Ace-Garageguy

Saw the assembled test-shot at the NNL today. Looks great. Appeared to be built up on the Tudor frame rails, but I'd wager the floor, fuel tank, and some other bits are new. I didn't get a good look at the interior.

I don't know how it is over there these days, but on the HAMB, they used to drill you a new one if you were obviously a newb /dweeb/ idiot. Kinda stupidly arrogant and cliquish, insecure mob macho, and I'm sure more than a few guys left to go crying to mommy. This place is all pink ponies and mermaids by comparison.

Damm. While I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge and experience, read what I said again, please Art. I will add extra words to further clarify my meaning, as it seems to be eluding you. I said: The CAD FILES were probably COPIED, and the COPY of the DIGITAL CAD FILE WAS MODIFIED AS NECESSARY TO CREATE THE WAGON CAD FILE. That would leave THE ORIGINAL CAD FILE FOR THE TUDOR INTACT. Then I said: The MODIFIED CAD FILE WOULD BE USED TO CUT AN ENTIRELY NEW TOOL FOR THE WAGON. That would LEAVE THE ORIGINAL TOOLING FOR THE TUDOR INTACT AS WELL. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MODIFYING OR "RECUTTING" EXISTING TOOLING. In fact, I SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE. It would be idiotic to modify an existing STEEL tool just to have to cut another one to replace it. I'm not an idiot. Do you understand that a CAD file can be copied and modified, just like a document in Word, and that the saved original remains unchanged?? Do you understand that the CAD files are only digital representations of the real STEEL tools? If so, what could you possibly mean by "no need to go back to the CAD's and cut it all over again for another run of Tudor's."? Though I do NOT design injection molding tooling, I DO design other types of tooling, and WE DON'T WASTE EFFORT doing things twice, un-necessarily. In composite tooling, it is also NOT DESIRABLE TO MODIFY A TOOL, for much the same reasons as you touch on regarding plastic injection tooling. If we need a change or update, we'll make a NEW MASTER, using saved data from the original...modified as necessary for the revised design...and make an entirely NEW TOOL, leaving the original intact...to be used if we need more copies of the original design. Clear this time??

That's pretty much what I said...if the CAD files for the Tudor body and parts still exist, it shouldn't be hard at all to copy them, modify them in the computer as-necessary for the Del Rio wagon, and cut entirely NEW tools from the modified data, leaving the original Tudor CAD work AND dies intact. Guess I wasn't clear enough.

Funny...I'm strangely disappointed they're doing a wagon. I have an ancient gluebomb 1st issue wagon that about the only usable parts on are the roof and tailgate area. I already had the parts boxed up with a '57 sedan kit to do a wagon, and now I won't have to. Lots less work for me, something else I wouldn't have got to in forever, and the kit version will probably be nicer than what I would have come up with anyway. Still, it's oddly a sort of letdown. I'm a very twisted individual, I guess.

Wow. Doesn't get much better than that. Just like building a real car, only a whole lot smaller. Inspiring, to say the least.

Is that an Elvis-on-a-Harley-mobile-wedding-chapel? I know just the girl that would appeal to.

I've seen the PO actually encourage folks to re-use shipping materials...as long as, like the guys above say...you cover every bit of prior information. The PO DOES frown on reusing specific PO-flat-rate items (like priority mail boxes) for NON-flat-rate posting. They will refuse a package in a Priority box for other rates.

I seriously doubt it. Because the CAD and CNC files exist for the 2-door sedan, it's relatively easy to go back into the CAD work to modify it into a wagon, and then translate that into CNC data to cut a new set of molds (assuming the CAD work was saved and formatted to be easily edited). In the days when steel injection molding tools were cut by hand by highly-skilled machinists, it probably made more economic sense to modify existing tooling, but cutting a new set of body molds, and whatever else is necessary to change to a wagon (these days, on CNC equipment) is not anywhere as difficult or expensive as you might think. It's the initial expense of developing the FIRST tool-set that eats up a ton of money.

I think you have to admit that a lot of entertainment appeals to the worst in human nature, and the lowest-common-denominator...because that's what sells...and the public has been trained to expect it. The news philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads" doesn't help, and doesn't show any real signs of going away either. Negativity and disasters seem to be what the sheeple want to hear about. I hardly heard one word in the mainstream media about the successes of the privatization of space travel...until a launch vehicle blew up and an experimental passenger vehicle crashed.

