Ace-Garageguy

The world is full of cheap idiots who want something for nothing and don't understand the cost or value of anything. The only one you're screwing is yourself. I honestly think you should charge enough to cover YOUR expenses completely, and ignore the fools who complain. You could always explain the charges and material and fuel costs in your listings, but in my experience, people rarely read anything (and if they do read they often don't comprehend), so trying to fairly justify your charges in writing is usually pointless anyway. But...at least if you explain in the listing, then when some bozo leaves you negative feedback or carps, you have a protected position from which to defend yourself.

Glad you found it useful. Here's a couple more you might find handy to refer to. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/59708-32-ford-roadster-gluebomb-rework-sept-8-15-back-on-track/

This (the COWL, not the cockpit cover) is what you can expect from Testors metalizers (this is "aluminum plate", shot wet, 3 coats, allowed to dry 2 dours, and buffed with a VERY soft cloth. And this is a technique I developed to represent a raw aluminum body, fresh from the metal-shaper, just prior to priming...

Coulda been really cool. Turned out kinda awful.

Thanks to all for the comments. The red oxide primer is Duplicolor "sandable" right out of the can (NOT the "scratch filler" variety). It's hot enough to mildly craze even this old plastic, but on a model this big, it's really not going to be an issue.

This is the kind of sweating-the-details that you see in the best of the real-world cars, and the things that make the difference between just another hot-rod and something that has the elusive magic that knocks the viewer's socks off...but isn't immediately obvious. More sincere kudos. Are you still active in ACME?

Thanks, but if you actually want to finish anything, it's probably not the best possible way to go.

Yeah, I went for MSP with this particularly because the rules were loosish for the '63-'64 time frame, and could reasonably be interpreted to allow a repro body that didn't look quite right. Many of the cars that ran this class used aftermarket bodies like Devin and Kellison that could fit a variety of chassis that had slightly different nominal wheelbases. This little Corvette has a quite obviously lengthened wheelbase, too. The wheelbase stretch on my model crept in as a result of the nose swap. I didn't measure the wheelbase as I was doing it, just put the nose on where it looked best to my eye, and determined what the wheelbase would be to center the wheels in the openings, as you mentioned. If the wheelbase was limited to the 102" of the original Corvette, the 25% engine setback would amount to 25.5". In 1/25 scale, that would put the engine approximately .76mm forward from where it is now. The appearance would be almost exactly the same, and using an engine that had the spark plug holes arranged differently than the 409 could quite conceivably put it in exactly the same place, visually, relative to the firewall and cowl top. Though I'm a millimeter or 4 out here and there, the model under construction is generally a correct interpretation of something that would have been competing in the time frame it represents, and I decided early on I probably wouldn't try to comply exactly with the relevant class rules, as it's unlikely it will ever have to pass a tech inspection to race. Suffice it to say that it's a lot closer to representing reality as it was than the myriad static-nose-high "gassers" that get built with no regard whatsoever for the way things actually were. Here's a great reference site for anyone interested in this (to me) absolutely fascinating class. http://www.georgeklass.net/mod-sports.html

Lots of effort on that roof, but the final contours and proportions justify every bit of it, and you demonstrate remarkable forward vision to be able to determine exactly what needed to go where to provide the desired result. Good stuff here.

Hey...I appreciate your input. She definitely needs something exactly where you suggested, but the location of the rear trans mount AND someplace to be able to mount the ends of the lift-bars, while still allowing them to clear the floor and final crossmember during launch, all conspire to complicate the design. Funny...this is another one that started out to be a "quickie" build, and has evolved into a full-blown engineering treatise. It's sometimes a curse to think of these things in the same terms as real ones.

Something there is coming, but I build one tube at a time, just like real. There will be a diagonal tube in the cockpit from the rt. front lower main hoop to just under the rt. rollover hoop end as well (that huge open cockpit bay needs to be triangulated at least somewhat) and a diagonal rear brace on the hoop itself. Still have to design a rear gearbox mount, and frame ears for the front spring shackles. The existing crossmember at the front axle centerline will go away too, to be replaced with one between the rear mounts for the front parallel semi-elliptics.

Nice work converting the AMT 5W to a 3W. Though I'm not usually a fan of a wedge-chop, you've hit the sweet-spot with this one. What's the story on the multi-hued roof?

