What Do New Kits Have Inaccuracies

[johnbuzzed]

I'll play. They can say "It's good enough" when they quit screwing up obvious body issues and eliminate some of the really silly errors. Here's an example. From top to bottom these are Revell, AMT & MPC '69 Mustang bodies. The AMT is the most accurate and served as the basis for Missing Links' resin kit. Look at the Revell side window. It's virtually a triangle, while the AMT kit looks far more like the 1:1 item. (BTW, this body, with this window design, originated with the Boss 429 kit in 1982. Revell kept this triangular side window when they tooled up the '70 Mach 1 a few years ago) In a related vein, we probably made a millionare out of that Russian resin caster who was offering the fix-it kit for the front end of Revell's '69 Mustang. Apparently I wasn't the only one who thought Revell made that Mustang too ugly to build.

Want some proportional issues? This is why so many on here praise the JoHan craftsmen who were in charge of bodies. More often than not it takes an artist's eye to get some of these things right. I've been told that this Camaro is dimensionally correct, but it looks pregnant & you couldn't give me this kit. OTOH, Revell did an outstanding job on their '69 Camaro.

I referred to silly errors earlier, and I'm sure most of us can think of some, but one that comes immediately to mind for me was Lindberg's initial release of their '67 442. The 1:1 car has a slightly lower center section of the hood; Lindberg made theirs with a raised center section (eventually corrected). Or take Revell's ProModeler '69 Charger. More bells, more whistles, more money...and a pre-chopped top. To their credit they made offers to replace all those bodies, but HTH did that thing make it to production in the first place? If they'll hire me, I'll gladly play Office Linebacker & try to stop as many of these errors as possible before they become "uncorrectable".

In the situation with that Charger, Revell sent me a whole, new kit- even the decal sheet had been changed.

[Longbox55]

Harry this is not the first time I have read this car was dimensionally correct . Now I ask what if this truly is dimensionally correct ? Does this say our eyes are bad? Does this say that every car done in scale we like is off? Things to ponder over coffee in the morning for you.

I've been told the same thing. It's all about perception and the angles that the model is being viewed from compared to how the 1:1 is viewed.

[Monty]

In the situation with that Charger, Revell sent me a whole, new kit- even the decal sheet had been changed.

Having spent several years doing product returns for the computer industry, I assumed Revell was going to have me ship the chopped kit back to them first. Like you, I was pleasantly surprised that I was allowed to keep the original and still get a new, corrected kit from them. Sad that it happened. but good move on their part.

[1930fordpickup]

I've been told the same thing. It's all about perception and the angles that the model is being viewed from compared to how the 1:1 is viewed.

Well said.

I wonder if my buddy will let me get the tape measure out next to his very nice 69 Z28. I do not think he will let me. LOL

[Tom Geiger]

Here we are again. I'm not even gonna comment.

I've never seen so many uninformed opinions in one place. You say you are looking for answers, but when Dave Metzner came on the board, the one guy who is doing it absolutely right in this business in today's environment, the board goobs argued with him.

When people who have experience in the business and do understand the industry offer insights, the board goobs argue with and belittle them. Overall, you've all done a fine job of chasing away any industry savvy people from the board. So you won't get any relevant insights. Not that you'd realize they were relevant.

There is a certain faction on this board who have no professional background or understanding of the development of a model kit to today's standards and budgets. They continue to post their narrow view of the world. But they pretty much tell us "I have no idea..." with every post!

Here's a few facts...

+ What Johan or any other manufacturer did in the 1960s has no relation to today's business model

+ What Tamiya or any other Japanese manufacturer does today, has zero relevance to the USA kit market. Totally different business model.

+ The designs of the 1980s that are used for reference.... AMT '55 Chevy pickup, '66 Nova and '58 Plymouth cannot be used as an example of Round 2 today... the AMT of that era is long gone, ownership changed, entire personnel change over. Kinda like comparing a 1985 Chevy to the 2015 model.

