Revell ‘29 Model A Roadster

[mrm]

3 hours ago, Tom Geiger said:

If people hadn’t noticed, Revell’s plan was to create modern quality tools of popular iconic cars we would buy and build over and over.

The whole idea of the 1932 series was to create a big set of parts to mix and match to be able to build many different cars. And the series probably wasn’t done yet!

The Model A series was to be a follow up to this and the whole series of events around the bankruptcy of Hobbico threw a wrench into that.  

No doubt there were more versions planned.. for instance the second frame and things like the excellent fuel tank and battery that got hidden in the sealed roadster trunk. There had to be plans for an open trunk in a future version. 

We will see what the future brings. Fortunately Ed is still involved for some continuity, but we  have a new parent company to convince to invest. Now  throw in the worldwide pandemic and financial effects!

I get everything you are saying. But this is 25 years, yep! A QUARTER OF A CENTURY!!!! With the exact same boring, plain Jane pumpkin. Seriously?!?! the louvered side hoods in the 5-window and the roadster are a different tooling. The Rat roaster has different tooling for the front shocks. Yet the rear set up is the same, even tho it is inaccurate for the 1:1 Rat Roaster. The other thing that Revell has to do is PLEASE bring back the tires from the original '32 Roadster. They are the best "standard" big and littles ever, that were only released in that issue of the kit. They work on both modern or vintage set ups and on both fendered and fenderless builds. 

[Plowboy]

7 hours ago, mrm said:

The other thing that Revell has to do is PLEASE bring back the tires from the original '32 Roadster. They are the best "standard" big and littles ever, that were only released in that issue of the kit. They work on both modern or vintage set ups and on both fendered and fenderless builds. 

You can still get those tires. The fronts were in every lowrider kit and the rears came in just about every Monogram muscle car made. So, they're still easy to get.

[mrm]

3 hours ago, Plowboy said:

You can still get those tires. The fronts were in every lowrider kit and the rears came in just about every Monogram muscle car made. So, they're still easy to get.

So to build a Hot Rod with a nice raked stance, I have to go spend $75 instead of including parts that were already made and available in previous  hot rod kit from the same "'32 franchise"? At that point is easier and cheaper to just buy aftermarket wheels/tires. But that's not what we are discussing here. 

[Plowboy]

49 minutes ago, mrm said:

So to build a Hot Rod with a nice raked stance, I have to go spend $75 instead of including parts that were already made and available in previous  hot rod kit from the same "'32 franchise"? At that point is easier and cheaper to just buy aftermarket wheels/tires. But that's not what we are discussing here. 

Ever heard of making a parts request?

Truth is, it wouldn't matter how Revell had done this kit. There will be those that aren't happy. Some are fine with it out the box. Others make changes to suit themselves. It's impossible for one kit to make everyone happy. The factory stock builders can't do anything with this kit.

This kit doesn't seem to be designed to be as versatile as the '32s are. About all that can be done between the kits is swap engines and wheels. With the '32s, you could have fenders and a hood if you wanted or simply leave them off if you didn't . The only way those could be used on the '29 is if those pieces were lengthened.  

[Tom Geiger]

4 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

This kit doesn't seem to be designed to be as versatile as the '32s are. About all that can be done between the kits is swap engines and wheels. With the '32s, you could have fenders and a hood if you wanted or simply leave them off if you didn't . The only way those could be used on the '29 is if those pieces were lengthened.  

Because Revell only got two versions of the kit out the gate!  Things like a hood and side panels may have been planned for future / now shelved versions. 

[Luc Janssens]

23 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

I could go for that.  For that matter, if they offered the big and little tires and steel wheels combo in their own pack, I'd buy a bunch of those.  I've already purchased a few packs of the AMT tires for various things.

The "problem" with parts packs is that the production, packaging (design and production) shipping, warehousing, cost are about the same as for a normal production kit, which you can buy for a few bucks more.

IMHO extra features in standard kits is the way to go, mix and match something which can be promoted through, an instruction sheet, the side-panel of a kit and even the website or facebook page of a manufacturer,  which today are kinda boring, and should draw the visitor into the fantastic creative world of model kit building, to build your dream.

