Ace-Garageguy

The kit has a lot of potential as scratch-bash fodder. I started making up the trailer here from bits of it.

No, but it's a sure-fire cure for depression.

Excellent points, both. And the reason the oil pan is smooth on many older engines is because it's stamped sheet-metal, as is the timing cover, sometimes...though it's sometimes die-cast, which is also smooth. Contemporary engines, however, very often have cast oil pans and timing covers, with a very fine or no texture. When in doubt, Google images of the real engine you want to represent, or ask here.

Exactly. You're creating "orange-peel" intentionally...a slightly pebbly texture on the surface of the paint. You have to experiment to get the right look though. Different paints will flow out differently, and the texture itself doesn't need to be coarse at all. To look right in 1/25 scale, you only need a very slight surface roughness, with the gloss of the paint still visible. You can use Testors metalizers to get a similar effect for bare cast metal on wheel centers, aluminum rear-end housings, etc.

Measure a real one. Divide by 12.

Maybe ya'll oughta check your safe-spaces.

"Mallot" is a word in Finnish and Catalan (not in English) and a city in Pakistan. A woman's one-piece swimsuit is a "maillot", with an "I" in the middle. I hope that wasn't too rivet-counting-confrontational, critical and crude.

I'm going to say a few things, but I have no ill will towards anyone here, including you. I'm just getting tired of personalities getting triggered by nothing other than their own imaginations that cast me as some insulting, bullying, nasty old fart. I've honestly never spent any time analyzing the potential functionality of your models, or I would have noticed the things you just pointed out. I don't really care if somebody else's model could really work or not. I've commented on several of your builds, and not once have I ever criticized a lack of potential functionality...or if I've mentioned it, I'm absolutely certain I did it in a "mentioning" sort of non-confrontational way, with no criticism intended or implied. If someone, anyone, wants to take my mentioning that something doesn't accurately reflect functionality as criticism, I really can't help it. I'm responsible only for what I actually say, not for how it's interpreted. And yes, "gasser" is a word that describes a class of race-car, and words have meanings. When we arbitrarily decide that word meanings just don't matter anymore, we start down a slippery slope, but that's another topic for another forum. Is it important for every model labeled "gasser" to accurately reflect the old class rules? No, and I've never tried to force down anyone's throat that they have to. Nor have I ever been "crude" about it. Or if you disagree, quote the "offensive" or "crude" posts, if you'd be so kind. What I have done is to remind a couple of builders, NON-CRITICALLY, that real gassers weren't built with their noses high in the air, and for very good reasons. I've spent many hours here responding to technical questions about modeling and real cars from people who seemed to want more understanding and facts, as opposed to the typical internet gibberish frequently following "I heard" or "I think", that usually comes with absolutely no basis in first-hand experience or even 'book-learning'. Part of my passion for model cars and trying to correct misconceptions and foolishness comes from my passionate life-long relationship with REAL cars, and THAT, in turn, was kindled by building models when I was a kid. I learned from those models the names of parts and assemblies, and where things were located, so I had a basis to at least partially understand what I read about the REAL cars and trains and planes. My career was the ultimate result of model-car-building, and that's why for MY OWN work, I'm a stickler for function and engineering being accurately portrayed. But I have NEVER been the one to initiate unkind criticism or name-calling...but, for pointing out somebody (including the kit-manufacturers) could have done something a little differently if they wanted to reflect reality accurately, I have been verbally attacked and called a "rivet counter", "know-it-all", "lacking in social skills" and any number of other unnecessary and unkind names when my only intent was to try to impart some accurate information when much of the world just doesn't give a damm about getting the details right. I've even been physically threatened via PM. One "adult" modeler actually stated he wished I would just die. Nice. Yet you say I'm crude. Un frigging believable. I've seen a lot of butthurt that's not the result of anything I've ACTUALLY said, but the result of somebody's INTERPRETATION of what I've said, and their apparent insecurity influencing their decision that I MUST be talking about them. I'm beginning to feel I may have wasted much of the time I've taken out of my life to write these 15.000 posts, a great many of which were full of accurate and useful information not readily available elsewhere, and which was offered in the spirit of helping members of the community, and sharing knowledge gained through my own experience. All for free, without trying to make a nickel on a single one of you with some damm click-bait blog. It was my attempt to defend the community as a whole here, from some non-modeler I saw as simply wanting a free ride on our love of the hobby, and this carp is what I get for it. Typical.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll see it.

A non-modeler comes on here wanting free advice as to how to go about setting up a blog whose real eventual purpose is just to sell stuff to modelers? Probably not even model-related stuff, because the niche companies have no marketing budgets and everyone already knows the big ones anyway, and they already have a focused presence. So, we're supposed to stand in line smiling to give quality information to somebody else who's real intent is to be making a buck on us by hawking Viagra and timeshares? Nah.

Mr Bacon, "marketing" as you define above it is not at all what I was referring to, and I think you know that. The aspect of "marketing" I find useless and annoying is my mailbox and every webpage being filled with countless clamorings for me to buy this carp or that, stuff I wouldn't take if they were GIVING it away. Another example...3M coated abrasives were once the best in the business, the hands-down industry standard. 3M was proud of the fact they spent a higher percentage of their revenues on product development and R&D than just about anyone else (which is pretty close to "marketing" as you defined it above) and it showed in the fitness of their products for the intended applications. But things have changed. I USE the products constantly, buy them out of my own revenue, and have a pretty good idea of the realities. 3M Marketing materials abound, overlapping product lines that do the same things are rampant, and much lower-cost alternatives (in the abrasives sector) that cut better AND last longer are available from other companies...but aren't heavily marketed. The people who use the alternatives have disregarded the hype, experimented with alternatives, and found superior performance for less money. I STILL buy 3M's top-line masking tapes though, simply because they're STILL the best, period. But the cost is getting to be enough to make you swoon when you see the monthly material bill...and it isn't that high because it costs that much to make the stuff.