+ Forget the blue collar whine, "that big multi international company is conspiring to take advantage of little ole me" The model companies of today are tiny little entities just trying to produce product to today's conditions.

Those of us who understand project management, budgets, return on investment and other business realities are totally amazed that today's model companies pull off what they do. It's truly amazing. If any of you actually listen.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Tom Geiger

[Bob Ellis]

Sounds like mixing apples and oranges. Technical issues versus economic issues.

[Harry P.]

Tom, you sound like you're doing your best to justify the "it's good enough" mentality.

Are you suggesting that today's "business model" doesn't allow for scale fidelity? Sure sounds to me like that's what you're saying.

I think that's a pretty weak excuse for mediocrity.

[bobthehobbyguy]

My two cents. There are deadlines to be meet. There are multiple projects going on at the same time. There are multiple factors that cause inaccuracies to be introduced. Bottom line every project has a budget and hours scheduled.

With multiple online sources we can get kit reviews before we commit our case.

Either buy a kit or don't. Its really that simple. Just don't start anothervthread on this subject.

[Monty]

Here we are again. I'm not even gonna comment. Au contraire...

I've never seen so many uninformed opinions in one place. You say you are looking for answers, but when Dave Metzner came on the board, the one guy who is doing it absolutely right in this business in today's environment, the board goobs argued with him. I wonder if some of them were among those "goobs" who provided accurate commentary that helped improve the Hudson. Or maybe you're thinking of the "goobs" who pointed out the issues with the new Pontiac wheels.

When people who have experience in the business and do understand the industry offer insights, the board goobs argue with and belittle them. Overall, you've all done a fine job of chasing away any industry savvy people from the board. So you won't get any relevant insights. Not that you'd realize they were relevant.

There is a certain faction on this board who have no professional background or understanding of the development of a model kit to today's standards and budgets. They continue to post their narrow view of the world. But they pretty much tell us "I have no idea..." with every post!

Here's a few facts...

+ What Johan or any other manufacturer did in the 1960s has no relation to today's business model

Those of us who understand project management, budgets, return on investment and other business realities are totally amazed that today's model companies pull off what they do. It's truly amazing. If any of you actually listen.

From what I've read, JoHan was more or less the American Motors Co. of modeling, with the smallest staff and least money of the major US model mfrs of their time. The JoHan bodies are constantly brought up in these conversations because they seemed to do the best job capturing the nuances of various car bodies at that time. I'm sure you could point out an error or two that they made, but I'll bet you any error that you mention won't even compare with Revell's chopped '69 Charger or that bloated Monogram Camaro I posted.

Sounds like you're suggesting that we just blithely accept whatever errors happen because "budgets, ROI and other business realities" take precedence over getting the obvious things correct.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Monty

[keyser]

Here we are again. I'm not even gonna comment.

<lots of comments; blame for driving off people; calling people out for not "understanding 'bidness'"; calling a group (can't tell what characteristics they have) goobs; stating what companies did with analog measurement and contemporary Japanese kit makers(Europe ignored) are irrelevant>

Harry P said it best.

[highway]

Here we are again. I'm not even gonna comment.

I've never seen so many uninformed opinions in one place. You say you are looking for answers, but when Dave Metzner came on the board, the one guy who is doing it absolutely right in this business in today's environment, the board goobs argued with him.

When people who have experience in the business and do understand the industry offer insights, the board goobs argue with and belittle them. Overall, you've all done a fine job of chasing away any industry savvy people from the board. So you won't get any relevant insights. Not that you'd realize they were relevant.

There is a certain faction on this board who have no professional background or understanding of the development of a model kit to today's standards and budgets. They continue to post their narrow view of the world. But they pretty much tell us "I have no idea..." with every post!

Here's a few facts...

+ What Johan or any other manufacturer did in the 1960s has no relation to today's business model

+ What Tamiya or any other Japanese manufacturer does today, has zero relevance to the USA kit market. Totally different business model.

