If I Ran Revell....

[Richard Bartrop]

8 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Not to be argumentative, but the fact that Moebius is apparently still running in the black (and found a buyer) would seem to indicate that their strategy of producing somewhat obscure kits paid off.

Hudsons? 1950s Chrysler products? I bought several of each...and those are cars I never in my wildest dreams imagined would EVER be kitted in styrene.

The 300s were on my want list for years, and of course, the "experts" would always pipe in about how if there was any serious demand for them, there would already be a kit.

For that matter, how many brass fans even dared to dream that we would see a brand new 1/24 kit of a 1910 Renault?  I for one find this way more exciting than the stream of bland vanilla junk that the self appointed spokesmen of the hobby keep telling me I'm supposed to want.

So yes,  when the talk turns to what kinds of kits I want to see, then yes, I am going to tell them, and if certain people think they're too odd, too obscure, or too out there,  that's just too bad.

[Ace-Garageguy]

46 minutes ago, Richard Bartrop said:

...So yes,  when the talk turns to what kinds of kits I want to see, then yes, I am going to tell them, and if certain people think they're too odd, too obscure, or too out there,  that's just too bad.

And I still betcha a bullet-nose Stude would fly off the shelves. But best get on the stick while the geezers who know what it is (and have a few bucks to burn) are still alive enough to buy them.

I'd also betcha that model company planners look at the cheap and plentiful '53 Stude and Avanti kits and figger the bullet-nose would be a dog. 

I betcha they be figgering wrong.

                             

      

       

     

                            

Edited January 23, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[Khils]

34 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I betcha they'd be figgering wrong.

I will occupy a seat on this ship!!  

[Richard Bartrop]

A bullet nosed Stude?  Take my money please!

And the idea that you should only be interested in whatever happened in your childhood is a pretty sad and limited way to live your life.

Thankfully, not everyone subscribes to such a stunted worldview.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Richard Bartrop

[High octane]

Put me down for a couple of Bullet Nose Studes also.

[SSNJim]

"Ahh, a bear in his natural habitat - a Studebaker."

I'd be in for a bullet-nose Studebaker.

[Jim N]

On 1/22/2019 at 9:51 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

My point was only that, apparently, it IS possible to produce shorter-run subjects with narrower appeal than Mustangs and Camaros, pay the cost of kit design and tooling production, and still manage to stay in business. Cost control and having a few multi-skilled folks rather than multiple layers of do-nothing management goes a long way to making shoestring operations profitable.

A similar strategy can be implemented by a company that's used to large-run projects.

More typically, everybody just agrees "we can't" in multiple meetings, while sucking up the designer mineral water, jetted-in tea, coffee produced from individually-named beans, and free-range no-GMO gluten-free bagels and croissants.

You are correct Bill.

I read an article on Mobeus ( before they were acquired by the new owners), but their business model was that the kit had to fill a need in the market place.  But most importantly, they had to get 2 - 3 different versions of the kit from their molds to make it worthwhile for them.  This is how they can produce the shorter runs because they will make multiple versions from the mold.

[Luc Janssens]

 

Saw this posted on the other board by David Dale, it's not a car but shows what's possible in today's model kit industry,, also I'm showing you all a link to a build of Italeri's new Volvo truck also a design masterpiece....

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Luc Janssens

[Classicgas]

Definatly in foe a bulletnose. AMT had one scheduled years ago.

[Ace-Garageguy]

4 hours ago, Jim N said:

...I read an article on Mobeus ( before they were acquired by the new owners), but their business model was that the kit had to fill a need in the market place.  But most importantly, they had to get 2 - 3 different versions of the kit from their molds to make it worthwhile for them.  This is how they can produce the shorter runs because they will make multiple versions from the mold.

Starlite coupe, business coupe, convertible, and one of the coupes in drag as a gasser. Yeah...that oughtta do it.   

[High octane]

3 hours ago, Classicgas said:

Definatly in foe a bulletnose. AMT had one scheduled years ago.

Yes they did. Sighhhh.

[Ace-Garageguy]

If I ran Revell...or really wanted to get a bulletnose to production cheap, I'd probably get a VERY competent modeler to start with the Flintstone body (which is pretty bad) and see if it could be corrected and made symmetrical. Tough, but I'm certain not impossible. Get it dead-on.