As always, I sincerely appreciate everyone's interest and comments. A while back somebody challenged the accuracy of this thing actually following the class rules for what it's supposed to represent, specifically the engine setback. Well folks, here it is. Though the stock wheelbase is 102", I've lengthened it on the model to about 106. To the best of my knowledge, as these things were heavily modified and closer to altereds than anything else, this would have been perfectly legal. Engine setback is defined as the measurement between the front axle centerline and the middle of the front spark-plug hole. We're certainly in the class-legal ballpark for a 1/25 scale model. A tubular upper structure / cage is coming together too. This thing is actually sortof a pre-funny-car, with, supposedly, a very lightweight (and floppy) fiberglass clone body. To support it, and to give the chassis additional rigidity (you can't chassis-tune a car with a wildly flexible chassis) as well as providing somewhere to mount the roll bar, I decided to do a partial tube frame. The upper portion of the roll bar needs to be removable (kinda like what's on Cobras) so I can remove the body to display all the guts. The solution was to pin the ends of the rollover hoop, like zo. Where we are today.

Just one of the benefits of having a stash of old parts to draw from. I wouldn't go buy all those kits either, but as I've mentioned before, I view old kits as parts-sources primarily, kinda like having a 1/25 scale junkyard on the lower 40. Lotsa folks probably have much of this stuff lying around too.

For period Olds engines, I personally prefer the old-tool Revell basic engine (SWC Willys, Anglia and Thames, Orange Crate etc.) mashed up with the 3X2 manifold and front cover / water pump from the AMT '40 Ford, the rocker covers and fan belt assembly from the Revell '50, siamesed-center-port headers made from bits in the AMT '36 Ford, and a top-shift LaSalle gearbox made from parts in the Mickey Thompson Challenger or the Miss Deal funny car kit... The old-tool Revell engine represents the later NON-siamesed-center-exhaust-port engine design (with 4 header primary tubes), as the one in the SWC Willys started life as a 394. Early series engines had siamesed ports, so this is easily represented by using the 3-port headers for a Pontiac, as shown above. Another small point is that the factory J2 3X2 engine option wasn't available until 1957, though there WERE aftermarket aluminum 3X2 manifolds marketed not too long after the OHV Olds V8 intro in 1949. I only include these bits of trivia for those interested in historical accuracy.

Yup yup yup.

Perfect.

Lotsa myths out there. Actually researching and READING the law would be a good place to start, as you'll hear as many different opinions on the web as there are posters. I have actually DONE patents and copyrights (no, you don't have to be a lawyer to do it), so I actually know something about the subject. First, though implied "copyright" exists on any original work or art piece, to get the full protection under the law, the piece must be registered. It only costs $55 to file a copyright application yourself. Second, trying to copyright a resin model of an existing car is going to be tricky, because the manufacturer of the REAL car owns the design, and the model maker has copied material that's technically not his to re-use. The big model companies have to pay licensing fees to the car companies to use the designs, and technically, a resin-caster should too. Third, most all European (and other) nations have had reciprocal patent and copyright agreements with the USA for a long time, but to get full protection, you have to register the work in question in the appropriate jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention One more thing... the "15% percent-change-to-be-able-to-copy rule" is entirely BS. I've been hearing variations of this belief ever since I started making real aftermarket parts almost 40 years ago. No such rule or law exists, and copying somebody else's work is copying somebody else's work, but the actual application of copyright LAW to a particular instance would have to be determined by a court action...and that gets expensive pretty quickly. The excerpt below is taken from this site regarding the copying of jewelry: http://www.jewelersresource.com/Business/Studio/Copyright.html "When is a copy an infringement?The standard for infringement is that the piece is substantially similar and, of course, that the infringer copied the piece. There is no hard and fast standard of substantial similarity, but if the piece looks the same, even though it is not identical, it probably infringes (the rumors that it has to be 10% different are wrong: if the Mona Lisa were copyrighted, and you copied only the eyes and smile, it probably would still be infringement). A copyright lawyer should be consulted before any charges of infringement are made."

Pretty slick trick. Definitely worth looking into. THANKS !

Good looking concept; those lines and proportions WORK.

Good looking pair, really like them both.

Still a knockout. Really like your color choice too...almost exactly what I've chosen to do my big ol' 1/8 scale '32. Thanks again for so convincingly demonstrating all of these mixed building techniques. And those wheel pods are simply stellar.

Another 404 this morning at 09:00 approximately. Site refused to take a post I'd written in Word and pasted in the "what do you drive" thread.. Tried re-typing the entire thing on this site, same 404. Then the connection "timed out" and I got knocked off the site, couldn't re-connect until about 10:30. This has happened before...getting knocked off the site shortly after the 404 message appeared repeatedly.

C'mon Snake...that wasn't the intent. I was GLAD to take it out clean for you. Helped to polish up some skills and all that. Frankly, I'd MUCH rather see somebody get some use out of something I would have otherwise trashed. The whole operation didn't take more than 15 minutes, and it was enjoyable semi-mindless work.

Not a lot, but the slits in the firewall for the frame tubes were still kinda sloppy. Added a little more styrene strip, will continue fiddling with it until it fits nice and tight.