+ The designs of the 1980s that are used for reference.... AMT '55 Chevy pickup, '66 Nova and '58 Plymouth cannot be used as an example of Round 2 today... the AMT of that era is long gone, ownership changed, entire personnel change over. Kinda like comparing a 1985 Chevy to the 2015 model.

+ Forget the blue collar whine, "that big multi international company is conspiring to take advantage of little ole me" The model companies of today are tiny little entities just trying to produce product to today's conditions.

Those of us who understand project management, budgets, return on investment and other business realities are totally amazed that today's model companies pull off what they do. It's truly amazing. If any of you actually listen.

Tom, you sound like you're doing your best to justify the "it's good enough" mentality.

Are you suggesting that today's "business model" doesn't allow for scale fidelity? Sure sounds to me like that's what you're saying.

I think that's a pretty weak excuse for mediocrity.

I agree, and not bashing or knocking Moebius with my following comment, but just simply showing another example of the "it's good enough" kits being offered. I just recentlly purchased these two kits, the newly offered smoothside and the original issue 53' trailer.

I may not be an "expert" in model making, but when it comes to anything truck related, I know what I'm talking about since I have been driving them for 17 years. The kits themselves are not bad, and the new smoothside is better than the original with the panel rivet detail that the original kit lacks, but there are still some things on both that I would have at least liked to have seen corrected on the smoothside that was not done (and talked about at length in threads) on the original, but the new version still lacks. Other than the original not having any side panel rivet detail that the new issue DOES have, both have great details right next to details that are missing, and this pic I took at work shows two of my "it's not good enough" examples.

The first is the biggest issue to me and a few other truck modelers I know, the black area on the refrigeration (reefer) unit is the controls to operate the unit and is what keeps your ice cream cold! The unit itself in the kit is a beautiful replication of the 1:1, except for the controls, there is no hint of this area even as a score line or decal, and before the "it would be too hard to scale" comments come flying, AMT had this detail on their 70s era reefer trailers, even this 1/32 scale! It's a little hard to see because of the angle, but there is at least detailing on the unit to replicate the controls, and in the 70s it wasn't an LCD screen like today, it was gauges and switches. I'm pretty sure Italeri also had this detail, or at least a decal of it, on the American reefer trailer they offered.

The other little "good enough" is right below the reefer unit, and that is the air brake (gladhand) connections and electrical connection box in the lower right hand corner of the 1:1 pic. Moebius did an OUTSTANDING job replicating the electrical connection, it is the best I have seen in any scale. The shape and size look dead on to the 1:1, so close in fact that if I could scale down my 1:1 tractor, I could hook it up and go! Oh wait, no I couldn't, because there is no where to hook my air lines to release the brakes!! There are two locating holes that make me wonder if the gladhand details were intended but overlooked somehow, but still overlooked regardless. There are a few other details that I don't particularly care for, like the fixed rear suspension that slides for weigh distribution on the 1:1 (and again, something that can be done in scale because even the 1/32 scale from AMT as well as there other 1/25 scale offerings from the 70s have movable axles) and the air supply tank that mounts to the sliding axle assembly on the 1:1 but to the floor of the kit, but I can modify those if I so choose, but at $50 a kit (which is not far off the foreign competition), is it too much to ask that these details (and the lack of the rivet detail on the original trailer) be included, especially when the box for both claim "Super Detailed"?

As I said, I'm not bashing the kits or their manufacturer, but merely stating a point. I feel in the case of these two kits, just as windshield height or some of the other well noted inaccuracies of kits as of late are to car modelers, these are just more cases of inaccuracies to a couple of otherwise fine kits, and examples of "Well, it's good enough". It's not "good enough", the details I've mentioned are details I use every day in the 1:1 world and am trained to pay attention to and inspect during my day.