Then ship THAT to the tooling-designers and let them take every tiny little dimension directly from the thing.

Better yet, just scan it. Industrial scanners exist with the requisite precision. Only scan one side, and flip it in the computer. Develop your CAD files directly from that data, and cut your body tooling. Ought to be a slam-dunk, right-the-first-time deal IF EVERYBODY DOES HIS JOB RIGHT.

The chassis and guts can have the odd discrepancy and nobody will scream too loudly, but the body needs to be as close as humanly possible.

[niteowl7710]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

If I ran Revell...or really wanted to get a bulletnose to production cheap, I'd probably get a VERY competent modeler to start with the Flintstone body (which is pretty bad) and see if it could be corrected and made symmetrical. Tough, but I'm certain not impossible. Get it dead-on.

Then ship THAT to the tooling-designers and let them take every tiny little dimension directly from the thing.

Better yet, just scan it. Industrial scanners exist with the requisite precision. Only scan one side, and flip it in the computer. Develop your CAD files directly from that data, and cut your body tooling. Ought to be a slam-dunk, right-the-first-time deal IF EVERYBODY DOES HIS JOB RIGHT.

The chassis and guts can have the odd discrepancy and nobody will scream too loudly, but the body needs to be as close as humanly possible.

It would easier and I dare I say a lot less frustrating to 3D scan the real 1:1 than trying to make anything from the realm of $15 slush casts be spot on accurate.  Because in order for accuracy to be determined you'd have to measure out a 1:1 anyways, because if anything has been proven over the past years is you get into a heap of trouble trying to eyeball stuff from pictures.

The other downside would be you would then have to create an interior and chassis that fit the confines of this "corrected" resin body rather than reality. What happens when you design the interior from the 1:1 and find out the seats are too wide to fit because the resin kit isn't as wide as it's supposed to be? Or the wheels don't align with the wheel wheels because the 1:1 and resin body don't sync up after all. Sure you could stretch and widen the CAD, but now your lengthening or widening something and that might play with proportions in other ways.

Edited January 24, 2019 by niteowl7710

[Motor City]

The '50 and '51 AMT Stude promos are quite affordable and not severely warped like some models.  A kit would be nice.  It would be easy to change the front to a '52 for the Indy Pace Car, so that would be another version besides stock and gasser.  Other good kits would be versions of the '56-'58 Golden Hawk, and '62-'64 GT Hawk.

[Ace-Garageguy]

14 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

It would easier and I dare I say a lot less frustrating to 3D scan the real 1:1 than trying to make anything from the realm of $15 slush casts be spot on accurate.  Because in order for accuracy to be determined you'd have to measure out a 1:1 anyways, because if anything has been proven over the past years is you get into a heap of trouble trying to eyeball stuff from pictures.

The other downside would be you would then have to create an interior and chassis that fit the confines of this "corrected" resin body rather than reality. What happens when you design the interior from the 1:1 and find out the seats are too wide to fit because the resin kit isn't as wide as it's supposed to be? Or the wheels don't align with the wheel wheels because the 1:1 and resin body don't sync up after all. Sure you could stretch and widen the CAD, but now your lengthening or widening something and that might play with proportions in other ways.

Pretty much agreed on all points...HOWEVER...

I believe the reason we've been seeing all manner of dimensional and proportion errors in bodies, mechanical parts that are clunky blobs bearing little resemblance to anything real, large klugey alignment pins that belong on toys rather than precision scale models (look at what's standard quality in the HO scale model RR stuff today, and compare it to the typical car model), the same parts (like engines) from the same manufacturers in the same scale, but in different kits, that are somehow magically of different dimensions after having been scaled down to 1/25, stupidly designed wheel and tire retention systems, front and rear "glass" that doesn't even come close to fitting the openings correctly, bumpers that droop, grilles that don't fit, cylinder heads that are WAY too short for the engines they go with...and on and on...is because there are simply too many fingers in every kit development pie belonging to people WHO DON'T APPARENTLY KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT CARS...OR BUILDING MODELS...to get things right.

