My all time biggest modeling pet peeve

[Peter Lombardo]

Alright, we all have our own “pet peeve’s†when it comes to modeling. You know, difficulties with airbrushes not shooting paint and all of a sudden the clog clears and big blotches spray on to your car, or why does super glue fog your windows, or even kit directions that either mislabel parts or neglect to put the assembly order, in the right order…..you know, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of little things that tie your shorts into a knot.

Well, this is most probably the one thing that upsets me the most. It is most prevalent on American kits mainly because our cars have the most chrome…..and I realize that the manufacturers claim that they can’t cure this from happening, but it fries my butt none the less.

So, I will just throw it out there…..why do the kit designers seeming find the very worst spot on a chromed piece to attach it to the tree???? Look at the way the bumpers on the MGB that I am working on are attached to the sprue.

Could they have found a worst spot to attach them? What are they thinking here?

“Hey, I know, lets attach the bumpers to the tree so when that unsuspecting modeler goes to remove the parts, he will have huge white spot right on the edge where it is the most visible!†“Yeah, that’s the ticket…we’ll really screw him up.†Now I realize that parts are attached to the tree for the most efficient flow of molten plastic. And the economy of space is a consideration, but really, why would they blatantly stick it on the outside edge….the most visible spot. I know, I can Allclad the parts, or send them out to be re-chromed, of cover the spot with BMF, or even use some paint….but that is not the point.

I think they could do a better job of engineering this, but make no attempt to do it because it is just an accepted part of the hobby.

OK, I now feel a whole lot better.

[MrObsessive]

Hmmm...........glass that is waaaaay too thick for scale!

AMT's '57 Chrysler is the worst at this offense as the rear glass is so thick, it might as well be for eyeglasses! One of the reasons I have yet to build that kit.

Not to mention the waviness that is inherent in so many kits. Tamiya might be the best at distortion free glass (they must polish their molds really well). You can count on the glass looking in scale for the kit..............but their kit prices are outta sight now!

[vizio93]

One thing that i really get P.O.ed about is that in some kit's, like the GT500KR by revel, the tires are WAAY to big. You might as well call it the GT500MT for MONSTER TRUCK !!! I don't know if their are any other kit's that have this problem, but that one is the worst for BIG tires. Wheeew Do i feel better

[MrObsessive]

I don't know if the tires are too big in that kit, or the wheels too small.

In any event that's another one of mine too-----wheels and tires that aren't to scale like the 1:1. It's a matter of appearance if the profile of the tires are too tall like the GT500KR.

In fact when I built my '05 Mustang GT, that's one of the reasons I switched wheels and tires......the kit ones just appeared too small to my view.

[Nova-ss]

Ok,....mine is ,why are the kits not rite....accurate to the real subject.Tamiya....to me seem to be the best at accurate models.I know they are not perfect either.but most of the others are way off and some are up in the night as far as what they make for us all to build.I accept it but don't like it.I wished I could say I feel better about....but I don't.I don't let it stop me.and I know they could do better.if Tamiya can so can the rest.I know they are pricey.I would rather have pricey then inaccurate kits.I hope nobody is upset at me.Thank ya.Chris

[James Flowers]

Chrome attachment points has to be the worst, I agree. Then mold lines in weird places. To thick of glass and ill fitting glass. Then parts that are too short or long for where they go.

[charlzrocks]

Arrrgggghhhhh!

A Chrome tree with so much Flash that you almost have to remove the chrome, clean up the flash and re-chrome the parts, not to mention attachments at the worst places (so true Mr. Lombardo!). OR...the company puts sooo many chrome parts on one tree that you end up accidentally cutting into one part to remove another!

[Dragline]

This is a post that totally speaks to MY HEART..

As a result, I will speak about it ad nauseum............

Attachment:

There are CLEARLY places to NOT attach parts, and there are places TO CLEARLY attach them. That said, if we had the MODELING community involved we could make the needed placement points clear to the manufacturers and this would be a moot point. If not asked, well, we have what we've always had. Poor placement points and OBVIOUS mistakes. It only takes a minute to see that MANY of the placement points over the last [50?] years have been, by and large, INCORRECT..

Seams:

While chrome sprues largely take a hit here I thought it would bear mention that MOST seams are inconvenient. But, I have no problem working either sandpaper or sanding stick to achieve results I am pleased with. Problem is, I am usually NEVER happy with the results I achieve. As much as I like to think, I am not the greatest sander/seam sander. My results are OK mostly.