About the different versions of the 32 vs. the '29-30 Ford's, messages I see here..kits today are designed in 3D, of which the files are sent to a tooling company which translates that data into hardware, which then goes to a injection molding facility to produce shots. The point I'm trying to make is, the 3D files are valuable because there's the starting point for alternative versions,  tooling can be designed to incorporate alternatives, but it's more common today to "cut" new smaller tools which form a cluster with the "main" tool to eject alternative versions. 

Just my 2cents

[1930fordpickup]

1 hour ago, Luc Janssens said:

The "problem" with parts packs is that the production, packaging (design and production) shipping, warehousing, cost are about the same as for a normal production kit, which you can buy for a few bucks more.

IMHO extra features in standard kits is the way to go, mix and match something which can be promoted through, an instruction sheet, the side-panel of a kit and even the website or facebook page of a manufacturer,  which today are kinda boring, and should draw the visitor into the fantastic creative world of model kit building, to build your dream.

About the different versions of the 32 vs. the '29-30 Ford's, messages I see here..kits today are designed in 3D, of which the files are sent to a tooling company which translates that data into hardware, which then goes to a injection molding facility to produce shots. The point I'm trying to make is, the 3D files are valuable because there's the starting point for alternative versions,  tooling can be designed to incorporate alternatives, but it's more common today to "cut" new smaller tools which form a cluster with the "main" tool to eject alternative versions. 

Just my 2cents

I do not think the cost of a parts pack is the same as a kit for a few reasons. Before I go on I will say that we have been taught that was the truth about everything for decades.  

I am going to speak of a newly tooled engine parts pack.  

1) CAD  because the files can be moved and transferred over from any already designed engine and parts. 

2) They can cut more than 1 cavity into the mold  because the molding machine platen size will allow it.  Maybe even 4 to 6 cavity's  So every time the mold closes they  have 4 to 6 parts packs to sell not just 1. I would not be surprised if they could have an 8 cavity mold for engines.

Now I will say that the packaging is where the costs have not changed much, they still have to stuff them in the box and wrap them.  Yes it is faster to put the parts pack in the boxes, and they can also put more in the case to ship back, that part of the overhead is what it is. 

I agree with Luc on the 3D part in new tools. 

[Richard Bartrop]

6 hours ago, Luc Janssens said:

The "problem" with parts packs is that the production, packaging (design and production) shipping, warehousing, cost are about the same as for a normal production kit, which you can buy for a few bucks more.

IMHO extra features in standard kits is the way to go, mix and match something which can be promoted through, an instruction sheet, the side-panel of a kit and even the website or facebook page of a manufacturer,  which today are kinda boring, and should draw the visitor into the fantastic creative world of model kit building, to build your dream.

About the different versions of the 32 vs. the '29-30 Ford's, messages I see here..kits today are designed in 3D, of which the files are sent to a tooling company which translates that data into hardware, which then goes to a injection molding facility to produce shots. The point I'm trying to make is, the 3D files are valuable because there's the starting point for alternative versions,  tooling can be designed to incorporate alternatives, but it's more common today to "cut" new smaller tools which form a cluster with the "main" tool to eject alternative versions. 

Just my 2cents

Yes, the package will probably cost about the same to make.  On the other hand, you're using a lot less plastic, and as far as shipping, you can fit about 8 of those tire packs in the space of one model box.  From the retailer's end, that means less shelf space, and if you make them like the AMT boxes, you can hang them on a peg board instead of taking up space on the kit shelves.  Assuming about half the price of a whole kit like AMT is doing, if anything, you should be making more profit on each one.  In any case, the folks at Round 2, seem to make it work.

[tim boyd]

On 4/28/2020 at 3:27 PM, mrm said:

I just read this new thread about the reissue and what I noticed is one thing no one mentioned. In all the different releases of the Revell Deuces - 6 in total, we have 4 different engines with even more induction options, a variety of wheels/tires options, two different top hoods, three different side hoods options and cool variety of decals. And then they released the '29 Roadster and the '30 coupe with the same lame@$$ rear end! If these kits are 9 out of 10 now, a simple Paddy Wagon-borrowed quick change center section (with or without the buggy spring) would have given them a perfect ten. 

Maybe, the guys on here that perhapsally (it's a word invented by little kid  ) have a piece of Revell's ear, can still make this happen for the upcoming '30 reissue. 

