What Do New Kits Have Inaccuracies

[Jordan White]

Jordan you are the exception to the rule on paying more. When the truck kit was being discussed there were many complaining about the price. In most cases when the price goes up you lose potential customers which could make or break a kit being released.

True, it is on the higher end of the spectrum on what I would like to pay. However, paying $30-40 for a well detailed Tamiya or Aoshima kit feels like a good deal for the content, and if Revell could make some kits with similar detail levels for the same price, then I would be satisfied with that price.

Revell kits seem to average around $25, but they generally seem to stick with details that make them feel cheap (two piece wheels anyone?). They don't have to try and fit in opening everything like some of the Level 3 kits of the past, but just providing more/better detailed parts as well as 1:1 accuracy would go a long way.

[Harry P.]

One of the reasons the "good enough" philosophy seems to have taken hold among many of the domestic kit manufacturers is partly our own fault.

Car modelers are cheap SOBs. How many times have I read posts here about how someone would never spend more than $10-20 on a kit? Answer: many times!

They complain about the cost of a kit at $25, and the model manufacturers know that most of their customers are very price-sensitive... so in order to keep the retail price of a new kit low enough to not upset the cheapskates, certain compromises must be made. Time is money, and the less time the manufacturer spends on creating that new kit, the less they can sell it for and still make a few bucks profit. I'm pretty sure that every American model car manufacturer could turn out better kits if they could do their work without being constrained to meeting a certain price point, and were allowed to do what it takes to make an accurate kit and let the MSRP be what is has to be to reflect that amount of work.

Maybe it's unfair to call car modelers "cheap." Let's say they're "price-conscious." And the reason for that, IMO, is that the vast majority of today's active model car builders are adult males in their 40s and beyond... the people who remember when a new model kit sold for two bucks. So to them, today's kits on the shelves with prices in the $20-30 range and beyond seem outrageous based on their recollections of what a kit used to cost.

So remember... if you are unwilling to pay the price for an accurate kit, don't expect to get an accurate kit.

[martinfan5]

So remember... if you are unwilling to pay the price for an accurate kit, don't expect to get an accurate kit.

Agreed

[bobthehobbyguy]

Yup I agree 100 percent.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

The times, they are a-changin', and car kits can't be two bucks anymore. Inflation says $1 in 1964 is $7.63 in today's dinero.

[JohnU]

FINALLY!! An epiphany!

[Matt Bacon]

So here's an interesting question. If I were to set up a company dedicated to producing plastic model car kits to the same standards as Wingnut Wings does for WW1 aircraft, how many people do we reckon would be prepared to pay $129 for a kit? Would $99 be more palatable? Or is there no "middle ground" between Tamiya and Model Factory Hiro? The Tamiya 300SL is about £30 in the UK, but the LaFerrari and LFA were more like £45, so that's the bench mark for "top line" quality and price here.

My hypothetical kits would be, say, a definitive E-Type Jaguar, with soft top and coupe options in the same box, a multiversion Aston Martin DB4 (with a separate option to buy short-chassis GT and Zagato bodies to convert the base kit) and an F-type with convertible and coupe options and both the V6 and V8 engines. The classics would be based on 3D scanned real cars, and the F-type would come from 3D CAD models provided by JLR. Pricing in the UK would be £79.99, say...

Is there a market for 100,000, 10,000, or 1000 of these kits, do you reckon?

bestest,

M.

[philo426]

Yes Harry!When I was a kid ,the car models cost just over $2.00 so when I see a kit at the LHS that now coats 25 bucks and the tooling is essentially the same I do hesitate to buy .THE great boon of the Hobby Lobby 40% coupon eliminates the price barrier.

[bobthehobbyguy]

That $2 kit cost $25 now for a variety of reasons. Yes the tooling was done a while back but say it the case of Amt the tooling was purchased fro the previous entry owner and they need to get a return on investment. Then there are licensing costs, higher cost of labor and raw matrrials, and lower volumes of production. All of these things contribute to the current price.

[Art Anderson]

That $2 kit cost $25 now for a variety of reasons. Yes the tooling was done a while back but say it the case of Amt the tooling was purchased fro the previous entry owner and they need to get a return on investment. Then there are licensing costs, higher cost of labor and raw matrrials, and lower volumes of production. All of these things contribute to the current price.

And, just to mention--with a company such as Round2, they are dealing with a lot of model kit tooling that's 40-perhaps 55 years old now--and a lot has happened in the meantime. The idea that one can simply pop any old model kit tooling into the injection molder, press the start button and out come fresh styrene model car kits--would that this were true. But, it's not.