Chrome:

STOP chroming items that DO NOT need to be chromed..... 95% or more of most kits need to be white plastic, period. Case in point? The new Trumpeter GT40.....

The Rest?:

I despise seams. On assembled models it is unacceptable to me. It is one of the BASIC skills that a modeller should adopt immediately. If you HAVE to build a model, a few basic things can be observed and all mankind can be happy with your result.

Paint items in colors they are normally. Pick up a book, or stick your head under a hood for once. I do minimal research to achive modest results. You are encouraged to do at least that. The Internet............ blah, blah, blah........................ It takes nearly NO EFFORT to be accurate on most subjects. Others can be elusive I admit.

Model what you know:

Do you know F1? Model them for Pete's sake!

You a Dragnut? Pick up a Pro Stock kit.. There is usually something current to choose from when it comes to NHRA.

Like Stock? Too many to choose from. Pick a kit and run with it.....

OK. I went on [like promised]..

Build a car.. Build it today.

Learn from every build.

Bob F

[Pete J.]

Stupid thing that drive me up the wall:

Red Plastic - Why would you build something out of a plastic that is pretty much guaranteed to bleed through no matter how much sealer/primer you slap on it. Metallic plastic is about the same - Please, white or black only!!!

Seams are bad, but why in the @#%% would you put one across a clear piece like a windscreen or canopy?????

Ejector pin marks that are concave rather than convex. I can sand the extra material off. Filling the #$%% things and then trying to get a smooth finish is really a head ache. Even worse is concave ejector pin marks on clear plastic parts.

Tampo printing on tires and other parts: For #%$@% sake it's a kit! I want to put it were it should be. Don't help me in a way that I can't fix. Just give me a decal or dry transfer.

Decals that are 6 inches long and 1/16" wide. They are going to break or be impossible to put on straight. I don't know anyone who can do these right.

[slowbird]

oh boy...I agree on the chrome parts attached in bad spots. also, clear parts can suffer from bad sprue design. engine halves that don't line up no matter what you do, and tires that have severe marks on the tread from the mold, or got misaligned completely.

also, radiator hoses are a pain in the butt no matter what you do but my biggest pet peeve is when I screw up and don't notice until it's too late. glue on a body panel, scratches on the windshield, cutting a part too deep, sanding too much from a body panel, or having the whole darn thing put together before I realize I missed a bunch of mold lines.

[Foxer]

I have to agree 100% with you, Peter. And the points on those MGB bumpers is one good example of this at it's worst. There ARE decisions to be made designing the molds and sometimes there's nothing you can do to have the plastic flow work, but still. About all you can do is say "at least they didn't put the seam down the middle of the bumper".

[elan]

How about metal axles! Good Greif it's the 21st century for cryin' out loud. They can think up a better way?

[Jantrix]

Decals that are 6 inches long and 1/16" wide. They are going to break or be impossible to put on straight. I don't know anyone who can do these right.

This one is my peeve as well. I hate decals that are long enough to cross a door line but dont break for the door crease. A decal that runs the legth of a 2-door should be in at least three parts - front fender - door - rear fender. I hate having to slice the decal after it has set up and then having to add setting solution to the area, so the cut ends will dip into the door crease. Grr. The 69 GTO Judge drove me up a wall this way.

Another peeve is tires in a muscle car kit where the tread face is concave and not flat. Older Revell kits are terrible for this.

Chrome air grabbers/scoops in two clamshell parts. This makes me insanely angry. Near impossible to make authentic looking, keeping the kit chrome.

Chrome parts that should be aluminum or steel.

Ejector pin marks in hard/impossible to sand areas.

warpage

And I have to agree with Davezinn, on his issue of new modelers who jump into advanced techniques expecting experienced results without having learned the basics. Learn how to build a clean model, then start with some kit bashing and then move into the tough stuff. As with any skill, there must be a learning curve. My 16 yr old son is dealing with this disappointment now. "Why doesn't mine look like Dad's?" And my advice of , take your time, learn to build cleanly first, seems to just fill him with anger as if I'm trying to hold him back. *sigh*

Edited October 23, 2009 by Jantrix

[MrObsessive]

my biggest peeve? modelers who lack even basic skills required to assemble a snap-kit out of the box but absolutely insist on tackling "superdetailed" projects with every possible opening panel or extensive body modifications. i've seen people hack perfectly good plastic and resin into oblivion that can't even build a basic kit OOB with even mediocre results. i just don't understand it honestly.