[johnbuzzed]

The business environment is dynamic and will continue to be. But that is no excuse for poor workmanship, shoddy QC, or bad judgement. Most, if not all of the changes that take place are designed to improve things. In some cases, they simply don't. Too many business philosophies (for lack of better descriptor) have been introduced and they simply aren't as effective as they were originally thought to be. Take "5S" (please). That was developed in the '50s by an American, to be used by Japanese industry to help it recover from WWII. Sixty years ago it did, but no longer; Japan's economy isn't too great and South Korea is kicking butt; yet, our corporations and companies, big and small, have tried to adopt the same philosophy, and it doesn't help (do I really need to label where my stapler should be?). I see it every day. We continue to have the problems that I mentioned earlier in this post. I can clear all the stuff from the floor in my area, but if the clown who runs the warehouse doesn't know how to stock things efficiently, my clear aisle and correctly-placed stapler ain't gonna help production at all. Too much emphasis on inane BS, not enough attention on what really counts. I DO NOT mean the bottom line.

American ingenuity and common sense did a lot for the nation's manufacturing during WWII and it can do the same today. Basic kindergarten principles can be applied successfully in any business situation. We need to continue to learn from past triumphs as well as past mistakes.

You're telling me that Johan of the '60s has no relation to today's business model? BS. They must have done SOMETHING right. Perhaps, it's time to see what that was and how it can be done today. Or, what they did wrong, and how to rectify that.

Edited April 23, 2015 by johnbuzzed

[Bob Ellis]

I think this discussion has gone way off course....

Before I go further, I have to say that Moebius Models is doing a great job. I know he cares.

Here is the question; Just for an example, how come the AMT '64 Falcon looks on the money, but the Trumpeter '64 Falcon is not. The front grille not even close. You would think that it might be better with today's technology?

[sjordan2]

I think this discussion has gone way off course.

I'd say it's following the same course it always has, time after time that someone brings it up again. If all the different threads on this same subject were linked together, it would be longer than "What did you get today?"

But we can't expect all forum members to know what's gone before, or keep members with some skin in this game from repeating themselves.

Edited April 23, 2015 by sjordan2

[Daddyfink]

I smell a troll

[Matt Bacon]

Here is the question; Just for an example, how come the AMT '64 Falcon looks on the money, but the Trumpeter '64 Falcon is not. The front grille not even close. You would think that it might be better with today's technology?

Because AMT had access to a real '64 Falcon or three, and Trumpeter only had pictures, or maybe a preserved or reworked example? I certainly heard tell that their DC-3 was closer to the Soviet "clone" (Lisunov something?) than anything Douglas built...

bestest,

M.

[Guest]

Here is the question; Just for an example, how come the AMT '64 Falcon looks on the money, but the Trumpeter '64 Falcon is not. The front grille not even close. You would think that it might be better with today's technology?

The grille in the Trumpeter Falcon looks exactly like this and many others you'll see in a search

But, it doesn't look like this. If you want it to look like this, you'll have to do what Ford did and add some black paint.

like so. Of course it should be every other horizontal bar, not every horizontal bar.

[Art Anderson]

In all this discussion, the idea that somehow, older model car kits made in the "analog" era somehow were so very accurately done--in particular JoHan. Now, while John Hanle, owner of JoHan was himself an excellent pattern maker, there are inaccuracies in some of his kits: The JoHan '59 and '60 Cadillac 6-window sedans are a prime example of what I'm saying: On those body shells, the front clip and rear deck both are too short proportionatly, while the roof is right on the money for length front-rear. In fact, every Cadillac promo from about 1955 to the end of JoHan's Cadillac promo's in 1979 is either seriously smaller than 1/25 scale (NO WAY is a Chevy Impala larger than a Cadillac, if you plese!) But, the real kicker is that the bodies are also a full 3 scale inches too narrow (.120" in 1/25 scale). Why? Because of a General Motors requirement that all promotional model cars fit in the same size boxes, regardless of their relative size in perfect 1/25 scale. Then there are the SMP/AMT 1959-62 Corvettes--all of those suffer from a pug-nosed appearance, and a front valance that is badly misshapen. The AMT '53 Corvette glue kit (circa 1975) is also way off the mark--all of this in spite of GM tending to be very particular about Corvette--one of the General's signature car series.