For starters, any tooling properly stored has to be laboriously cleaned, to wash completely away the Cosmoline or whatever greasy rust-preventer was used when the tooling was last placed into storage--that stuff gets into every tiny passage, every nook and cranny of the actual tooling surfaces, and if not thoroughly washed away before injecting molten plastic--VERY imperfect kits, with veins of dark brown grease throughout the sprues and parts. Then, all surfaces need to be examined closely--are there now surface defects (anything from tiny rust pits to perhaps gouges from the improper use of hand tools used to remove a stubborn model kit part (if you ever saw or built AMT's Kenworth W-900 conventional tractor in say, the late 1970's (think "Movin' On") you'd have noticed numerous raised, sharp "bumps in the roof of the cab--I was told at the time that a foreman on the night shift very early in the production of that kit (which came out in 1971, faced with a partial cab stuck in the mold, took matters in his own hand, with a hardened screwdriver and a hammer to "chisel' the offending plastic away so that he could keep his production numbers up. My informant related that he no longer had to worry about "production numbers" but rather finding a new job somewhere else. If there are surface defects, can they be repaired, or not? If they are really small, chances are they won't be.

Next, are all the alignment pins (those that ensure that both halves of the tooling are in alignment) straight, and not excessively worn? If so, they need to be replaced, and the bores in the opposite tool much also be checked for wear, and this corrected at the same time, so that new alignment pins can be made to the correct oversize, then pressed into their half of the tooling. The same checks have to be made to the body shell tooling, which generally is made up of six moving tooling sections--and they have to fit as advertised, lest there be unacceptable flash and/or misaligned surfaces. This is perhaps the most exacting, and yet frustrating part of the process, for both the toolmakers and the end users, who are us. Finally, all those absolutely necessary (but to us modelers, often exaperating!) "ejector pins" have to be checked, for absolute straightness and any undue wear--any that are bent, or worn, will have to be replaced, and their locating and recieving holes reamed to a minutely larger diameter for precision. All of this requires time, and perhaps the most expensive workers in any injection molding factory.

Finally, the size of a production run plays a big part in how all this tooling setup process affects the retail selling price. The larger the production run, the smaller the added cost per kit will be--basic math there. With a new kit, the expected first production runs will be larger than those for reissues--again this will be based on past experience, and good accounting in the office, but it all affects costs and ultimately, the selling price asked. Of course, the costs for new decal sheets, instruction sheets, and box art do add in there, and the costs for those may well be larger than the so-called average inflation rate since the 1960's (not everything we buy has seen the same rate of inflation--some more, some less, and some about the same as the average. And finally here, licensing--while not huge, licensing royalties are in many cases a higher percentage of the model kit than they were 40-50 years ago--and that simply has to be dealt with, not much room for negotiations there either.

All of this simply is part of the equation.

Art

[philo426]

A complex issue for sure!Thanks for the informative post!

[bobthehobbyguy]

Thanks Art for your informative post

[Bob Ellis]

Again, we are still talking about economics , and not fidelity of shape, which is what I thought this post was about?

[bobthehobbyguy]

Economics and scale fidelity are related. The price affects what can be achieved in the final product. Harry hit the nail on the head in post 103.

Also if you go back to the op it was discussing all factors that can contibute to scale fidelity.

Edited April 27, 2015 by bobthehobbyguy

[Art Anderson]

Again, we are still talking about economics , and not fidelity of shape, which is what I thought this post was about?

Perhaps I can illustrate: Nearly 40 years ago, I made the acquaintance of a man who was a model kit pattern-maker for Monogam Models. I'm not going to identify him (that's not necessary), but he was one of the most meticulous modelers I've ever known. In the early 1980's J hit on the idea of creating a series of 1:43 scale Indianapolis 500 winning cars, to be cast in that new-fangled medium, urethane resin. Over the next several years, whenever we'd meet up, he'd show me progress on his first master (1957 Belond Exhaust Special), and it looked PERFECT each and every time I saw it. J wasn't quite satisfied with it, however--pointing out this or that miniscule detail that he didn't like. On and on it went.

I last saw J at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in July 1994, during practice and qualifying for the inaugural Brickyard 400. "Is that Belond Spl" ready for casting up yet, I asked. "No, not quite, perhaps in another couple of months" came the reply. However, he passed away not too long after that last meetup--that 1:43 scale project and his dream of a line of 1:43 scale Indy winners unrealized.