Dave

Hey, I resemble that remark!

I know what you mean Dave.......I always advise folks that want to start cutting open things is to start with a junk body and start with something simple, like a fuel filler door or something.

Guys get discouraged because they expect their results to be perfect right out of the box............it doesn't work that way!

It took me a number of tries before I was satisfied as to how my doors open, and then doing the surrounding bodywork correctly. Door jambs, body door jambs, etc, take time to learn how to do well!

[cruz]

I can work through anything but my peeve is when a body is not correct. When I think about the Revell Cuda it hurts me to think that they just can't or want to get this thing done right.... Another thing is when they give you decals to simulate the redlines on kit's tires, not only do they look horrible, they are always out of scale!!

[chepp]

Chrome tree sprue placement: it can be done in hidden locations, just look at the chrome parts on die-cast models that are sold assembled. You won't see sprue marks on them.

The problem is that the plastic kit manufacturers don't have to show an assembled model so they can take shortcuts on where they attachment sprues.

Edited October 23, 2009 by chepp

[Art Anderson]

Alright, we all have our own “pet peeve’s†when it comes to modeling. You know, difficulties with airbrushes not shooting paint and all of a sudden the clog clears and big blotches spray on to your car, or why does super glue fog your windows, or even kit directions that either mislabel parts or neglect to put the assembly order, in the right order…..you know, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of little things that tie your shorts into a knot.

Well, this is most probably the one thing that upsets me the most. It is most prevalent on American kits mainly because our cars have the most chrome…..and I realize that the manufacturers claim that they can’t cure this from happening, but it fries my butt none the less.

So, I will just throw it out there…..why do the kit designers seeming find the very worst spot on a chromed piece to attach it to the tree???? Look at the way the bumpers on the MGB that I am working on are attached to the sprue.

Could they have found a worst spot to attach them? What are they thinking here?

“Hey, I know, lets attach the bumpers to the tree so when that unsuspecting modeler goes to remove the parts, he will have huge white spot right on the edge where it is the most visible!†“Yeah, that’s the ticket…we’ll really screw him up.†Now I realize that parts are attached to the tree for the most efficient flow of molten plastic. And the economy of space is a consideration, but really, why would they blatantly stick it on the outside edge….the most visible spot. I know, I can Allclad the parts, or send them out to be re-chromed, of cover the spot with BMF, or even use some paint….but that is not the point.

I think they could do a better job of engineering this, but make no attempt to do it because it is just an accepted part of the hobby.

OK, I now feel a whole lot better.

A lot has to do with how molten styrene flows when injected into the mold, as to where injection and/or sprue attachment points and mold parting lines almost have to be. Another is the simple fact that steel molds are far stiffer than the hardest styrene, so a part cannot be pulled from a steel die if there are any undercuts whatsoever, without damage to the very surfaces we want to see as smooth as possible.

Take the bumpers from a '59 Chevy (or just look at the bumpers on the tree in your pics, see how the ends wrap around in toward the body surface/wheel opening!) for example: Note how not only is the front (or rear for that matter) bumper not only goes straight across the end of the body, and wraps around to the sides to protect the corners of the fender or quarter panel, but then "tucks in" at its ends, in a half-bullet shape. Now, in order to eliminate the nasty mold parting line which can show vertically at that end of the bumper, one could split the tool horizontally, but the elimination of one parting line will create an even more visible one, all the way across the bumper itself, almost certainly less desireable wouldn't you say? Now, suppose we eliminate the sprue attachment points at that parting line which is vertical just forward of the bumper end--if one does not want the long horizontal parting line across the face of that bumper, then it must be tooled so that one side of the tool molds the back side along with the tips of the ends, the other the front leaving the major parting lines at the rear edges of the top and bottom of the bumper. Now, with that in mind, there is absolutely no place whatsoever on the back side of the bumper to put that attachment point, not without creating another problem elsewhere, bearing in mind that styrene flows into model kit parts THROUGH the sprue attachment points. which is what the sprue tree does, channel molten plastic to, and in to, the parts.