There's also the SMP series of 1960 Chevrolet 3in1 kits--ever notice the "sad mouth pouting" grille shape? How about the far too prominent character "crease" atop the belt line from headlight to the beginnings of the horizontal fin shape.

Ever want to build, straight from the kit box, a completely accurate 1940 Ford Standard Coupe? It cannot be done "out of the box" with the otherwise excellent Revell '40 coupe, simply because the entire interior is that of a Deluxe series (Standards have a different instrument panel, and a 3-spoke steering wheel). The same thing with the almost iconic AMT '39-/'40 Tudor sedan: While the kit gives a correct '39 Deluxe grille, but then a '40 Standard hood (much taller, more agressive point up front than the '39, plus prominent stamped shapes on the sides and DOUBLE chrome spears. Inside, instead of a '39 instrument panel with a correct 3-spoke steering wheel--1940 Deluxe interor. Wheels in the kit are 1940 through and through, but 1939 was the last year of Ford's "Wide Five" wheel and brake drum with artillery spokes.

Oh well.

Art

[Foxer]

I avoided even opening this thread rehash but now I did

All these experts should just realize everything follows this basic business fact which I spouted all during my career ..

There are 3 things in every job .. Quality, Cost and Time ... pick two. You can NEVER have all three.

[bobthehobbyguy]

Foxer I agree 100 percent.

Second if you are not happy with what is being produced don't buy it. Its that simple.

[Jordan White]

While not trying to get into this can of worms, I will say that I am willing to pay more for a better kit. I bought two of the Meng F350 kits when they came out, at around $65 apiece. While they had a couple small issues that I can look past, the overall quality and detail of the kit (plus the subject matter) are what swayed me to pay so much.

[bobthehobbyguy]

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.

[Tom Geiger]

Tom, you sound like you're doing your best to justify the "it's good enough" mentality.

Are you suggesting that today's "business model" doesn't allow for scale fidelity? Sure sounds to me like that's what you're saying.

I think that's a pretty weak excuse for mediocrity.

Harry, you are smarter than that. Anyone who has been to NNL East or heard of our reputation knows my commitment to quality and continuous improvement.

My two cents. There are deadlines to be meet. There are multiple projects going on at the same time. There are multiple factors that cause inaccuracies to be introduced. Bottom line every project has a budget and hours scheduled.

Bingo! Someone here gets it. Before I pass judgement on anything, my engineer's curiosity wants to learn the process. Bringing a new model car kit to market is a project. As Bob said, the very basics are time and money. It all starts with the MSRP of the new kit. They have done their research as to the maximum the public will pay for a model car kit. Then they work backwards from there. They forecast how many units they think they will sell of the new subject. Then they estimate out the costs of every activity from project kickoff to having the models on the store shelves. They plan out deadlines for each activity. This is called the Project Plan.

The Project Plan will have the design development of the kit as a line item. It may state that there will be a kickoff meeting, a team will research and measure off the subject vehicle, and transmit that information to the Chinese partners. There also will be milestones for each phase of that development.. just for this discussion let's say that they will have four design revisions with a design review for each. End goal? To approve the design to cut tooling. And at a deadline of say, July 30th.

The model kit development is actually several projects. You not only have the kit design above, but there's also box design, decal sheet and instruction sheet. These are all projects whose deadline must come together. There are no doubt more pieces, but that's what we're using for this example.

Bill Engel loves to rant that "it doesn't cost more to measure correctly". No it doesn't and the guys who do that work do it to the best of their abilities. It's not the measuring, it's translating those 2D measurements and photographs into a CAD 3D model where the tricky stuff comes in. I used to do architectural design on CAD. You can take a thousand correct measurements and when you start inputting it you find discrepancies. Sometimes you go back out to the field and find that CAD doesn't lie... you throw a tape on it, and find your issue. One time I had a building that was two feet shorter on one end than the other. Over several hundred feet, you'd never see it, but input correct measurements into CAD and you will find it.