It's quite possible to create that perfectly accurate, awesome model car kit, but time is money, and money necessarily will be limited in every model company on the planet--that's a fact of business life. So, at some point in the process, someone necessarily will step in, call a halt to the perfection of a new model kit, and have it sent to tooling. A successful product development team will do their very best within the limitations of both money and time, to get that model kit to production with a minimum of niggles, but to achieve absolute perfection--most generally that just isn't possible (not to mention that what may well look right to one modeler here will appear to be a glaring error to another one elsewhere).

I would submit that even Tamiya doesn't always get it right--weren't there a lot of disparaging comments about a pair of Jeep vehicles they did in 1/24 scale more than 20 years ago? And, who's going to take any model kit of an exotic sports car, go seek out the real one, and compare that model with it to find any mistakes? Not many, I would submit--no, absent any glaring mistake(s), we tend to accept it as the model kit it is. Perhaps that's the difference between being an automotive modeler vs a kit assembler (no criticism whatsoever of anyone reading or posting in this thread, OK?)

Art

[Monty]

It's quite possible to create that perfectly accurate, awesome model car kit, but time is money, and money necessarily will be limited in every model company on the planet--that's a fact of business life. So, at some point in the process, someone necessarily will step in, call a halt to the perfection of a new model kit, and have it sent to tooling. A successful product development team will do their very best within the limitations of both money and time, to get that model kit to production with a minimum of niggles, but to achieve absolute perfection--most generally that just isn't possible (not to mention that what may well look right to one modeler here will appear to be a glaring error to another one elsewhere).

I would submit that even Tamiya doesn't always get it right--weren't there a lot of disparaging comments about a pair of Jeep vehicles they did in 1/24 scale more than 20 years ago? And, who's going to take any model kit of an exotic sports car, go seek out the real one, and compare that model with it to find any mistakes? Not many, I would submit--no, absent any glaring mistake(s), we tend to accept it as the model kit it is. Perhaps that's the difference between being an automotive modeler vs a kit assembler (no criticism whatsoever of anyone reading or posting in this thread, OK?)

Art

Too bad Chuck K isn't here to poke holes in your "no such thing as perfection" means of deflection, but I'll be happy to do it in his absence. No one is expecting perfection, even from Tamiya.

Second, feel free to address the points I made in my previous post. Despite teams being sent out to photograph & measure the pertinent aspects of a car they hope to turn into a kit, we still get stupid mistakes like the Lindberg 442's hood, which was originally tooled up with a raised center section instead of the recessed section Olds designed. Sorry, but when you had photographs to work with, that's not a niggle, that's a mixture of indifference and incompetence. And more egregiously, despite the presence of a "professional development team" we still got Monogram's bloated '69 Camaro and Revell's chopped top ProModeler Charger. Was Stevie Wonder in charge of these teams?

I've noticed that you like to try and hide behind that "automotive modeler vs kit assembler" line, but did you honestly expect anyone, including the "automotive modelers" to just accept the Charger for what it was, let alone try to fix that roof?

[Art Anderson]

Monty: "I've noticed that you like to try and hide behind that "automotive modeler vs kit assembler" line, but did you honestly expect anyone, including the "automotive modelers" to just accept the Charger for what it was, let alone try to fix that roof? "

Nowhere in any discussions have I ever denigrated anyone for being merely a "kit assembler" as opposed to a "modeler"--but that is a comparison that does get tossed around an awful lot. But, let's face it: While message boards and forums such as this one are well-populated with highly knowledgeable modelers, they are pretty much the very top reaches of a much larger pyramid--behind them are hundreds of thousands of model car builders who really don't get as deeply into scale modeling as you or me--or for that matter perhaps most who make up the content of MCM Forums. Those tend to be the ones who enjoy model car building, but may well not be all that concerned with the finer points of accuracy--and that's an observation, not a criticsm--most all of us have spent our share of time at that level as well, your's truly included.

As for the Lindberg Cutlass 442 in question, that kit was tooled in China, and apparently not enough followup happened on this side of the pond to catch that hood discrepancy before kits went into production, ultimately landing on store shelves here in the US. I would chalk that one up to inexperience on somebody's part--after all, truly professional, experienced model car kit development people aren't exactly growing on trees. Along that same line, I would wonder if the Revell-Monogram Charger roof you mention (and I do have one of the inaccurately done kits in my stash here still!) may well have happened at a point in time when that company was going through some transitions--lose an experienced pattern-maker here, a knowledgeable product development guy there, and such glaring errors can, and do happen. Both of these are issues that any model company has, and will face periodically.

