenger was later in the curve, I'd guess and hope it is more correct - but without actual engine dimensions and calipers, I have no authority on that right now. Assuming the latest hemi family is mostly the same externally, it might be illuminating to check 'em both against the Testors/Lindberg 1/24 Charger mill...

Man, you can say that again! It's kinda like what, four Harleys with custom pipes in one?

Well, this car was conceived with a pretty clear track influence, and track cars of the era were generally open-wheeled. And one really sweet aspect of the design is the lyrical homage it pays to those open wheels, most particularly in their placement. That's why fenders on this car - not saying ANY design here, just this one - would inevitably be an "unattractive or superfluous addition or feature" (the definition of "excrescence" I actually meant).

Eye of the beholder, I guess, Pat. If you like the idea of fenders bumping excrescences over the profile of the deck and the nose, more power to you. Not at all opposed to fenders m'self - just not on this car. "Shiny Ratrod", woo. Some kind of indictment there...

X2. Another T treatment, maybe. Not this one. The rear wheel is positioned perfectly to blend its line right into the deck at a dead-on side profile. A fender would only destroy that effect.

Well, I brought it up more as self-effacement for my willingness to go into four figures for the Pocher model if necessary. For what it's worth.

Fools and their money. I'm still on board.

Good questions. More I pore this over, more I gotta have it in plastic. Halfway wondering about a mash-up of the Big Deuce and Big T for a similar-style eighth-scaler, too. Think one of the Lindberg Ts had about that style of nose...

Werd. 'f it's fo' figgaz, I may just hafta deal, long as it looks JUST LIKE THAT...