Gunze Cobra Daytona Actually 1/25 scale?

[afx]

As hard as it is to believe I think the '97 SAAC Register is incorrect with its Daytona dimensions.  Its shows the overall length and width of the Coupe the same as the 289 and that just can't be right.  Checked some other website and  here is what I believe are the correct dimensions.

	wheel base	width	length
289	2286	1550	3848
427	2286	1676	3962
Coupe	2286	1720	4150	Wiki/others
Coupe	2286	1550	3848	SAAC

If I convert these to 1:25 scale here is how they compare to the noted kits:

1:25
289	91	62	154
AMT	90	61	152
427	91	67	158
Sunny	90	67	152
Coupe	91	69	166
Gunze	90	70	167

Is it possibly the Gunze kit is really 1:25 scale??

Here are the bodies with the wheel bases lined up.

Edited April 13, 2017 by afx

[Rob Hall]

Being a Japanese kit, I would assume it is 1/24th scale.

[afx]

Yes the kit is marked 1/24 scale but here are the 1/24 scale dimension.

1:24	wheel base	width	length
289	95	65	160
427	95	70	165
Coupe	95	72	173
Gunze	90	70	167

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by afx

[Ace-Garageguy]

As we've seen innumerable times, measuring accurately and dividing by the denominator of whatever fractional scale is supposedly represented seems to be beyond the skill sets of even some of the best of the "professionals" out there.

Two companies' versions of the SAME CAR, IN THE SAME SCALE, can be very significantly different. How this is possible eludes my limited comprehension of incompetence.

So...I've just about given up expecting anybody to get much of anything right where there are numbers and simple arithmetic involved.

Eventually, machines will be able to do this stuff without idiot human intervention, and we may once again see some semblance of accuracy, but until then, if it looks pretty good, go with it.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Brett Barrow]

Total trash!!! Throw it out!!! I'll make sure they're disposed of properly if anyone wants to send theirs my way. 

Does it share some lineage with the Sunny kit, perhaps? 

[Mark]

Does it share some lineage with the Sunny kit, perhaps? 

The Sunny "427" kit is mostly a crib of the AMT roadster.

[afx]

Hard to find a roadster and a coupe in the same photo.

Edited April 13, 2017 by afx

[Ace-Garageguy]

Tough to find a roadster and a coupe in the same photo...

If the wheelbases are the same, there's absolutely no doubt the coupe is longer simply by virtue of the length of the overhangs, particularly the front.

[vamach1]

Coupe @ Simeone museum.

[djflyer]

This issue came from a previous post and my question to JC about the wheelbase being too short. My opinion was the body could be stretched between the front wheel opening and the vent on the side of the fender. Most every picture I have seen looks like that is where the dimensions are off. JC followed his usual quest for knowledge and found these numbers. I may still build it to the 24th scale numbers and do the nose job because that's what looks right to me.

Nothing too evil if you consider this kit to actually be 1/25th, except that its sold as 1/24. If that's what the box says, that is what I expect to find inside it. Like Bill E (Ace-Garageguy) said - its simple math.

[Randy D]

I will have to get a better comparison pic JC,  or ask and see if they will let me measure them

 

 

[Art Anderson]

Something to bear in mind here:   Every styrene Shelby Cobra kit extant today (in "1/24" or 1"25" scale was tooled in the days before CAD--in hosrt, the model companies involved had to contend with measurements of the real car, reams of photographs, and then having to make every tooling mockup part by hand, most in clear white pine or other fine-grained softwood.  With that in mind, it wasn't at all unknown for slight errors in measurements on the finished tooling mockups--translating into the same small dimensional inaccuracies being permanently fixed in steel molds.

With the difference between models of the same car in each scale being approximately 4%,  such "errors" were almost bound to happen--not every model kit patternmaker was as perfectly accurate as we (in this modern digital age) somehow insist that they be.  In addition, those model kit development people weren't contending with us adult modelers with our advanced skills and often perhaps far better reference information at our fingertips than those earlier model kit development departments had in their respective reference libraries.

So much depended, back even 25 years ago, upon the human eye, and human perception of what was or was not accurate.

Art

[afx]

I didn't measure the Revellogram 427 but I did compare it to the Gunze and the 427's wheel base is much longer.

[afx]

Comparison of the SMS kit.

