Even ''Predicta''kit has accuracy issues

[BIGTRUCK]

Been looking for some ideas on customs, and looking at all the old school shops, when I got to Starbirds site I found an article on the ''Predicta'' and how 50 years ago this show rod kit had accuracy issues. Who would have thought someone checked a show rod ?  the rest of the article here http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=419

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Cool stuff. I always thought the real car was a little better proportioned and sleeker than the kit version. Maybe I'll build an 'accurized' one someday. Project 20028.

[jbwelda]

> Project 20028

now THERE is your "accuracy" for you. planning on a deal with the devil?

jb

 

[Mike Kucaba]

In discussing this car with Mr. Predicta AKA Mark Gustavson. It was concluded that to build an accurate 1/24 model the kit should only be used as a reference and start with a Monogram '56 t-bird and a '59 Buick. 

I did try using the kit and wanted to backdate it but what a waste.

I'll see about posting a link to my PB, both the 1/24th project is there along with start of a 1/16th predicta.

The frustrating thing is that Monogram bought the Predicta from Starbird. He made modifications to it for Monogram and they still fudged the model.

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 8/23/2015 at 4:30 PM, jbwelda said:

> Project 20028

now THERE is your "accuracy" for you. planning on a deal with the devil?

jb

 

Well see, here we have a perfect example of how insufficient data can lead to all sorts of misinterpretations.

I carelessly omitted the #-symbol before the 20028, and you assumed I meant the year 20028.

Project #20028 probably doesn't have a chance in hell of coming up before I'm dead though.

[Lownslow]

Really? are we gonna go there?

[Deano]

  On 8/23/2015 at 6:32 PM, Lownslow said:

Really? are we gonna go there?

I know, right.  Build it or don't, correct it or don't.  It's really simple.  You don't really think that Revell is going to spend the cash to correct a 50 year old tool, do you? 

[BIGTRUCK]

Do you read the entire post or just up to where it gives you trouble understanding it?

  On 8/23/2015 at 6:32 PM, Lownslow said:

Really? are we gonna go there?

  On 8/23/2015 at 7:28 PM, Deano said:

I know, right.  Build it or don't, correct it or don't.  It's really simple.  You don't really think that Revell is going to spend the cash to correct a 50 year old tool, do you? 

I was amazed someone checked it back when, not that I was complaining about 50 year old tooling being wrong...... Sheesh..

[Danno]

The splintered bickering was . . . Predicta-ble.   

[Art Anderson]

Bear in mind, in the 1960's, ANY model car kit (indeed ANY plastic model kit) resulted from tooling patterns that were hand-carved by hand--thus subject to the interpretations of the pattern-maker, even the draftsman who did the drawings.  In addition, given the frantic pace at which Monogram (and all the other model companies) was releasing new model kits (of all subjects), time frames were very short.  There simply just was not much time to study, carve, re-study, make corrections here and there.  There were a lot of inaccuracies in model kits of all subjects back then and given that pretty much all subject areas of plastic model building were primarily kids--no IPMS-style rivet counters to argue.

 

Art

[unclescott58]

I finished mine about a month ago. I'm pretty happy with the way it looks. Didn't see a problem with how the car looked compared the real thing. Painted mine a dark metallic blue. And it looks great.

[BIGTRUCK]

I built one also maybe 7 or 8 years ago and have another one unbuilt, I was just shocked someone checked the kit for accuracy.

[slusher]

Great looking build Ken.  Maybe it's just me but i never worry about any kit accuracy.. 

[Harry P.]

  On 8/27/2015 at 9:51 PM, Art Anderson said:

Bear in mind, in the 1960's, ANY model car kit (indeed ANY plastic model kit) resulted from tooling patterns that were hand-carved by hand--thus subject to the interpretations of the pattern-maker, even the draftsman who did the drawings.

A good pattern maker and/or draftsman doesn't allow for an "interpretation" of the subject. They deal with actual numbers and dimensions.

Pattern making and drafting are arts that are supposed to be based on fact, not "interpretation." If "interpretation" was involved, the person wasn't doing their job correctly.

[Art Anderson]

  On 8/28/2015 at 11:25 PM, Harry P. said:

A good pattern maker and/or draftsman doesn't allow for an "interpretation" of the subject. They deal with actual numbers and dimensions.