Scanning a real car and developing CAD data from that is just dandy if you've got mostly computer-jock clean-hands-never-held-a-tool mouse-clickers on salary to manipulate a bunch of data, misinterpret some of it, and you want to pay for multiple tooling changes and test shots and corrections because the whiz-bang tech wizards fouled up, and, of course, translating everything into Chinese, we're told, is difficult. Costs skyrocket. Endless meetings addressing unnecessary problems, while making sure nobody is actually responsible for any decision, add thousands of dollars to projects. Time passes, no product, re-do after re-do.

So instead, you get a tiny team of a FEW guys who understand cars intimately and are world-class modelers...at least one on the team, anyway. Add some practical engineering knowledge, and require everyone to be fully cognizant of how injection molding works, what the goals are, what the tolerances are, and get it done without spreading responsibility all over the planet. One guy is the ultimate decision maker, period. No meetings, no discussion. And find an American company to cut the tooling. They're out there.

You start with basic measurements like width, length, height. wheelbase, distance across door sills and door tops etc. Bring the body into spec...really only one side is necessary. Scan it. Mirror it. Do a rough tool design, close enough to know your material thicknesses on the body shell within a millimeter. Develop ALL the other parts from the dimensions you have from the body engineering. Check everything multiple times. Everything fits, no baloney, no excuses.

This ain't going to the moon...and the REASON we don't go BACK to the moon is because middle-management spread and 100% reliance on tech and distributed blame rather than a core team of people WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING just makes it too damm expensive.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[MrObsessive]

53 minutes ago, Motor City said:

 Other good kits would be versions of the '56-'58 Golden Hawk, and '62-'64 GT Hawk.

Those are kits I'd hope Moebius would see fit to run someday. Especially the '57-'58 Golden Hawks.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just now, MrObsessive said:

Those are kits I'd hope Moebius would see fit to run someday. Especially the '57-'58 Golden Hawks.

How 'bout R2 facelifting the '53 Stude? Kinda makes more sense.  

[MrObsessive]

14 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

How 'bout R2 facelifting the '53 Stude? Kinda makes more sense.  

They'll never do it. They never fixed that '58 Plymouth, so there's no way they'd redo the '53 into a '57-'58 Hawk sadly enough. Hate to sound cynical, but there's many missed opportunities Round 2 could have taken.

[Ace-Garageguy]

22 minutes ago, MrObsessive said:

They'll never do it. They never fixed that '58 Plymouth, so there's no way they'd redo the '53 into a '57-'58 Hawk sadly enough. Hate to sound cynical, but there's many missed opportunities Round 2 could have taken.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But the kit is, obviously, almost there. Just a body, maybe an interior insert...which wouldn't have to be terribly elaborate.

Of course, after seeing the mess that was made of the re-tool of the chopped top in the '36 Ford 3W kit, much as I appreciate the new wheels and tires, they probably don't have anyone capable of rendering a Hawk body even close to right.

I'm so tired of the "it can't be done" attitude that seems to be more pervasive with every passing day.

[MrObsessive]

23 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I'm so tired of the "it can't be done" attitude that seems to be more pervasive with every passing day.

You ain't kiddin'! This was part of my signature at one time--------The envious cry out 'It can't be done'!

Mediocrity rules the day sadly and it's infected our hobby when it comes to kits in too many cases.

[tim boyd]

On 1/23/2019 at 3:20 PM, Luc Janssens said:

 

... also I'm showing you all a link to a build of Italeri's new Volvo truck also a design masterpiece....

 

Thanks Luc.....that Italeri build thread is pretty impressive......appears to be a killer kit (with an completed, stand alone engine assembly  yeah!) and a very meticulous assembly by the builder, too.  Guys you should really check this out.   TIM 

[Ace-Garageguy]

One thing I'd really like to know...and if I ran Revell I damm sure would...is how the apparently very accurate scanned bodies of both the Foose pickup and the custom Caddy compare in cost and development time, as opposed to earlier models not made using that tech.