If you mean this kit, the '29 Roadster Pickup, then no, it's an entirely different vehicle. The '29 is a "Model A", and a truck, while the kit being discussed here is a "T-bucket" (a Model T-based vehicle) with a shortened pickup bed (in the current issue, anyway). Though the current re-release looks good, I think the original kit was one of the best, most "right" looking of all the T's ever built. I'd really like to see a full restoration of the first version. Hopefully the current one will sell well enough to possibly justify doing an original at some point.

And more on the technical aspects of the car. To me this is just great stuff, and it gets into things like engine and shifter synchronization.

A short interview with Danny about the father-son thing and a little history...

I'm in...

I think in the future, I'll specifically request sarcastic responses. Sounds like fun.

I second Casey's eBay "completed item" search advice. If you just pull up live auctions, prices are all over the board, and some of the asking / starting points are just plain stupidly high. But the completed auctions will show you just what people are willing to actually pay.

It's a curious thing, but some people actually seem to look at their own less-than-stellar work and think it's good, even exceptional. I don't know how it's possible to have a functioning brain (functioning well enough to get you through the daily grind, anyway) and be totally blind when it comes to objectively judging something you've built or repaired. I encounter this fascinating phenomenon in all aspects of life, from fabricators and welders to carpenters and painters, technical writers, programmers and product designers, architects and cooks, ad infinitum. I think it's mostly the folks who, for whatever reason, aren't capable of looking at their own work and realizing it could stand improvement, are the ones who cry "foul" at the first signs of criticism...even well-intentioned constructive and helpful criticism. I know my OWN work can certainly stand improvement in multiple areas, and I welcome input from people who do things better than I do. The willingness of people on this forum to share tips, techniques, and knowledge, is for the most part, pretty impressive. And seeing some of the truly exceptional work presented here is, to me, a source of constant inspiration to raise my own standards, to get more fluent with more materials and techniques, and to build better models as a result. As Harry and others have already said, it's unrealistic to put your work up on a public forum and to expect only attaboys...but that does seem to be what you get on some of the boards and FB pages. But no one can control what anyone else really thinks or feels, and people will continue to post not-great work, expecting praise. The only thing each of us can control is how WE OURSELVES approach making comments on posts. Try to be adult, be kind, genuinely helpful and constructive...or don't say anything at all. But most of all, think about, as Art reminded us, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE TREATED concerning your own areas of possible improvement. PS. For some insight into how people become praise-junkies, here's an interesting article on child development, called Five Reasons to Stop Saying "Good Job!" http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm

Mickey Thompson's son, Danny, has rebuilt the car his father had intended to run with him at Bonneville back in the late 1980s (a car that was built in 1968), and it's racing again with Danny driving. On the salt this year, the car performed almost flawlessly until one of the clutches let go on the third full run. Danny and the Challenger came close to setting a class record, but wet weather following the clutch problem ended the Bonneville season early. It looks like both car and driver are entirely capable of setting new world Land Speed Records for Piston Driven Automobiles and Wheel Driven Automobiles during the 2015 season. This video is a short walkaround with Danny himself explaining significant mechanical features of the naked car.

I'd kinda forgotten what a good looking little car that Topolino dragster built up to be. Liking your Hamm's decals too. Makes me thirsty.

Sorry, von Z. I was sloppy in my post. I didn't mean to imply YOU were not reading the body of the original post, but many of the responses have been directed specifically at the header and NOT the question posed by the OP. I should have been more careful composing my own post.

I don't think anyone is advocating "forcing" the hobby on kids, but a LOT of kids get almost ALL their exposure to the world and what's in it from their peers. And face it...most of the peers of a 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 year old don't know much of anything about much of anything. Only engaged PARENTS can effectively expose young people to a wide variety of worthwhile life experiences and options. Leaving your kid to find his or her own way with nothing but the TV and the internet and a phone is pretty much a sure-fire way to end up with a dead-end kid...unless the kid is really REALLY exceptional, and capable of breaking out of the "peer-effect" by himself.

Very good to hear from someone in the business, who's successful. Thanks for responding.

I really hope both of you can benefit from seeing this stuff. It's good to be able to work at something you enjoy, most of the time anyway.

I guess I drew the wrong inference from your first statement. I wasn't aware that juniors in high school were signing student loan agreements.