Ace-Garageguy

Oh yes. Perfect amount of chop and drop. Very nice lines on this one. Nice thing about the '40 front fenders is that you can go that low and still actually steer.

Maybe not this build, but you've given me another idea...how about a '63 Lark or Avanti done as an FX car? The twin-supercharged R5 engine was rated as high as 575HP, and might have actually been FX legal, as it WAS entirely available factory-installed...sort of. A very interesting what-if project.

Yes, a round file the same diameter as the tube you're intersecting. Also try this link to a google search of threads on this forum about roll-cages. Just about everything you could want to know is already there. https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amodelcarsmag++roll+cage&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=site:modelcarsmag.com++roll+cage&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial

It's called "fish-mouth", for obvious reasons......the resulting look after the end of a chassis or cage tube is cut to intersect another tube. I've found the best way to do it on scale models is to cut the chassis tube in question just a little long, and then use a round file of the same diameter as the tube your "fish-mouthed" tube will attach to, to create an accurate and tight-fitting fish-mouth. Naturally, if both ends of the tube will have to be fish-mouthed, you'll have to allow length for that as well. Working slowly and carefully is important, and hand-fitting as you go is the only method I've personally found to work accurately on scale models. Just a few thousandths of an inch error can make a cage or frame cockeyed, wonky and warped, so neatness counts. I usually lay straight tubes (styrene rod) in an X-acto miter box for stability, with one end sticking out enough to do the file work. If the ends of a tube need to be fish-mouthed at different angles relative to each other, it works for me to do one end first, place the tube in the opening, mark the rough overall length, the primary angle of the second cut, and the centerline of the desired fish-mouth....then carefully sneak up on the final fit. I built the upper and rear sections of this cage using the above techniques. There are some guys on here who do entire tube-frames and cages, and do a lot of them very well. Hopefully they'll weigh in with more and better ideas than I've presented.

Thanks guys. I found the 4005 PN at Strada, still looking for some pix. Thanks again. EDIT: I found this pic of a model by Jairus. Copy says they're PN 4004. Is this the same amount of bellmouth as the 4005?? Perfect.

I'm not a patent attorney either, but I've written and illustrated a few successful ones, and consulted on others. A patent (including design-patents...how something looks, which are entirely different from utility patents...how something works) does not exist unless the very formal patent prosecution and granting procedure is followed to the letter..and yes, that can get expensive...and can also be done entirely without an attorney. I've done it. Action against infringement on design-patents is usually pretty gray and muddy legal maneuvering. How exactly do you quantify that "this is 5% different from that"? But patents and copyrights are entirely separate and independent things. Copyright (which is most likely what would be infringed when copying a model) exists automatically on a creative work, whether the formal copyright procedure is followed or not. It's an odd thing really, and having a formal copyright on your work makes it easier to prove infringement in court, but it's still possible without it. Possible? Yes. Cost-effective in the hobby world? Probably not. As I've tried to explain before, making an accurate scale model of a real car, or anything really, borrows heavily on the intellectual property that is the design and appearance of the original full-sized object. It would be infringement of a design-patent, if one existed for the original. And by inference it would also be an infringement of the copyright of the original design as an 'artistic' or 'creative' piece of work. Licensing agreements make it possible for model car companies to use the scaled-down likeness of the full sized objects they portray. But not all designs get patented, and if a patent lapses after a certain period (currently 14 years for a design-patent, 20 years for a utility patent) or if the payments to keep it in force aren't kept up, it's anybody's game. Still, the copyright exists independently of the patent. Copying an existing model exactly...pulling molds from anything and making exact duplicates...infringes on the original model-maker's copyright, whether it's been formalized or not. It's a different deal. Let's say you copy Revell's '50 Olds body exactly. You're violating Revell's copyright AND basically getting a free ride on whatever money Revell has paid for licensing to GM to make a representation of an Oldsmobile. BUT, if you take a Revell '50 Olds and substantially modify it, and pull molds from your own modified version, you're pretty much in the clear with Revell...but GM might have something to say if you made, let's say, a fastback replica of an actual GM design. If you made a mild-custom '50 Olds and made copies for sale, you should be in the clear everywhere.

No disrespect intended Mike, but copyright law is pretty clear as to what's considered "fair Use", and as to when work passes into "public domain", after which copyright issues don't arise. No attorneys needed to read the law and understand its intent. As far as the conscience thing goes, having had credit for my own work taken by others on occasion, I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's maddening and frustrating, made even worse by being small-fry without the financial resources to fight a civil battle and without any hope of criminal prosecution. It's not something I'd knowingly do to someone else. The flip side is that I see absolutely nothing wrong with copying minor parts occasionally for my own use. It may technically be a crime, but it's a totally victimless one.

Great looking chassis work. Inspirational.

For the community build project, read the first post here...http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=68187 The current real-world record holder...http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/cannonball-run-recordcommon-sense-shattered-29-hour-drive-coast-coast/

I've always loved the big ol' "blower Bentleys" and I remember when they were relatively cheap...and I aspired to owning one someday. Now, with the cars in the multi-million dollar range, that's no longer a possibility. This post has given me inspiration though, as it's entirely possible to build something very much like this...using, say, a pair of pickup truck frame rails, a big Jag inline six, and relatively simple bodywork. Even the supercharger as shown on this car could be built up from oval-case GMC bits. Ground-pounding, British-junk-based hot-rod, anyone ??

