Ace-Garageguy

First, I want to thank everyone who's posted photos and other info in this thread. Very helpful, as there are several 917 projects I have waiting. Second... The more I look at the photos, which I admittedly have never really studied before, the more it's seeming to me that the noses of the later cars got wider and more squared over time. Not the windshields, but the width of the fenders, to compensate, probably, for wider rubber. This would be consistent, also, with the early cars having their headlights staggered to fit in the available space, and the later cars having their headlights side-by-side, as though it was no longer necessary to stagger them because the fenders were wider. Further study is required in order for me to come to a fully supportable opinion.

You really have me curious now. Where were you a professional mechanic, and for how long?

Anybody know if there's a version of this kit, or another period 4-cylinder Alfa with an engine? The kit I have has an open hood, but nothing except an engine plate visible from the bottom, and ridiculous toylike front suspension...though the rear end is decent and actually has coil springs.

Here's an old thread that might give you some wheel/tire options. I think the Modelhaus offerings might be repops of 1/32 scale big truck tires.

The age perspective is an interesting aside. As a very young "modeler" (a gloo-smearing paint-slatherer is more appropriate), I was interested in things of the time. My first car model was Revell's '57 Ford wagon. I "built" several of Revell's 1/32 scale American cars too. And planes and tanks and suchlike I saw at airshows or in war movies. It took a while for me to understand the hot-rod thing, or why anybody would be so passionate about old-timey cars. Gifts of an AMT '40 Ford and the Ala Kart started it, and once I got it, I was hooked...but then I wound up at a show of genuine "classics", and was blown away by things like hidden headlights and front-wheel-drive being done back in the 1930s, and the sheer mechanical beauty of polished engine castings, or engine-turned dash panels. I hadn't been driving long when the muscle-car era dawned, and that became my primary focus; that was also around the time of my introduction to drag racing, the golden age of gassers, etc. Then in 1970, after getting to drive a 356 Porsche and a Corvette on actual racing tires, my interest veered sharply towards sports-cars and road-racing, and stayed there for several decades. From about '77 or so, I started getting into the alt-fuel thing, initially doing propane conversions and lead-acid electrics, and I've kept abreast of that part of the industry. It wasn't until about 2005 or so that my interest began to swing back to old-school hot rods, and a deeper interest in and appreciation for "classics" (now including brass-era cars that I used to think were a huge yawn) than I'd ever had before. My kit collection is representative of all of these phases of my involvement with automobiles, and now that my small-scale modeling skills are just beginning to match my ambitions, I'm searching out things that aren't available in styrene, kits I couldn't possibly have done anything decent with earlier. Today, my interest in real cars is about evenly split between "traditional" hot-rods and sports cars, even a few new ones. The point isn't me-me-me though. It's just an essay about how we tend to grow and change with time. I'm sure everyone here has similar...but different...histories. One thing is for certain: there have always been people who built models of things, and there most likely always will be...no matter which way the rest of the herd goes.

We're certainly not seeing here most of the builders who support the expensive high-end segment of the market, multi-hundred-dollar multi-media kits. And we're not seeing most of the large-scale builders, some of whom are approaching or rivaling Gerald Wingrove quality.

Only a couple million, which is a helluva deal if you think about it. You could put up tool booths and recoup your investment pretty quickly. But I'll have to have cash. No financing, because, as we all know, the world will end in 12 years (or is it 10 now?).

Interesting, looks like nice work. The 65% rear weight bias is a little unsettling, and the implication that one has to learn CAD in order to "craft mounts for every new component" is tiring. I literally amaze people almost every working day by making all kinds of stuff without once even turning on the computer. The "future of hot-rods" ? Well sure, the future of SOME hot-rods. But there's no shortage of other options, including non-petro IC engines. One of the things I've been working on lately is the framework for a legal exemption for hydrogen-burning internal combustion engines, when their gas-fueled counterparts are legislated off the roads. One more point...hot rods were originally built from junk, to get cost-effective performance and style that was only obtainable otherwise by spending buckets of money. Building a Tesla-based rod is great, but it sure as heck ain't cheap. Anyway, it's always good to see somebody building something different, especially when it actually functions. Cool little ElectroBimmer.

What you have now looks good. Nice conversion of something stupid into something workable in reality.

If you believe that, I'd like to show you a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'm selling really cheap.

I'm an old fossil, a sports-car guy as well as a hot-rodder, and I appreciate these little cars as today's version of what we old farts built when we were young. Though I don't have much genuine interest in most of these cars, I have huge respect for and interest in some of the engines. I've bought these kits primarily for engine-swap material...like the Supra in a 240Z (there's a real one around here that goes like stink), the little Honda B16 or B18 to go in the middle of a very narrow dry-lakes '32 Ford, the Mitsu to swap into something else...