1:24 wheel base width length 289 95 65 160 427 95 70 165 Coupe 95 72 173 SMS 97 70 175

Edited April 13, 2017 by afx

[afx]

I will have to get a better comparison pic JC,  or ask and see if they will let me measure them

 

 

That's the perfect comparison Randy!  The 289 next to the Coupe next to the FIA (427 body style)

[mr68gts]

Could be a wives tale or rumor but wasn't the chassis based off the 289 Cobras? There is a guy that built his own from measurement I think of one and used a Cobra chassis as it's foundation. Modified of course. It looked fantastic all in raw aluminum!

Paul

 

[mr68gts]

https://www.shelbyguy.net/single-post/2016/04/17/Paul-Martins-Daytona-Cobra-Coupe

Not the one I was looking for but I beautiful replica!

[Brett Barrow]

The Sunny "427" kit is mostly a crib of the AMT roadster.

Yeah, I know, but just wondering if they're related since they're both Japanese. 

[mr68gts]

Here's another site with some interesting information here and there.

http://www.chuckcobra.com/index.html

Edit! After clicking through the website this is the one I was refering to!

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by mr68gts

[Ace-Garageguy]

Something to bear in mind here:   Every styrene Shelby Cobra kit extant today (in "1/24" or 1"25" scale was tooled in the days before CAD--in hosrt, the model companies involved had to contend with measurements of the real car, reams of photographs, and then having to make every tooling mockup part by hand, most in clear white pine or other fine-grained softwood.  With that in mind, it wasn't at all unknown for slight errors in measurements on the finished tooling mockups--translating into the same small dimensional inaccuracies being permanently fixed in steel molds.

With the difference between models of the same car in each scale being approximately 4%,  such "errors" were almost bound to happen--not every model kit patternmaker was as perfectly accurate as we (in this modern digital age) somehow insist that they be.  In addition, those model kit development people weren't contending with us adult modelers with our advanced skills and often perhaps far better reference information at our fingertips than those earlier model kit development departments had in their respective reference libraries.

So much depended, back even 25 years ago, upon the human eye, and human perception of what was or was not accurate.

Art

All true, but even in today's CAD-empowered digital wonder age, errors of a ridiculously large magnitude slip in when nobody is paying attention.

And that's EXACTLY what it comes down to...simply not paying attention.

Professionals get paid very good money to get this stuff right today, and tool-and-die makers of old were traditionally among the best-paid of the "blue collar" professions, simply because they were EXPECTED TO BE ACCURATE.

In the final analysis, numbers don't lie, and paying attention to doing one's job correctly is all that's required to excel, whether doing the work old-school, or with scanners and CAD.

Pity that's an apparently obsolete idea.

[vamach1]

Next time my neighbor takes out his McClusky coupe I will bring a tape measure.

[Brett Barrow]

All true, but even in today's CAD-empowered digital wonder age, errors of a ridiculously large magnitude slip in when nobody is paying attention.

And that's EXACTLY what it comes down to...simply not paying attention.

Professionals get paid very good money to get this stuff right today, and tool-and-die makers of old were traditionally among the best-paid of the "blue collar" professions, simply because they were EXPECTED TO BE ACCURATE.

In the final analysis, numbers don't lie, and paying attention to doing one's job correctly is all that's required to excel, whether doing the work old-school, or with scanners and CAD.

Pity that's an apparently obsolete idea.

Geez, it's a 25+ year-old kit.  This isn't an error, it's pretty obvious they did the work in 25th but the kit was marketed as 24th, for whatever reason.  

Edited April 13, 2017 by Brett Barrow

[vamach1]

I think it is Pete's fault.

[djflyer]

Art's point about the production method is certainly true. What also has to be considered is the subject matter itself. We're talking about a total of only six hand-built vehicles, which are already known to have somewhat significant differences between them. The only constant really is the 90" wheel base. SMS states they based their kit from chassis 2299. We dont know what Gunze based theirs on. If they used the SAAC measurements that could explain how their kit turned out the way it did.

This really will be a case of building what looks right to you for the subject you want to replicate. For me, the Gunze kit I have looks too short compared to the width. If I build it to the dimensions in 24th scale, adding to the wheelbase to stretch the nose between the wheel opening and the cowl will make it look better compared to the pictures I have seen. The rear overhang also looks a little short but that's something I don't have the information, or more important, the modeling skills to fix.

[Ace-Garageguy]

 

Geez, it's a 25+ year-old kit.  This isn't an error, it's pretty obvious they did the work in 25th but the kit was marketed as 24th, for whatever reason.  

Compare these two models. If they're both supposed to be in the same scale, somebody sure as hell made an "error" (length) and if they're NOT supposed to be in the same scale, there's STILL a significant "error" somewhere (width wouldn't be the same in 1/25 and 1/24).