Ace-Garageguy

Yeah, I read that sentence. I understood it too. That doesn't change the fact that you need a broad general-knowledge base to intelligently determine where on the internet to search, and to determine where you find accurate information, based on an ability to think logically and follow a chain of reasoning. The broad general-knowledge base of high-school graduates (and many university graduates, as well as advanced degree holders) is becoming sorely lacking. Not requiring essay-style answers and research papers that help develop logical reasoning skills and comprehension compounds the problem. Reading comprehension in general is falling rapidly too. Combine those three factors, and you get a populace that can't determine the validity of the information they're confronted with...no matter WHERE it comes from. This is why we get large groups of people who believe that the Earth as a sphere (more-or-less) is only a "theory", mindless and ignorant racism (though the study of mitochondrial DNA has just about proven beyond doubt that everyone on the planet is descended from a common, probably BLACK ancestor), the idea that the climate isn't getting warmer (it really is), that the warming is man-made (nobody really REALLY knows)...and a host of other things legions of people believe because of ignorance.

The world didn't change as fast when I was a kid, so not-quite-current information wasn't as much of an issue in science and technology as it is today. BUT...you'll find a lot of outdated information on the web, too (besides being just flat wrong). I always try to find dates on what I find on the net, and quite often it's at LEAST two years old...when it's dated at all. That is why I subscribe to several technical and scientific journals and web services and belong to the Society of Automotive Engineers (as well as other professional technical groups)...so that the information I consider to be important will be relatively current when I get it, or so that I have access to searchable and DATED databases for same. I certainly don't disagree that having the web makes current and correct information available better than ever before in human history (as I've stated before in different words), but to get full value from a particular resource, you need to be able to judge its validity, and this requires a broad knowledge base that's becoming lacking in today's "educated" masses. And THAT is what the main point of this thread is.

Re: Internet "learning" Let's take two accepted sources of information and compare them...traditional encyclopedias and Wikipedia. In the bygone days of my youth, you could rely almost 100% on whatever you read in something like Encyclopedia Britannica, because the entries were edited, in large part, by acknowledged experts in their respective fields. Effort was put into fact-checking extensively to insure that information presented was true and correct. Now let's look at Wikipedia, the "source" many people now accept as the repository of all knowledge. Wikipee is great as far as it goes, BUT entries can be posted and edited by any fool who's mastered point-and-click, and who can type with one or two fingers...whether he actually KNOWS what he's talking about or not. I've encountered so many errors in Wikipee over the years I stopped counting. It seems to be getting more accurate, as more responsible volunteers make an effort to correct things that are patently wrong, but it's STILL subject to presenting information put up by idiots...and believed by masses of other idiots. The internet is probably the greatest tool in the history of humankind for distributing knowledge, surpassing even the printing press. It also has the greatest potential for distributing lies and BS. It takes an informed user with a sound knowledge BASE to know the difference.

On the surface, that seems to be a perfectly logical position. Unfortunately, there's a lot of WRONG information on the internet (much of it repeated so many times that many Google results return the same incorrect gibberish from what appear to be multiple sources) so that someone lacking a STRONG base of what used to be termed "common knowledge", and with poor critical-thinking skills, is apt to accept mindlessly repeated BS as fact. I encounter this constantly when trying to piece together ACCURATE information on a variety of technical subjects. I firmly believe that, at this point, a large number of internet "expert sources" are completely worthless, and "fact checking" before publishing material seems to be a largely unknown concept within the electronic media. What passes for internet "journalism" is often a joke (if the reader is at all familiar with the subject, anyway). My more intelligent peers agree. You HAVE to know a fair bit about something in the first place to be able to distinguish between fact, opinion, and just plain carp on the web...or anywhere else. The whole purpose of primary education is, in theory, to provide a foundation of basic knowledge, and a minimum skill-set (reading, writing, 'rithmetic) so that someone can absorb more complex and in-depth information after they have a basis from which to understand and interpret it. From what I can tell, primary education is lately failing to provide that basis.

I like it. Putting a really wild paint job on one of these things is probably the best idea out there, as the body has so many unfortunate problems. Your other modifications look good too. I especially like that fuel-injection manifold. Do you happen to remember which kit that engine / manifold is from?

Still streetable, but a little more brutal...

Funny how that works sometimes, and you can bet they all know how to do cool little thumb-things with their smart-devices...yet they don't know enough to check the oil in their cars, how to change a flat, calculate a 20% tip in their heads or do slightly harder arithmetic with a pencil on paper...but they look at an old fart who only has a flip-phone (but can fly a plane and if necessary make ANY part in it) like he's a Luddite moron.

Boy, that's about the most non-PC name I've ever heard for a color. I love it.

The way things stand now, I'll be working close to full time until the day I fall off my perch...which is OK by me.

A LOT of slicks in the early days were built on used carcasses that already had info molded in to the sidewalls, so a Q&D couple of grooves cut in a slick retread could get you by a cop who didn't have a rag on that day...but not always, and not everywhere.

You have, and it was for exactly the reason you cite...to try to sneak by the letter of the DOT regs minimum tread requirements while being the kool guy running slicks. Cutting grooves in tire treads was common practice on dirt-racing tires and truck tires too. You could even (still can !) buy an electric "grooving iron", kinda like a big version of the notorious Autoworld hot-knife. It's a smelly process, believe me.

If there's EXCESSIVE tube-type glue between the parts, and / or if the solvent-action of the glue hasn't thoroughly "welded" the plastic parts to each other, then freezing will indeed embrittle the glue and allow the joints to snap more easily. Unfortunately, if a solvent-type glue HAS achieved good penetration and "welding" of the plastic parts, about all you'll get is an embrittlement of the whole mess, and the parts may or may not snap on the glue-line. Misting or dipping assemblies in water prior to freezing can sometimes be beneficial as well, because water MAY penetrate into gaps between ill-fitting parts, and as it freezes and expands, it MAY force the joint apart. These are trial-and-error methods, and don't always work equally well, or even work at all.