According to the kit's original engineer/designer, the design brief for the kits called for replicas of 1/1 scale hot rods that are capable long-distance drivers, like the rods built by Roy Brizio.  Even today, most of those have Ford diff/rears on coil overs, as they are the most reliable, smooth riding, and non-noisy choice out there.  Meanwhile, the "Traditional Hot Rod" movement was gaining steam as these kits were in the design phase, and for those, Halibrand quick changes on transverse leafs were the popular choice, in spite of some 1/1 scale operational drawbacks.  So the scale hot rod Model A's came with the Ford diffs.  If I had designed the kits, I'd have gone for the Halibrand/Leaf Spring setup.   But as you say, it's still a 9 out of 10, and for those of us who want a 10/10 model, swapping in such a rear driveline is fairly easy to accomplish.....TIM 

[bobthehobbyguy]

18 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Yes, the package will probably cost about the same to make.  On the other hand, you're using a lot less plastic, and as far as shipping, you can fit about 8 of those tire packs in the space of one model box.  From the retailer's end, that means less shelf space, and if you make them like the AMT boxes, you can hang them on a peg board instead of taking up space on the kit shelves.  Assuming about half the price of a whole kit like AMT is doing, if anything, you should be making more profit on each one.  In any case, the folks at Round 2, seem to make it work.

The round 2 model for the parts packs is easy money. The tools are developed for the kit tires which are separate molds. The 8nly addition cost is the packaging.

A parts pack for say suspension parts would only be standalone, there wouldn't be the advantages that the tires present. There no way to spread the costs out,

[Richard Bartrop]

1 hour ago, bobthehobbyguy said:

The round 2 model for the parts packs is easy money. The tools are developed for the kit tires which are separate molds. The 8nly addition cost is the packaging.

A parts pack for say suspension parts would only be standalone, there wouldn't be the advantages that the tires present. There no way to spread the costs out,

Except I wasn't talking about the suspension parts.  If you read back to what I was talking about, it was the particular set of wheels and tires that come in some Revell kits, and look to be on their own separate tree.

[Bernard Kron]

In 2015, shortly after this kit was first released I landed up building the Lowboy version. As it happened, at the time a seller on eBay was offering what amounted to the Highboy variant without the motor and tires (but with the wheels),  selling all the parts needed, including the body, interior, suspension and chassis, for $15.00 delivered, Buy It Now. It was a no brainer and I sprung for it.

The Lowboy I built was extensively modified to correct things that weren't to my liking, and I landed up installing a flat head. My intention was to build the kit version of the highboy since in the pictures I had seen of it at the time it looked OK to me.

What I didn't like about these cars at the time, and still don't, is the mile-high stance. There's huge ground clearance and those big 'ol ladder bars hanging down in the back only draw attention to it. So in my build, to lowerde the stance, I reversed the front cross member, shaved the front spring and deepened the rather mild Z at the back. Like Dennis I swapped in a more traditional rear suspension - in my case from a Revellogram '37 Ford Delivery. Other than these changes it was pretty much a box build. Like Tim and Richard I landed up moving the grill shell back to improve the proportions. Dennis has commented elsewhere that what was really needed was to shorten the frame in front of the firewall.

When it was all done it looked pretty much as I had intended, but even now, to my eyes, it could have been even lower.

Now, 5 years later, I'm finally getting to the Highboy. The w.i.p. for it is posted elsewhere on the forum (see below). Again I have reversed the crossmember and shaved the front spring. I have also swapped in the same more traditional rear suspension, and lowered the rear axle somewhat by notching the frame mounts. I'm installing a Deuce grill from one of the Revell kits. It doesn't look like it will be difficult to do. I haven't gotten to the point of getting the car up on its wheels so I'm not sure this is the final stance. But I have noticed over the years that although the Highboy looks better than the Lowboy version, it still sits high. We'll see how it works out...

I have built an AMT '29 on Deuce rails using the Revell rails in the past, and my feeling is that overall, if I build another '29 Highboy on Deuce rails I'll go the AMT/Revell Deuce route. It's a superior result to my eye.