Holey moly. I want I want I want. Only thing I'd ask is to consider leaving the drive belts off. A skillful modeler can come up with something appropriate, and it would vastly simplify the painting process...IMHO.

Yup.

Agreed. The oft-cited "optical corrections" as being necessary for a model to look "right" in scale is absolute bunk. Photograph a correctly-scaled model with a good lens that doesn't distort the image, from the same angle you'd view the real car. It will appear identical to a similarly-sized photo of the original full-scale subject. A competent designer or photographer will realize this. I have personally designed things, built models in scale to develop the appearance in three dimensions, and then built the full-scale version exactly from the scaled-up dimensions. Surprise...the full-scale one looks just exactly like the scale model. It works in reverse just as well.

I really appreciate your input, and your work looks great. I'm glad this came up before I put a lot of time into a Fujimi, only to be disappointed when I really looked at the thing. Hmmmm...now, to decide what to do with the Fujimis, and whether I really want to replace all of 'em, or maybe narrow them a little and build weathered after-the-race versions where the discrepancies in proportions wouldn't be quite so obvious...with a Heller as a clean, more definitive example of the design.

So...the Heller kit is clearly closer to being scale-correct in width, anyway, than the Fujimi version. I wish I'd known this several years back when I bought multiples of the Fujimi to do several important cars, assuming that, based on reputation, the kits would be accurate. I only have one of the Hellers, acquired recently, and it's the one that brought the scaling problem with the Fujimis to my attention. The Fujimi kit is a very fine kit anyway, and would make an outstanding model...as long as you don't park it too close to a Heller, or particularly care if models actually look like what they represent.

No worries. Heller on the left in white, Fujimi on the right in blue.

OK. I came home for an early lunch, got both kits out, did some measuring, and scaled a few things from the last drawing Matt posted. Based on the 2300 mm wheelbase shown in Matt's last drawing, the base of the windshield scales out to be 976.5 mm at the widest point. The Fujimi kit measures 46.36 mm. Multiplied by 24, the full-scale dimension would be 1112.64. The Heller kit measures 41.28 mm at the same point. Multiplied by 24, the full-scale dimension would be 990.72...clearly much closer to scale-correct. I'll post photos shortly. Photos below.

Fascinating...

I do, and was intending to do the comparo. However, I was also intending to scale some dimensions off of the drawings Matt posted so the comparison would have some factual relevance (let the rivet-counter slurs begin). It's a couple hours work. I don't have a couple hours right at the moment. Anybody else wants to jump on it, feel free.

Believe me sir, I understand.

The hobby will certainly change, just as model railroading has changed over the 60+ years I've been watching it. Though it's much smaller now than it was (like cars), the quality and variety is better now than ever before...with prices high enough to allow short runs to be reasonably profitable. And there's enough beautiful vintage stuff around to satisfy any nostalgia junkie. Some of the train guys I know routinely build layouts or modules that would have been magazine cover material way back when. The variety and availability of aftermarket stuff for military aircraft and armor is still staggeringly impressive to me, and the quality of builds is, again, often off the charts compared to decades past. I kinda suspect that's the way the model car segment is headed. There's fantastic low-volume stuff available for those who can afford it, and the really "serious" builders will doubtless keep the car thing going just like trains and planes and armor...better and better quality, more historical accuracy, higher and higher prices for limited production but really good products, and a smallish but highly dedicated core of enthusiasts. Being able to produce one-off parts, masters, and injection-molding tooling using CAD, CNC, and various types of rapid-prototyping (3D printing, etc.) will certainly contribute to the hobby's longevity, negating the need to sell a bazillion units to stay in the black, too.

^^^ Nice rig. More impressive than anything I've ever had. Last time I had a pretty new box was back in early '77. Since then, I've bought smaller mostly clean-one-owners (but some real cheap dogs for bodywork and fab, as they tend to get beat), usually keep each set for just one particular kind of work; everything electrical in one set, fabrication tools in another, diagnostic and AC stuff in another, body tools all separate, composite stuff all by its lonesome, general hand tools in yet another, etc. Usually used to have different kinds of jobs in several bays going simultaneously, rolled the box I need to the job, usually had enough overlap so I wouldn't do much walking back and forth. These days, I work out of two shops not-mine, have a limited set of just what I need at each, keep the big boxes, machine tools (except the mill) and most of the good stuff at home.

Wow. Thanks, Mr. Bacon. Guess that about nails it, as far as anybody could reasonably want.