It's to the point that any model company (or representatives therein) probably should no longer show even a nearly finished test shot of a kit, lest the public who sees pics of such seem to automatically assume that what they are seeing in test shots will be exactly what they will find when they crack open the box of any newly issued model car kit--the criticism of such test shots has gotten to that level of vituperation, frankly.

Art

[bobthehobbyguy]

The Monogram Promodeler Charger is a good example of a worst case scenario. Revell offered to replace the bodys from those that requested a proper body. Once a product gets in the market it is the most expensive way to have to deal with an issue. Also I wonder how many took them up on the offer. Definitely not a profitable situation. Who knows what the root cause was. Was there an measuring error or a problem with the photos? Remember unless somebody in the process knows what the charger looks like the photos and measurements are what is gone by.

The

Art I agree with you on holding back on the test shots. Seems like it causes more grief. Art thanks for proiding your insights on the process.

[Monty]

Art, I will always have to defer to your knowledge of the entire model manufacturing process, from initial research to final boxed product, but while you and Bob may not want those of us who comprise "the great unwashed" to see test shots etc, wouldn't something like that have prevented Revell's Charger from being released and (expensively) replaced?

It just seems like you're saying the model companies' mistakes can always be explained away (inexperience, lack of followup) but again, assuming the Chinese are provided with all the measurements as well as reference pictures, how does anyone get something as simple as the hood wrong?

Question for my own knowledge: in a typical model company's hierarchy, who is ultimately responsible for the final product? I just can't fathom anyone at Revell seeing that Charger roofline and saying "Good 'nuf for me. Box 'em up!"

[Deano]

Art, I will always have to defer to your knowledge of the entire model manufacturing process, from initial research to final boxed product, but while you and Bob may not want those of us who comprise "the great unwashed" to see test shots etc, wouldn't something like that have prevented Revell's Charger from being released and (expensively) replaced?

It just seems like you're saying the model companies' mistakes can always be explained away (inexperience, lack of followup) but again, assuming the Chinese are provided with all the measurements as well as reference pictures, how does anyone get something as simple as the hood wrong?

Question for my own knowledge: in a typical model company's hierarchy, who is ultimately responsible for the final product? I just can't fathom anyone at Revell seeing that Charger roofline and saying "Good 'nuf for me. Box 'em up!"

The only Pro Modeler Charger I can quickly lay hand on is the Daytona and guess what? At the time it was done Revell was a division of Hallmark; the greeting card people. Still wanna bet no one said "Good 'nuf, box 'em up"?

[Art Anderson]

The only Pro Modeler Charger I can quickly lay hand on is the Daytona and guess what? At the time it was done Revell was a division of Hallmark; the greeting card people. Still wanna bet no one said "Good 'nuf, box 'em up"?

I suspect that was a big part of the equation for Revell-Monogram at the time. Not only was the parent corporation Hallmark Cards, but R-M was placed within the Crayola Crayons group (like what kind of message about model cars being kid stuff did they not kowtow to?). And yes, I'd be VERY sure that there was a rather closely defined budget in place, PLUS an overwhelming need to please the Nabobs at Walmart down in Bentonville AR, to meet their then-quarterly store resets (if a vendor misses a re-setting deadline with any outfit that large, they stand to lose a pretty big sale (Walmart used to by model car kits by the 10's of thousands!), and quite possibly future retail space within the stores themselves! There's another pressure-caused motivation to "get the product out the door ASAP", perhaps regardless of whether it meets general expection of consumers (of such are product recalls often generated!). That goes right back to a phrase I wrote earlier today: "....time is money, and money is time...."

Unless one has been in a miniature/model kit product development situation (and I have) at some time in their working lives, it's surely difficult to understand, to comprehend. I do tend to believe that in the case of Revell-Monogram and that aforesaid Dodge Charger--there had to have been a lot of red faces, along with "under the breath" mutterings along the lines of "WE told you it wasn't ready!!!!" somewhere along the way.

With larger model kit companies, the top floor corner office must get more and more distant, aloof, with each passing year, or so it would seem.

Art

[bobthehobbyguy]

With the Hallmark cars and crayola connection its surprising the charger only had a chopped roof.

Art given those circumstances we were probably lucky that the charger didn't look worse. Again thanks for the insights.

[Foxer]

there's 3 things .. time, money and quality .. pick 2

[Bob Ellis]

Although I believe the answer is that computers have created a somewhat square-ness to the new kits, some of you are indicating that there is not enough manpower (or money) to ensure the correctness.

Probably why the Moebius Models are good because he went the extra mile to solicit comments and make the corrections despite extending the shipping date.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Also moebius kit msrp is $30 vs $25 for revell and Amt. All depends on their business model and what they feel works for them.