Here's the w.i.p. I have going:

Here's the 2015 Lowboy:

And here's an AMT '29 on Revell '32 rails with a Deuce grill:

Edited May 1, 2020 by Bernard Kron

[mrm]

23 hours ago, tim boyd said:

According to the kit's original engineer/designer, the design brief for the kits called for replicas of 1/1 scale hot rods that are capable long-distance drivers, like the rods built by Roy Brizio.  Even today, most of those have Ford diff/rears on coil overs, as they are the most reliable, smooth riding, and non-noisy choice out there.  Meanwhile, the "Traditional Hot Rod" movement was gaining steam as these kits were in the design phase, and for those, Halibrand quick changes on transverse leafs were the popular choice, in spite of some 1/1 scale operational drawbacks.  So the scale hot rod Model A's came with the Ford diffs.  If I had designed the kits, I'd have gone for the Halibrand/Leaf Spring setup.   But as you say, it's still a 9 out of 10, and for those of us who want a 10/10 model, swapping in such a rear driveline is fairly easy to accomplish.....TIM 

Tim, thank you for the insight.

I think this conversation got really tangled up. I was responding to someone's notion, that over time perhapsely there would have been more releases of the model A's with other options. (I don't doubt that) But the Revell '32 "franchise was given as an example. Tho which I responded that Revell made new tooling for some absolutely unnecessary changes, while for 25 years they never changed the boring plain Jane 9"rear. The grille shell in Stacy Adams Rat Roaster is a new tooling. The grille itself is new. The front shock mounts and lights are new tooling and the hood is a new tooling, which is optional and could have been omitted. The whole body is a new tooling. With new fenders. The frame is a new tooling. The entire interior is a new tooling. Now if Revell made a Tom Prufer style Street rod, retaining the frame, the body, the hoods, the grille shell, grille, lights, the front shock mounts and added just new style door panels and seat for the interior and put the same rear axle with quick change and packaged it with SBC they made for the Rat Roaster with some cool wheel/tire combo similar to the original roadster's, it would have cost half as much to make and it would have blown the doors off the Stacy Adams's sales. Not to mention, without paying what I am sure is insane amount of licensing money to him and his show. So, the point I am trying to make is that obviously profitability is not the only driving force behind the decisions that Revell has made. And exactly because it is easy for modelers to swap parts, it should be considered to add a new rear end once every 25 years. And yes, we can find the parts we need in other kits. Heck, I can make me the parts I need in more ways than one. But just like not everyone is capable of that, not everyone can afford to buy six different kits just to get a '32 to sit right, just because Revell forgot they already have what they need to put in the box. Ultimately, things like that lead to the demise of companies. Two almost identical kits, but with two different bodies, two sets of wheels, two frames, two engines, two interiors (each!!!!), three sets of headlights....Revolutionary! it is an absolutely amazing kit I have multiples of both. And then you put in the same 25 year old pumpkin? Was that hard to have two different rear ends? One in each kit, like the engines. 

[niteowl7710]

The ENTIRE Rat Roaster is new tooling. Ed Sexton said at the time that the original '32 tooling (remember that started back in 1998) had been "pushed to it's design limits" by the various other kits released from the tooling. So by the time 2013 rolled around it was more economical to tool an entirely new kit patterned from the 1998 CAD data with the changes for the Rat Roaster plugged into the design.

[Luc Janssens]

9 hours ago, niteowl7710 said:

The ENTIRE Rat Roaster is new tooling. Ed Sexton said at the time that the original '32 tooling (remember that started back in 1998) had been "pushed to it's design limits" by the various other kits released from the tooling. So by the time 2013 rolled around it was more economical to tool an entirely new kit patterned from the 1998 CAD data with the changes for the Rat Roaster plugged into the design.

Remember hearing that too, but don't think at that time they used CAD (except for "then" contemporary subject matter) , cuz remember visiting the Morton Grove plant in '03 with Dave Darby, and when we met the R&D folks to take pics, they removed a 1/10th scale wooden body master of a 'Vette (I think it was) because the kit was still in development, and didn't wanted it photographed.

So they probably scanned the parts and from these 3D files the rework started..