And how many tooling changes were required, as in : how close were the first BODY test shots to the final product? Having hard data to look at in this context would make all the difference as to determining best-process for getting a kit to market as cheaply as possible while maintaining exceptional quality.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[Canso65]

I often wonder if part of the problem is the lack of exposure to model kits today. When most of us were kids you could find models just about anywhere, drug stores, department stores, and let's not forget the many hobby shops that carried an extensive selection of kits. Now we struggle to find brick and mortar stores that carry them, and those that do, have a limited selection that doesn't always appeal to everyone including myself. I have heard Walmart and other big box stores don't carry them because they take up to much space and return little profit. I don't know if this is true, but a youngster looking through the toy department will never come across models and want to try one. Sure there are lots of online possibilities, but let's face it, when your young and want something, you want it now. Add on the cost of shipping along with the actual cost of the model I think there are far to many other interesting things kids and parents will be drawn to. 

Hot Wheels still sell very well, so although I do agree many younger people are not interested in cars, there must be enough of them out there to sustain other car related products on the market. 

I believe companies like R2, Revell, and even Moebius are producing models that attract us old folk because we buy them and will find them wherever we can. Attempts to make models of newer cars may not have sold as well as the older muscle cars. Just look at Revell's 68 Chevelle which has been so popular.

I don't think kids really care if the body is 100% accurate or the wheels are perfect. I know I didn't back then, it was just fun to open a box, and start gluing an painting. 

Somehow the industry needs to get some exposure with kids beyond those of us who tried (in my case) to inspire our kids to the hobby. I could sell the worlds greatest whatumacallit, but if nobody knows its available I won't sell many.

[Eshaver]

Rob , I believe YOU NAILED IT!!!!!!

[redneckrigger]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:47 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

Pretty much agreed on all points...HOWEVER...

I believe the reason we've been seeing all manner of dimensional and proportion errors in bodies, mechanical parts that are clunky blobs bearing little resemblance to anything real, large klugey alignment pins that belong on toys rather than precision scale models (look at what's standard quality in the HO scale model RR stuff today, and compare it to the typical car model), the same parts (like engines) from the same manufacturers in the same scale, but in different kits, that are somehow magically of different dimensions after having been scaled down to 1/25, stupidly designed wheel and tire retention systems, front and rear "glass" that doesn't even come close to fitting the openings correctly, bumpers that droop, grilles that don't fit, cylinder heads that are WAY too short for the engines they go with...and on and on...is because there are simply too many fingers in every kit development pie belonging to people WHO DON'T APPARENTLY KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT CARS...OR BUILDING MODELS...to get things right.

Scanning a real car and developing CAD data from that is just dandy if you've got mostly computer-jock clean-hands-never-held-a-tool mouse-clickers on salary to manipulate a bunch of data, misinterpret some of it, and you want to pay for multiple tooling changes and test shots and corrections because the whiz-bang tech wizards fouled up, and, of course, translating everything into Chinese, we're told, is difficult. Costs skyrocket. Endless meetings addressing unnecessary problems, while making sure nobody is actually responsible for any decision, add thousands of dollars to projects. Time passes, no product, re-do after re-do.

So instead, you get a tiny team of a FEW guys who understand cars intimately and are world-class modelers...at least one on the team, anyway. Add some practical engineering knowledge, and require everyone to be fully cognizant of how injection molding works, what the goals are, what the tolerances are, and get it done without spreading responsibility all over the planet. One guy is the ultimate decision maker, period. No meetings, no discussion. And find an American company to cut the tooling. They're out there.

You start with basic measurements like width, length, height. wheelbase, distance across door sills and door tops etc. Bring the body into spec...really only one side is necessary. Scan it. Mirror it. Do a rough tool design, close enough to know your material thicknesses on the body shell within a millimeter. Develop ALL the other parts from the dimensions you have from the body engineering. Check everything multiple times. Everything fits, no baloney, no excuses.

This ain't going to the moon...and the REASON we don't go BACK to the moon is because middle-management spread and 100% reliance on tech and distributed blame rather than a core team of people WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING just makes it too damm expensive.

BINGO!  Spot on Bill. Today, NO ONE takes responsibility and spends far too much time trying to insulate themselves, and their job, from taking the blame for problems, and hence, problems occur because no one takes the bull by the horns and ensures that a project goes perfectly. And this is NOT only in model kits, but in every facet of life.