Same with kit development. I was lucky enough to have dinner with Dave Metzner last year. He described the process of working with the Chinese designers in Skype meetings. They'd tell him where the measurements didn't add up, and he'd run and remeasure the subject. He said they'd ask about the design of the starter, alternator or other small part. He'd do the research and transmit the data to them. There are issues of communicating with a team who has English as a second language, through cultural boundaries, and through electronic means rather than in person. That does add to the challenges. I work weekly with my company’s Shanghai site and can tell you it’s sometimes not easy! The Chinese team is very educated and talented. Most important they want to get it right.

Now note that board folks references to Johan 'getting it right' back in the 1960s. A totally different business model. First, remember for the most part they were working for the auto companies. So that initial design was already paid for. Second, they were handed car manufacturers blue prints to work from. And third, they were located right in Detroit. If they had questions, they could take a short ride to that car company's design center and measure it off in person. And Art’s recent post explains that they weren’t all that accurate anyway!

So the model kit progresses through the budgeted design milestones. The design and eventual test shots are evaluated by a lot of people, some of them being folks we know in the hobby. They pick up things, comment and the revisions are incorporated into the design. We get to the end of design revision four and the kit should be ready to commit to production… small problem. Someone discovers that there are a few little issues, like those small problems this board showed on the Revell ’57 Ford. Now we are at a decision point. The design budget is finished. It will cost $1 a kit to do another revision pass and cost the project 60 days. That $1 a kit translates to $4-6 at retail.

The team does an ROI (return on investment) analysis on investing that extra $1 a kit. They determine that within their target market, 99% of the buyers wouldn’t notice the improvement. They determine that they ‘may’ see a few more sales by the outstanding 1% (that’s us extremely fanatic guys), but now with the kit at a $34.00 MSRP, they’ve reached a price point that 25% of their target audience will not pay. So the ROI on that investment is a negative number. So they simply cannot make that revision. They move onward to production.

Now I’m not saying they don’t care, or that they are happy with mediocrity, they are business folks and these are the realities of a commercial project. People have already seen the improvement on the 57 Ford wagon version, so Revell incorporated it into the next project, which is a whole new budget and process.

Note that I’m not saying it wouldn’t be nice if these issues we spot weren’t there, I’m saying that knowing the business environment, the process and the budgets today, that I understand how these things happen. If indeed our budget would allow us to ship a '57 Ford to China and sit it in our partner's building, I'm sure the resulting kit would be absolutely splendid! But that's not today's reality.

Years ago we had serious worries about the future of the model business as the companies went through the hands of the cereal company, the card company and various toy companies, all led by people who really didn’t understand this market. Today all three leading companies are owned and managed by top notch folks who live and breathe this hobby. Knowing what they are up against, I’m amazed that they can produce the overall splendid products we see today against the tiny numbers of kits that can be sold. With kit companies being as small as they are today, there is no big fluff budget to pick up cost over runs and losses. These companies truly live and die by the numbers.

So give them a break!

Edited April 24, 2015 by Tom Geiger

[Matt Bacon]

Amen to that. Thanks, Tom...

A quick aside on the "translating 2D measurements and photographs into 3D objects" -- I've experienced several times over the years a situation with an aircraft model, where the three different views in the painting/markings guide all look fine when compared to available photographs, but when it comes to actually masking up the pattern on the model, it is literally impossible for the profile and plan views to both be correct, since they don't "meet at the joins..."

bestest,

M.

[Guest]

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.

The majority of those complaints came from modelers that aren't truck builders. Most truck builders know what the cost of a new kit is going to be and are willing to part with the money in order to get new material. However when AMT reissues retail for under $35, and the R-M snap kits can be had for $20, it makes the Lonestar and Prostar price seem too expensive.