Edited May 1, 2020 by Luc Janssens

[tim boyd]

Here's a 38-photo with captions on-line how-to on building the Highboy version of the Revell Model A Roadster.  This is the original kit release but it is identical to the new release except that I used the Nailhead Buick instead of the new kit's SBC, and the new kit's mag wheels were not available on the original release.   If you aren't familiar with the kit, you should check it out.  While there are a few things I would have done differently (the rear suspension/diff and the rear fender.inner fender opening most prominently), I still think this is one of the Revell's best kits in a long, long time (with the '30A Coupe version being even better).  Best....TIM 

  

[mrm]

On 5/1/2020 at 7:57 PM, tim boyd said:

Here's a 38-photo with captions on-line how-to on building the Highboy version of the Revell Model A Roadster.  This is the original kit release but it is identical to the new release except that I used the Nailhead Buick instead of the new kit's SBC, and the new kit's mag wheels were not available on the original release.   If you aren't familiar with the kit, you should check it out.  While there are a few things I would have done differently (the rear suspension/diff and the rear fender.inner fender opening most prominently), I still think this is one of the Revell's best kits in a long, long time (with the '30A Coupe version being even better).  Best....TIM 

  

There is no way in hell, these white walls were achieved with the kit's decals.

[tim boyd]

5 hours ago, mrm said:

There is no way in hell, these white walls were achieved with the kit's decals.

Uhh...actually they WERE achieved with the kit decals. 

It did take a bunch of Micro-Sol on the rears, applied in several rounds, to make it happen, but I don't remember the fronts being much of an issue.   Thought I mentioned this in the on-line buildup, but appears I did not.  So good thing you raised the question Michael....

TIM 

 

[1972coronet]

Not to mention that @tim boyd has been building since before I was born ( I'm 50 ) , and has decades' worth of experience . He would mention any issues with those white wall decals , if there were any .

Certainly , pad-printed would have been much , much better ( not sure why Revell didn't take that direction --- decals are such an archaic notion for tyres ) .

By the way , Tim , that's one beautiful representation you've constructed there !~ I especially like the "flipped" colours for the interior --- that gives a unique appearance to the seating and door panels . Kudos !

[mrm]

7 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Uhh...actually they WERE achieved with the kit decals. 

It did take a bunch of Micro-Sol on the rears, applied in several rounds, to make it happen, but I don't remember the fronts being much of an issue.   Thought I mentioned this in the on-line buildup, but appears I did not.  So good thing you raised the question Michael....

TIM 

 

Wow! Amazing! I have used decals for white walls only once (the only model I have ever built with white walls  ). They were not bad, but not as bright and crisp as yours. Did you use any clear or anything other than Micro-Sol?

[tim boyd]

3 hours ago, mrm said:

Wow! Amazing! I have used decals for white walls only once (the only model I have ever built with white walls  ). They were not bad, but not as bright and crisp as yours. Did you use any clear or anything other than Micro-Sol?

Good question.  I did that build about 4 1/2 years ago so I don't recall specifically for that model, but sometimes I spray tire sidewalls with semi-gloss clear before applying the whitewall (or RWL) decals to promote better decal adhesion.    Probably did so here.  But I am guessing that I did not do another coat of semi gloss after the decals were applied. 

BTW, when I spray the sidewalls with semi-gloss I always mask off the tread area of the tires first.   

TIM  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tim boyd]

5 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

 

By the way , Tim , that's one beautiful representation you've constructed there !~ I especially like the "flipped" colours for the interior --- that gives a unique appearance to the seating and door panels . Kudos !

Thanks John!   Cheers....TIM

[mrm]

16 hours ago, tim boyd said:

Good question.  I did that build about 4 1/2 years ago so I don't recall specifically for that model, but sometimes I spray tire sidewalls with semi-gloss clear before applying the whitewall (or RWL) decals to promote better decal adhesion.    Probably did so here.  But I am guessing that I did not do another coat of semi gloss after the decals were applied. 

BTW, when I spray the sidewalls with semi-gloss I always mask off the tread area of the tires first.   

TIM  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info. What kind of semi-gloss clear do you use? My experience is that most paint does not do well on the tire material. 

[tim boyd]

7 hours ago, mrm said:

Thanks for the info. What kind of semi-gloss clear do you use? My experience is that most paint does not do well on the tire material. 

Just Tamiya Semi=Gloss Clear.....TB 

[OldNYJim]

I wonder if a roadster pickup might be a variation, further down the road?  Once they’ve done the coupe again, what other Model A variants are there that they could do?