Musta seen this guy...

Who asked you?

David, what I SAID, and not what you're reading into it, is that the hobby encompasses EVERY level of involvement, investment, skill and approach. NOBODY was singled out to be dissed or insulted. Your response to what I actually SAID is quite fascinating to me as well because YOU are one of my favorite builders. Your originality and feel for shape and line is right up there with some of the best custom-car designers around. I've never seen anything you've built that couldn't be made functional in 1:1 with some intelligent effort, either. The stuff I was specifically referring to as non-functional-in-1:1 is exemplified by ground-scraping lowness with the tops of the wheels chopped off, just for a "look", or "gassers" with the noses so high they'd flip coming out of the gate, cars with hyper-stanced negative-camber suspension or no room in the wheel-wells for steering movement, etc. That kind of modeling is fine for anyone who wants to pursue it too. I didn't insult it, nor would I. I've seen some great looking models with flat tire tops, and some gasser-inspired models that were very well done and certainly work to be proud of...but it doesn't HAVE to appeal to ME, and I'm not going to be PC'd into saying I like a build style I don't particularly care for...even though I may really admire aspects of a particular build done in that style. And I'm surprised at YOU too, Steve. What you wrote above is exactly what the words I actually WROTE mean, if you read them literally and don't go looking for something the get hurt feelings over. Again, your "offended"-ness surprises me for the same reason as David's did. You are also one of my favorite builders. The level of your finish and foil work on model after model just blows me away. If I can ever approach your level, I just MIGHT try to do something stock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ONE MORE TIME...EVERYONE READ THE WORDS I WROTE. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING THAT SHOULD OFFEND ANY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD...other than the ones who crave glowing attaboys for ill-fitting messes with grainy paint and glooey fingerprints on the windows. I guess it's just symptomatic of the times we live in that everyone is looking for something to get butthurt about, all the time, everywhere. I SAID: "These are the extreme ends of a spectrum that includes everything in between." But you know what? I'm not offended. I'm just sick of it. Ban me if it makes you all feel better.

Funny thing is that building models is JUST LIKE building real vehicles, only smaller. I don't mean to sound rude to you, or argumentative, but the terms you used in your first post ("leaf springs" and "blocks between them and the axles") have absolutely nothing to do with a vehicle that has independent suspension, so understanding that would be a good start. Your truck has front coil springs, and only stub-axles extending from the spindles. Maybe you were referring to the rear springs being leaves? If so, fine, but you really weren't specific, and if I misunderstood your meaning from reading it literally, I apologize...but simply for clarity of communication, I won't "read into" a statement something that isn't there. A REAL vehicle such as you have can be lifted in a number of ways, one being to install spacers between the cab and bed and the frame. This is really a dork way to do it, and it's just for looks, as it doesn't get any more clearance between the frame and the ground...which is the real point of lifting a vehicle that's going off-road. Lift-spindles are available for real vehicles too, and they essentially lower the front stub-axles relative to the spindles, which may be what you were thinking. On a scale model, all you have to do is cut off whatever stub axles are there and reattach them...lower. If you combine spacers between the frame and body/bed, lift blocks in the rear suspension (with higher leaf springs possibly) and a scale interpretation of "lift spindles" in front, you'll get about all that's easily achievable in scale or on a real-world truck. The next step, in front, is to cut the entire control arm loose and reattach it to the frame lower as well. This is pretty major surgery, whether for a model OR a real truck, but it's entirely do-able either way. Why anyone would want to do that to a 2WD vehicle is beyond my comprehension, as it wouldn't serve any useful off-road purpose (that I'm aware of...but off-road isn't really in my sphere of first-hand knowledge...) and would only ruin the handling of the truck in regular use. But it's your model. Look at photographs of the real thing to understand how it all works...if you don't already...and it becomes pretty obvious what needs to be relocated, or extended, or otherwise modified.

Frankly, I'd be VERY interested in a long, in depth interview with YOU. You've been a fixture in this hobby for as long as I can remember, and you had a successful real-world career in the car biz too. I'd like to know the whole story.

Good question. I've provided literally thousands of pages of quality copy, how-to info, and photographs for THIS site, as well as others, and never made a dime for it. I'd certainly be interested in writing about models for money (I have rather a lot of technical real-world material already published), but I have ZERO interest in writing about something I love while somebody who doesn't give a rat's rear about the subject rides on my back raking off all the cream. Been there, done that. Nope. How and how much do you propose to pay?

If you don't have any interest in or knowledge of what you're selling, at the very least, HIRE somebody who does. I'm sick of useless click-bait masquerading as something worth my increasingly limited time. EDIT: And I will intentionally NOT purchase products where useless BS is part of the overall marketing scheme.

To the best of my knowledge, the front suspension of a 1997 F-150 2wd truck is independent, and doesn't have "leaf springs" or a solid axle to put blocks on. That might be part of your problem.