Pattern making and drafting are arts that are supposed to be based on fact, not "interpretation." If "interpretation" was involved, the person wasn't doing their job correctly.

  On 8/28/2015 at 11:25 PM, Harry P. said:

A good pattern maker and/or draftsman doesn't allow for an "interpretation" of the subject. They deal with actual numbers and dimensions.

Pattern making and drafting are arts that are supposed to be based on fact, not "interpretation." If "interpretation" was involved, the person wasn't doing their job correctly.

Obviously Harry, you've never been a model kit pattern maker, or you would not make that statement.  As one who has considerable experience in model product development, I am here to tell you that any model car is the result of a human interpretation of what the person(s) involved see, in the same way as any artist or sculptor.   Depending on the level of skill and artistry, the result can vary, of course.   But remember, in 1965 or so, when the Predicta kit was being tooled, model kit pattern makers were still learning and honing their craft.  Period.

Art

[Ace-Garageguy]

  On 8/28/2015 at 11:25 PM, Harry P. said:

A good pattern maker and/or draftsman doesn't allow for an "interpretation" of the subject. They deal with actual numbers and dimensions.

Pattern making and drafting are arts that are supposed to be based on fact, not "interpretation." If "interpretation" was involved, the person wasn't doing their job correctly.

Exactly. Anyone looking at the photos of the real car and the model...anyone who has an eye for proportion and line, that is...will immediately be struck by the very obvious deviations from reality this "interpretation" makes. The result is a model that loses much of the graceful, clean look of Starbird's actual lower-body design. I always wondered just why the model looked so stupid compared to the real car. Now I know.

Though I've never been involved in the hallowed and mythical "model car" tooling business, I HAVE been involved in depth with pre-production and prototype scale-model development of real vehicles and other items. Accuracy to the original design, in the real world, is critical. There is no room for "creative" interpretation on the part of model-makers, and I've fired people on the spot who seemed to be too "artistic" to get the dammed measuring right.

[Harry P.]

  On 8/29/2015 at 12:27 AM, Art Anderson said:

 

Obviously Harry, you've never been a model kit pattern maker, or you would not make that statement.  As one who has considerable experience in model product development, I am here to tell you that any model car is the result of a human interpretation of what the person(s) involved see, in the same way as any artist or sculptor.

Wrong!

An artist or sculptor is creating his or her vision, not attempting to accurately recreate reality.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is not an accurate reproduction of the way the night sky actually looks. It is Van Gogh's personal interpretation, and it doesn't necessarily have (or need to have) any direct connection with reality.

On the other hand, a pattern maker or draftsman's job is to create an accurate reproduction of the original. There is no room (or need) for "artistic interpretation" if the goal is to create an accurate scale version of a full-size subject.

[unclescott58]

Looking at the photos post here, I like the looks of the model better than the real car. Especially around the wheel wells.

[Drake69]

  On 8/29/2015 at 2:52 AM, Harry P. said:

Wrong!

An artist or sculptor is creating his or her vision, not attempting to accurately recreate reality.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is not an accurate reproduction of the way the night sky actually looks. It is Van Gogh's personal interpretation, and it doesn't necessarily have (or need to have) any direct connection with reality.

On the other hand, a pattern maker or draftsman's job is to create an accurate reproduction of the original. There is no room (or need) for "artistic interpretation" if the goal is to create an accurate scale version of a full-size subject.

Meh.... go stick your ear in a guitar, Picasso.... 

 

<jk>!

[Mark S. Gustavson]

  On 8/28/2015 at 9:49 PM, BIGTRUCK said:

I built one also maybe 7 or 8 years ago and have another one unbuilt, I was just shocked someone checked the kit for accuracy.

[Mark S. Gustavson]

Greetings everyone:
From the time I was a kid building this model, starting when the kit was released in 1964, I kind of "knew" there was a problem with the basic measurements and proportions.  When, in the Sixties, I compared the radius of the rear wheel arch to the incut underneath the fin, it was clear to that 13-year old kit that something was wrong: The arch should have "invaded" the incut under the fin.  As my work on the Predicta Project progressed, I asked my close friend Darryl Starbird to take some basic measurements for me that revealed very significant inaccuracies in the kit body as detailed in this page of my site:  http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=419   Please read the entire page to see just how "off" the body is.  Thanks to Steve Roullier for converting Starbird's measurements into the more professional presentation. 