Just in case it's not clear in the engineering drawings above, there are 3 fans inside the black wrinkle-finish housing, each fan taking air in at the center and blowing over the horizontally-opposed pair of cylinders.

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. I haven't done any serous RR modeling in many years, but I love it, and your work really is inspiring. Maybe once I finally get settled somewhere and know it will be permanent...

This will work for just about any styrene I-beam or tubular front axle you may wish to convert to pose-able steering...for hot-rods, gassers, trucks, antique and classic cars, etc. The work shown here is a little on the Q&D side, but take your time, work carefully, and it can be very very nice indeed. The axle in the photo has had everything but the actual ends where the kingpins would go carefully filed off, and squared up. I drill the ends with a .020" drill in a pin vise, because I use straight-pins (which usually have a .020" shaft) for the kingpin material. It's plenty strong. When I drill, I drill a little from each side, a little at a time, being VERY careful to keep the drill bit square with the axle. The holes will meet eventually, and this keeps the drill from going too far off center (as it could if you try to drill all the way through from only one side). There's a semi-completed spindle on the left hand, made up of the parts on the right. The spindle is made of a section of styrene channel that's the right inside height to fit over the axle ends, a dot of styrene sheet popped out with a paper punch, and a short length of 1/16 styrene rod for the stub-axle (inserted and glued into a hole carefully drilled in the rest of the assembled spindle). Once everything is glued and set-up square, you fit the angle parts of the spindles over the axle ends and mark where the centers of the kingpin holes need to go and drill them with the .020" bit. If everything goes right, you can then insert pins in the kingpin holes and cut them to length. Last part is to trim and round the ears of the angle part of the spindles, and glue on the brake backing plate of choice.

The first question is how much do you want to lower the profile of the car? (It's best to establish the final ride-height first too, as it will have an effect on how a chop is perceived). The second question is how the chosen amount of chop is going to affect the rake of the A-pillar, whether or not you come straight down on the B-pillar (and whether you elect to rake it forward or rearward), and how much flattening of the backlite and forward rake of the C-pillar is going to be necessary. Third question is what this amount of lowering does to the proportional relationships between the window openings and the rest of the visual masses. Some people like the gun-turret (mail-slot) look, some don't. Fourth question is whether or not you want to enlarge or otherwise modify the window openings to address these relationships, and if so, which windows (sometimes only the windshield and / or backlite are adjusted, sometimes all of them, sometimes none). All these questions are interrelated and changing one often requires changing another, and so on, until a coherent projected design emerges. Only then do you start cutting, after making the decision as to which of the techniques, or combinations of techniques, you'll employ. The talented and highly-skilled pros make it look easy, like they just start whacking and welding, but this is what their brains are actually doing as they work. It's necessary to "walk around" the car as the work progresses too, as making a good-looking change in one plane may very well have an adverse effect when the car is viewed from a different angle. Unless you're working with a very good 3D computer model to plan a chop, there's no way to visualize all the effects a change in one dimension will have on the other two without cutting and tacking and looking. Chops that go forward without this kind of analysis and planning usually don't flow well and have clumsy proportions, at least from some perspectives.

Nicely done, well photographed, subtle, good wheel and color choice and very clean BMF.

I'm honestly not certain, but my tired old mind wants to say the real '60s cheaters were in the 7" to 10" range. That would be 7mm to 10mm in 1/25 scale, which seems about right. A 1/25 scale slick that is 1" wide would be over 25" in reality...FAR too wide for super-stock. The Lindberg '64 SS Dodge kits include slicks that are 10mm wide, or about 10 inches in reality. I know that doesn't answer your question on the Comp Resins parts, but at least it lets you approximate how wide scale-correct tires should be.

Here's a thread on the old Mooneyes dragster...

An ex-member called jbwelda (Willliam Just) built some great ones, but though his thread remains, unfortunately all his photos are gone.

Back in July, this topic was discussed at some length. Unfortunately, the thread seems to have disappeared, and the MCM site's current configuration sometimes returns odd results when using the search method posted at the head of this topic block. As the curve of the blinds is hardly noticeable in 1/25 scale, I'd suggest using thin (.005") cardstock for the slats, and cut a modified stair-step pattern (much smaller than shown, of course) from maybe .010" styrene to hang them on.

Yes, I CAN read. I was adding information. I'm curious as to what the original kit carbs look like.

I think Mr. Boutte has one of the best senses of proportion and line in the model-car world. Plus, his craftsmanship is beyond reproach. If he does it that way, that's pretty much guaranteed to be the way to do it. His results speak for themselves.

The real engine is shown equipped with two, 3-barrel Webers, as were fitted to the early Porsche 911 engines. The model shots appear to be six, 1-barrel Stromberg 97s, or something visually similar.

Another few words of caution: cutting the roof of these cars into multiple sections as shown on the post above is NOT recommended (by me), as it creates a vast amount of additional work, introduces HUGE potential to get things all wonky and out-of-square, is rarely done on a real car, and is simply unnecessary. You MAY find you want to lengthen the roof both forward and behind the door-cut-line on the B-pillar, but generally, just leaning the A-pillar back does the trick in front (and makes the car look slipperier). Widening the roof like this before you drop it can also lead to a car that has a too-fat-at-the-top appearance. It's done to get the pillars to line up (and on a real car, to avoid the necessity of modifying the window tracks to accommodate a different angle of inward-tilt) but that is MUCH better achieved on a model by pie-cutting the pillars, or simply bending them to where they need to be. Just remember that pleasing proportions are the single most important goal in chopping a car.