Ace-Garageguy

I believe my cat could chew a better looking one out of canned cat-chow. If you'd ever had the pleasure of seeing one, you'd remember for sure. I haven't been able to find a coherent history, but I get the impression it was an Anglo-American company, as some of the kits seem to be in demand as collector items in Europe, and the subject matter is more Euro-English than most US companies produced at the time. It's a pity the models were so bad, because they did some subjects nobody else did...like a '55 Olds, a Nash Metropolitan, an Allard, and other unusual ones. If they were at all accurate, they'd certainly be worth having today.

It has a lot of attitude from that angle. I like it.

I've been looking around at possible donors for a '32 Ford in 1/16...engines, wheels, axles, etc....and there seem to be enough to make a variety of builds possible. A good body shell and frame rails would be relatively easy to master. Stock fenders would be a little more challenging. Hmmmm...

I really have to say that any COMPETENT tech inspection, if there WAS a tech inspection prior to letting these guys race, would have caught the inadequate belt / harness attachment that allowed the '55 driver to be ejected from the car. Second, the '55 started its roll when it "tripped" on its own sticky rear tires...tires NOT designed to go sideways, a problem compounded by a high center of gravity, all initiated by its driver's over-correction. This is an excellent illustration of the reason that cars designed to handle cornering, like road-racers, are built as low to the ground as possible. Third, the '55 appeared to have directional-stability problems even during the pre-race burnout. This could be from poorly-setup or loose rear suspension linkage, which wouldn't be surprising considering how poorly the belts / harness must have been installed.

Actually, the Pyro / Lindberg Cord isn't so bad. The body fits together very well, in reality. I assembled one stock just to see, prior to starting a hot-rod highboy version. It's not particularly well-scaled, especially when you compare it to the nice Monogram 1/24 version, but it makes a decent model (if you don't measure too carefully, get hung up on accuracy, or look at it from the rear 3/4 angle). There are several good-looking builds of this kit on the web. Here's one (not mine !!!) There ARE, however, serious proportion problems with the drooping rear end and tiny kit tires (earlier issues have hard plastic tires)...

Very clean.

Your greasy soap is almost certainly part of the cause. Problems like these are why I now scuff my bare plastic bodies with Comet of SoftScrub, an old toothbrush, and plenty of hot water. Sandpaper can NOT get into all the fine crevices and creases, but a thorough scuffing with an abrasive cleanser (like Comet) will do it, without softening any details. Sandpaper will tend to round-off and soften details, and if you're aware of this, the tendency is to go light with it, which also limits how well the surface is scuffed. It's important to look carefully at the surface after you've dried the model, to make SURE you've scuffed every area to where you can't see any shine. I'd also recommend a final wash with clean paper towels and 70% isopropyl alcohol just before you paint. Wear latex or nitrile gloves to protect your hands, and to prevent transferring skin oils to the model once it's clean. Oil from your skin can also cause adhesion and fisheye problems. I'm sure this all sounds like way too much trouble and overkill, but since I started doing these things, I don't have any paint problems at all.

I certainly understand Harry's assertion that being tried twice for the same offence, albeit in different courts with different agendas, does seem like double-jeopardy. I've thought this myself on occasion. I also recognize the subtle difference between being found guilty of a criminal offence as defined by law, and being held financially responsible for the consequences of an act that is not by definition "criminal", but still is, let's say, irresponsible, careless or reckless (but NOT defined as criminal behavior), and has led to another human being's serious loss. I also agree with DonW's assertion that, from most lawyers' point of view, the law simply supplies the basis for complex word-games that have little to do with truth and justice, everything to do with "winning". Please note I said "most", not "all". I've dealt with lawyers on both sides of this particular moral fence. It's apparently sometimes hard to keep to the moral high-ground when the money is in the sewer.

Very nice conversion to stock on the Chevy. Nice chopped '34 too. Have you shown that model on here before? Nice view, too. I assume from the vegetation and the background that you're in the south of France, looking over the Mediterranean. Beautiful.

Yes,

Well, you know, a lot of women have a difficult time with spacial visualization. Some scientists believe it's actual hard-wiring in their brains. I think it's more likely that they've all been convinced that 4" is really 6.

Mine sure is.

Another one of those things I've never quite understood is why so many women seem to think they're the boss of the relationship, and why so many men let them get away with it. Guess that's why I'm not married. ----------------------------------------------------------- As far as watching what you say goes, it's important in ANY relationship you value to think before you speak. Some things, once said, can never be taken back and change the relationship forever. ----------------------------------------------------------- A very beautiful and intelligent woman I dated in the mid 1990s was telling me about the demise of her first marriage. She said her husband would criticize and make fun of her, pick on her for all manner of small things, and generally, constantly try to put her down. She said that the love she had initially felt for him eventually became, in her words, "a wall of indifference". When she finally decided she'd had enough and left him, he was dumbfounded and asked her why. She said "You've been telling me how ugly, stupid and useless I am for years now. I'm giving you your chance to replace me with someone who comes up to your standards".

Ah yes, and today, so many modelers expect the parts to self-assemble when you shake the box...

Great looking model, very realistic. I've always been a closet fan of the deux chevaux and I'd love one as a daily driver, but it's never occurred to me to look for one when I've had the money.

Beautiful model. Good color for this car, and the stance looks better than a lot of Countach models I've seen. I remember the prototype's intro in 1971, and how it made pretty much every other exotic car instantly visually obsolete. Fascinating to think that both the Countach and its predecessor Miura both came from the pen of the same man, the very gifted Marcello Gandini. These two cars still rank at the top of my most-desirable list, but I prefer the wingless versions of the Countach. I don't think any other production car has ever shown quite the originality of this design, except perhaps the Mercedes C-111.

9mm Beretta (silenced of course, with a flash suppressor). "An armed society is a polite society"

Makes my heart pine to build a wooden model.

50 deg. C is only 120 deg.F. That's as hot as my shower. Any decent kit plastic is stable at higher temperatures. A car interior can easily exceed 140 deg. F, as can an attic.

Snake Plissken...from the film "Escape from New York".

What he said. Great looking combo.

Me too. I saw parts of the build thread, but missed the completion. Pretty fine. Like your dogs, too.

Oh man, I love 'em all, especially the 84s and 86s. Had a friend years ago who had been an F-86 instructor. He flew civilian Connies too as they were being phased out. He said as the engine oil-pressure dropped below the mandatory overhaul limit, the pilots were instructed to just put a piece of black tape over the gauges rather than ground soon-to-be-replaced revenue-producing airplanes for expensive engine replacement.

Exactly. As I said in post #2... "The temperature at which plastic warps and takes a permanent shape is called the "glass transition temperature", or Tg. For common "polystyrene" that kits are made from, this occurs at about 100 deg. C, or 212 deg. F. "Polystyrene" is a generic term encompassing a wide variety of specific formulations. The exact temperature depends on the exact plastic formulation." Here, I should elaborate. The cheapening of the polystyrene used in kits to save a few pennies has caused these seeming inconsistencies in kit-plastic behavior. Add that to the fact that different runs of kits may be made with different batches of plastic with different specs, and you get even more inconsistencies. This is also reflected in the varied kit-plastic sensitivity to solvents in paints these days...paints and primers that wouldn't harm an old Johan kit, for example, will horribly craze and ruin some of the recent Revell offerings.

Here's a complaints list on the car, with additional info on subsequent screens. http://www.carcomplaints.com/Buick/LaCrosse/2006/ At first glance, it looks like a pretty good car. I'm sure there's much more data available online. Here's more: http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2006/buick/lacrosse/recalls/