The kit body is "off" in other ways, too:  the trunk on the rear car isn't flat, the bubble is the wrong shape and too tall, and other details that can be seen on that page. 

About the other comments in this thread:  Of interest here is that Monogram employees took a lot of measurements but they were of the car BEFORE Starbird restyled it.  Go here to see some of those pictures (scroll down): http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=534 Much of the basic problems with the kit arose at the time that the initial measurements were taken (remember, those were the days before digital 3-D scanning and the like), AND because no one from Monogram went to Starbird's shop when he was restyling/redoing the car.  For that reason, there was not final-configuration measurement of the restyled body before the kit was released.

I have the privilege of owning the dozens of original vellum drawings made at Monogram after the car was measured in the Monogram back lot.  Those drawings were given to me by Roger Harney 25 years ago at the time that he sent me the myriad photos they took of the car -- all of that material was about to be thrown away.  Those drawings not only displayed the very basic details of this kit (this was not at the level of Johan's Turbine Car!), but those drawings, when scaled up (using the wheelbase as the baseline) show that the basic dimensional errors occurred at that time in late 1963.  So, it appears that the tool makers did their job in accord with the drawings -- it was the drawings that were off. 

The Predicta has been an obsession of mine for nearly 35 years and I finally have the time and money to pursue the intense goals of this project.  My book (10 years in the making!) should be out next April, and then other modeling aspects of this kit should commence about then including the construction of a 1/8 scale "Big Predicta" that will be a fully detailed and accurate scale model of the car.  Please go here to read more about the "phantom kits" we'll be creating: http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=403

You may want to check out the "News" page for further details on the history of the project: http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=8

Finally, check out these built up models, including the incredible work of Bob Peeples 53 years ago before the kit was issued (his model is of the original version of the car).  Mike Kukaba is probably too modest to tell you guys about it, but he' started his own models of the Predicta and there's a link to his work at the bottom of this page: http://thepredictaproject.org/?page_id=458

I'll keep checking back on this thread to see if I can respond to any further questions.  My best wishes to all!

Mark S. Gustavson

 

 

[Harry P.]

  On 8/30/2015 at 4:35 AM, Drake69 said:

Meh.... go stick your ear in a guitar, Picasso.... 

 

<jk>!

You barbarians just don't understand art...

[ChrisBcritter]

Thanks to Mark for the response! Quick questions re the real car: What is its wheelbase; was it extended from stock? And how is it shifted - Mopar pushbuttons? And lastly, since the Nash instrument pods were removed, are there any gauges left inside?

[Mark S. Gustavson]

  On 8/31/2015 at 4:12 AM, ChrisBcritter said:

Thanks to Mark for the response! Quick questions re the real car: What is its wheelbase; was it extended from stock? And how is it shifted - Mopar pushbuttons? And lastly, since the Nash instrument pods were removed, are there any gauges left inside?

Hey Chris:  Thanks for your note.  Happy to answer your questions:  the wheelbase is stock 1956 T-Bird (no changes there). Yes, there are Mopar pushbuttons on the flat chrome console panel between the seats. There are a series of curved glass Stewart Warner guages that also sit flat on the chromed console pattern.

E-mail me at msgsl@xmission.com  and I'll e-mail additional images for you.

Are you building a Predicta model?  Is there anything I can do to help you?

Thanks again for your note.

Mark S. Gustavson

[Mark S. Gustavson]

  On 8/29/2015 at 2:52 AM, Harry P. said:

Wrong!

An artist or sculptor is creating his or her vision, not attempting to accurately recreate reality.

Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is not an accurate reproduction of the way the night sky actually looks. It is Van Gogh's personal interpretation, and it doesn't necessarily have (or need to have) any direct connection with reality.

On the other hand, a pattern maker or draftsman's job is to create an accurate reproduction of the original. There is no room (or need) for "artistic interpretation" if the goal is to create an accurate scale version of a full-size subject.

Harry is correct here, of course.  A replica of art (e.g., Starbird's Predicta) must be dimensionally accurate!  Otherwise, it can't be said to be a scale model of the real car. 

Mark S. Gustavson