southpier

true. presentations are the narrative enabling 'look' to become 'see'. a substantial amount of effort is required to educate the audience. we're pretty much all born with the same knowledge, but exposure to different things creates our filters, which in turn shapes our perceptions.

i throw out dental floss. seriously; i floss like a zillion times a day, or more. buy the 12 packs from amazon. birds use it for their nests.

since i'm quite out of the loop, have to admit i Oggled - oops! - Googled the name. nice styling and well engineered; apparently has all the optional accessories, too.

but it does emphasize the point. is interpretation of design really style, or function? certainly should be a harmonic blend - ebony & ivory - and all that goes with it. i think the whole "rat rod" movement brought about some quite interesting uses of non standard mechanical assemblies, but the function was missing. design needs to have visual & functional components to be successful. would it be safe to conclude most factory modified vehicles were not done so by trained professionals? even the cute little engine that could, couldn't. no connecting rods on the drivers, bumper set behind the main frame, no front facing cab windows so the engineer could see the track ahead .... so how did Norm, Tommy, and all the rest figure out a way to do it and make 'em look good in the process?

slicks look good

if all the 'black bits' were painted the body color, would the design be acceptable? my vote (from above) would be: yuk, okay, okay. but i think the butterscotch FJ looks too goofy (color - not style)

for what it's worth .... both amazon & netflix are about 8$ a month for their movie services. no commercials, decent variety, and you can watch a whole season of television shows in one afternoon at the bench.

yes; some peoples taste is all in their mouth

i think this is a perfect example: https://youtu.be/aC36gsaawWY not crazy about everything on the car, but the builder details why he reduced the frame rail depth and how that implies a channeled body, but retains enough room in the cab to actually fit (in those Oh, so comfortable aluminum seats!)

i understand "design" is subjective, but there must be some accepted tenets from which to vary. perhaps the Ackerman of Styling - and grace - without which no things shall be conceived. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ackermann_simple_design.svg

nothing wrong with trying to help someone out. though when it happens, it's always a disappointment when the kindness isn't reciprocal - even though it's not score keeping. but, no one can do to you anything which you will not allow. and healthy people set boundaries. carry on.

didn't want to put another thread off its rails. someone mentioned a builder whose work i was completely unfamiliar, so i searched. a few of the Gallery projects looked okay, but some quite ack-ward (sic). there must be basic tenets governing "good design". i mean, why would Fisher Body have had all those contests for budding designers if it wasn't to create pleasing shapes? the most jutting thing i see on Pre-WWII cars is a tilted forward grille frame with the top higher than the body's cowl. if the styling fails there, i can't get to the rest of the car. Q: is this quandary simply the inexperience of an untrained eye? i think Mr Green looks fine from the beltline down, but the windshield gets too wide at the top, and the folding top should be - well, done away. Mr Red - pretty much the same. i'm not a fan of leading with the tires, but the top and the bustle-back look truncated in proportion to the hood. before giving the camera blame, there are several other photos of each car online (right click the picture and select 'search Google for this picture'. am i the only person who ponders the possibilities ...?

quattuor hourspower

beautiful without a doubt and excellent incorporation of parts from a variety of sources. but i must have nodded off for a bit and missed the segue. are any of these components available in the new Revell '29 roadster kit?

"I Hobby therefore I Am"

no worse than 16 pages of two paragraph instructions in nine languages

ps: you will not be the first!

sounds like you're using Internet Explorer. do a search for "compatibility views". this is a frequent problem.

that's great. always wondered why the sedan wasn't re-released

ha ha! no wonder i had such a bugger of a time finding it. Entex 1/16 scale http://www.ebay.com/itm/Entex-The-Mog-1-16-1935-Morgan-Super-Sports-Complete-8465-/271815714656?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f497aa760 you darn guys are always pulling my leg ....

is the scale discrepancy noticeable with this body? i never gave it much truck, but after assembling a Revell 1/24 scale Volkwagen engine, it's bigger than an AMT 1/25 scale flathead.

i've read your version in "that magazine" of how to do that and it's pretty straightforward starting with a styrene hood. i just don't understand how forming a somewhat conical shape with .020" styrene as suggested wouldn't springback without some reinforcement. and would the reinforcement be seen? or interfere with velocity stacks or other engine parts?

maybe "toss-up" a quick tutorial - with those pictures we all richly deserve - so when the kit hits the shelves, we can be "at the ready" with hoods firmly in hand?

i'm a little confused what the vote is for, but mine will be "Yes".

fantastic details; thanks for posting. Q: is this the 1/16 scale Minicraft kit? http://www.amazon.com/Minicraft-1935-Morgan-Three-Wheeler-Scale/dp/B0074605NA