Is "weathering" the chassis actually realistic???

[Quick GMC]

It's almost never actually realistic, but since these things are so small, it adds depth you otherwise wouldn't get.

I added a fuel line to my 68 HEMI Dart that isn't there in real life, but it adds dimension to the small model. I like the detail that is achievable with these models and that's why I enjoy building. Unless it is a well documented racecar where there are pictures of every piece, I rarely strive for utmost accuracy.

In the name dimension and detail, do what you must to make it pop. The unrealistic weathered chassis look much better to me than when they are not detailed at all.

[Mike_G]

I mostly build customs and show cars, the undercarriages of which would normally be kept fastidiously clean. To weather the chassis would be unrealistic.

[10thumbs]

I was once again thinking I'll write something here and see it's 2008! I'll do it now though that it's updated.

I think the way a car looks underneath reflects where the car is driven. Most I've seen are just plain dirty, grimy and greasy. Florida had cars that were undercoated like crazy to fight salty, humid air. In Germany it's salty roads in the winter and "who cares anyway what it looks like". The roads are often wet over here and lots of them are covered fairly well anyway.

I agree with Harry though, what's the point in modelling a weathered rig?

On drag race cars, I like the models to be super clean underneath, the detailing done is more visible too. Brake and fuel lines and such.

I still have from older days a nice HO Model Train collection, lots of German and Austrian Made steam and Diesel electric locomotives, very nice pieces! I weathered the spokes and drive wheels on lots of them with really thinned out and runny black gloss. They look very real. But that's on the outside. Underneath, no way.

Michael

[Tom Geiger]

Here's a few chassis that I did over the years. Beat them up as you may...

[Harry P.]

The "mistake" you made is you forgot to add an overall coating of dark gray dirt/grime/gunk. After a year or three on the road, the underside of a car all gets covered with the same generic gunk, and you really don't see individual components "rusting" at their own pace, different and starkly contrasted from other components. For example, in your first photo the bottom of the engine and the exhaust pipe and muffler would all have the same coating of gunk, and all be closer to the same color... not the individual weathered but different colors you did. The colors of the individual components would over time all become closer in color as the chassis "weathers." Of the three you posted, the last one is probably closest to reality.

[Lovefordgalaxie]

Used 1957 Ford with the underside covered in typical '50s and '60s grime, when the roads were mostly dirt with only a few being paved.

1957 Ford Custom Tudor by Túlio Lazzaroni, on

Flickr

You can see this Ford got new tires in the recent past, and some of the exhaust was replaced maybe a year or a little more ago.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Lovefordgalaxie

[Lovefordgalaxie]

This 1957 Bel Air is weathered to replicate a car that was used in a specific region of my state (cities of Blumenau, Pomerode, Indaila, etc), where the dirt roads of the time were very "baby pooish" in color, and the cars soon got the same color underside.

This Chevy was built to replicate a car maybe 14 or 15 years old.

1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Restored Model Kit by Túlio Lazzaroni, on Flickr

[chunkypeanutbutter]

I suppose I have a good excuse for most of my builds... All junkyard finds that have been recently is covered and improved!

[Agent G]

I'd take the opposite approach to weathering. I'd paint everything underneath a light to medium gray with just a touch of brown. Think road grime everywhere but where I live. Here it'd be plain dust, a tan-gray shade.

Then I replicate the remains of original finishes with washes of color. Say blue, representing the shocks as seen in the pic. It wouldn't be near as much blue though, as those are extended exposing the protected areas. Rust would be a combination of brown to red brown colors as washes, finished off with pastels or pigments.

I'd treat it kind of like one of my armor builds, just upside down.

G

[10thumbs]

But I do admire the way you guys detail the wear and tear on these models! Really excellent looking work.

michael

[Art Anderson]

"weathering" all depends on the region where the actual car existed. Period, end of statement.

Art

[Tom Geiger]

I hear ya Art.... That's an Aruba license plate on this one...

[Longbox55]

"weathering" all depends on the region where the actual car existed. Period, end of statement.

Art

Agreed.

[chunkypeanutbutter]

[Snake45]

Here's what I do on those rare occasions when the mood to "weather" a chassis strikes me.

1. Paint the chassis as normal, maybe not as neatly or in as much detail as normal. I might just rattlecan the whole thing in flat black or a dark primer gray, but I will still pick out the exhausts and gas tank in some kind of flat steel/aluminum/silver (silver Sharpie does a nice job on molded-in exhausts).

2. Pour bottled Testor Dullcote into an airbrush jar, about 1/3 full.

3. Add one or two drops of Model Master Dark Tan and either Dark Gull Gray or Gunship Gray, whichever I happen to grab first. Fill the rest of the airbrush jar with Walmart lacquer thinner, and shake. This gives me kind of a "candy grime."

4. I mist this on the whole chassis (don't forget the inner sides of the wheels/tires) lightly until I get it where I want it. I've learned to STOP when I THINK it needs "just one or two more passes." The idea is to have everything the tannish gray (or grayish tan) color, but with hints of other colors still visible if you look.

I don't often weather, but when I do, this is how I do it.