Nice project, and a good use for a warped kit. Love your T-based snow-cat inspiration too.

Only one point...if a review sites particular obvious inaccuracies...like the recent Mustang roof height...it would be nice to always see good, clear comparison shots of the 1:1, and actual measurements, so the potential builder might get an idea of how bad something really is, and how much correction will be necessary in the pursuit of accuracy.

Looks really good. I personally prefer the channeled look (like yours) over the typical highboy, and I think you've hit the best stance for a representation of a real-world, drivable car. Nice work on raising and fitting the floor and tunnel too...which is exactly what you have to do when you build a real car like this.

It's always a dilemma as to which class an accurate drag racing model would run in now, or in the period it represents. In general, the FX cars were more-or-less current production models with 'optional' factory-available (but not necessarily factory-installed) equipment. An outgrowth of the Super Stock classes, FX cars were purpose-built race cars. (Quoting George Klass on Yellowbullet.com): "Factory Experimental class was introduced by NHRA in 1962, just in time for the Winternationals in Pomona.The rules were very simple. Any "legal" parts from a single automotive brand (such as Pontiac) could be "mixed and matched" into one car. In Pontiac's case, it meant that any Pontiac engine, trans, rear end, etc., could be installed into any Pontiac vehicle. Naturally, the Tempest LeMans was chosen because it was the lightest car Pontiac built. The engines still had to be "legal", meaning that they still had to be Super Stock legal. If I remember, the cars (in '62) still had to use the 7-inch wide legal S/S tires, although that was changed to allow a 10-inch wide tire later in the year. " A good early example is Mickey Thompson's '62 A/FX Pontiac Tempest, equipped with a 421cu.in. V8, gearbox, and a solid rear axle (from the big cars, but narrowed to fit the Tempest shell) in place of the independent transaxle setup. The car required structural changes to hang the big driveline and rear axle, which were allowed. Obviously, something like this would never have been "factory-built" for sale to consumers. Here's a link to the 2012 Nostalgia Super Stock Drag Racing general rules ("Nostalgia Super Stock is an index-style foot brake only class for the year models, bodystyles, and engine combinations, which accurately represent those cars, which raced in the A/FX and Super Stock classes of the ’60s."), with a list of cars eligible to run the SS classes. At first reading, it looks like full-bodied Chevrolets only back to '59 are allowed...but like they say, it's only a model. Have fun. http://www.nssracing.com/rules/nmca-rules/

Thanks for all the responses, and I'm following up all of the leads. Seriously...thanks.

This is just so cool. Not only the build itself, but the info on inkjet-printable fabric, the patterns, and just the whole deal of people pitching in to help each other. Some days, this hobby restores a little of my faith in humanity.

A public thanks again to Mike1017 for digging out and sending me a pair of the Hilborn FI manifolds I need. Thanks again, Mike.

There really IS a remarkable amount of information already available on this forum. I've been looking for some realistic velocity stacks for the FI on the early engines, and came up with these from searching the site. Not perfect, but definitely in the ballpark. http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=70078419 The stacks I'm looking for are much more bell-mouthed, like the one clearly visible in the far, front engine in this photo. Any suggestions? EDIT: Like these...

Thanks John. I'll have a look there.

I'm looking for recommendations for spun aluminum tube velocity stacks OR exhaust tips with the right look to replicate the one stack clearly visible on the forward, right-hand engine in this shot of Thompson's Challenger I.

I dunno, but look at the pretty welding everywhere...

Thank you Dave for the pix. Seriously bad car. Lots of info there too. Also thanx to everyone else who's chimed in here. I'm getting a much better feel for the ProMod build style, and getting my head around the various SFI requirements, online resources, etc. There's a lot to understand in order to build a reasonably correct-for-class model.

Makes one ponder the etymology of entomology.

I like the concept. Definitely different.

I agree with Richard about the Easy Off being the best stripper. It WILL burn your hands...wear rubber or latex gloves... and don't get it in your eyes. It works best if you keep it wet by putting the car body in a sealed plastic bag after you spray it. Let it soak a couple of hours and then wash it off with warm water, scrubbing as you go with a toothbrush and a mild abrasive cleaner like Comet. The scrub removes stripper and paint residue from cracks and crevices. You MAY have to apply the stripper a couple of times to get it all. IF you used a hot enamel like Krylon Fusion, which has more aggressive solvents in it to etch into the plastic, you're screwed. I haven't found a stripper that will take it off, and it produces a crazed surface on the plastic anyway. A lot of guys swear by brake-fluid for stripping. I've tried it a couple of times and to me, it does seem to leave the plastic a little more brittle afterwards. The formulation of kit styrene has varied a lot over the years, so that may be a factor. But I haven't had any adverse effects stripping any plastic kits, even very old ones, with EasyOff.