It's certainly true that very few Japanese kits have this problem, but then, with only a few exceptions, (such as Gunze Sangyo's '59 Impala and '59 Eldorado kits in 1/32 scale, few model kits of American 50's or 60's cars have ever come out of Japan, from tooling they designed themselves. With the much simpler styling of many foreign cars, the problems of molding some highly visible parts such as bumpers just aren't there in comparison to that '59 Chevy described above.

Another issue is that of "draft angles". Styrene plastic does not like being dragged out of a mold when that means scuffing across the steel of the mold--that leads to scarring of the surface of the plastic, and worse, it leads to seriously visible mold wear, as believe it or not, styrene plastic is rather abrasive, even in its freshly molded, warm and slightly soft state. So, a very slight angle may at times be cut into the mold cavities, to allow the molded styrene part to pull away from the steel upon demolding, rather than being scuffed against it, and that also shows up by emphasizing parting lines. Now, I suppose that '50 Chevy bumper could be done in multiple parts, as were the majority of the 1:1 bumpers (a 59 Chevy produced in any plant other than Van Nuys CA had a two piece front bumper, split in the middle and bolted together, the rear bumper came in three sections, split at the bumper guards, also bolted together (the "California Bumper" produced at Van Nuys being the only exception to this). But, the downside of that would be (even though one could eliminate that nasty parting line described above) a bumper that would have to be glued together in the same assembly breakdown as the real ones, with all the attendant squeals from many builders, and would likely also require a larger, more expensive tool, perhaps even a second mold press to produce, resulting in a higher retail price (with attendant VERY LOUD SQUEALS from modelers!), so it is one of those "Catch 22" situations. And, I haven't even begun to address the very real need for the molten styrene to fill every cavity completely, with no "short shots" (which even with the best styrene flow engineering, can still happen, but not caused by the design of the tooling.

Bear in mind as well, in most overseas domestic model kit markets, model car kits (indeed most all plastic model kits) have come to be produced at almost "cost no object" levels, witness the ever higher prices for newly tooled model kits. However, our US Domestic Market has demanded, for decades, that products be made to sell at a rather small range of "Price Points" or target maximum retail prices, and that's not limited to model car kits. Walmart and the other big box stores, while hardly a source for model car kits anymore, demand products they sell to be within those price points, and even a few pennies can be enough to kill a sale to them, with negative results to any manufacturer who does not strive to meet them. Also, we modelers need only to look in the mirror, to see the ultimate determinant of price points for the model kits we want to buy. How many times on these forums here, in fact on any model car forum on the web, have we seen carping about the price of new model kits, hmmmmm? Price point, my friends, price point, demanded by us as well. Somehow, I doubt seriously that such is the case in say, Japan, witness the wide variation, and much higher prices over there for a model car produced there, for sale there, than what we might expect here in the US. Thus parts counts tend to be lower a lot of the time, for say a Revell or AMT kit, than for many car kits coming out of other countries, not always, but a lot of the time.

These are issues that very few reps at trade shows are knowledgeable enough to to address and explain, and most consumers wouldn't stand still long enough for a company's tooling engineer to explain either, but they are very real considerations that have to be taken into account in the model car kit manufacturing business.

Art

[Art Anderson]

Also, the chrome bumpers on the high end diecast models, such as those that come from the "Mints" are actually removed from the sprues before plating, as they are not vacuum-metalized with vaporized aluminum, but rather are plated in real chromium, over a base plating of real copper. As such, those manufacturers can take the time to clean up those parts and polish over parting lines before the parts are committed to the electro plating bath. But then, you pay what, upwards of $130 for a car from Franklin or Danbury Mint?

Art

[Art Anderson]

How about metal axles! Good Greif it's the 21st century for cryin' out loud. They can think up a better way?

Elan,

Those wire axles in model kits are, almost always, in kits for which the tooling was done in the era 1950's through the 70's, when not only was that the accepted way (back when the market for model cars was more kids than adults and ease of assembly was paramount), just as "pan chassis" with all sorts of molded on details comes from that same era--a great many model kits, including most models of domestic American cars 1958 to the late early 80's were spun off mass produceable, assembled promotional model cars done for the Detroit Big Three to promote their new cars at the dealerships.

There are literally thousands of tons of tooling for those old kits still around, in some condition or another, and to expect a manufacturer to modify (and that could be considerable!) those tools to produce even state of the art model car kit suspension setups very likely would preclude their being reissued at all, and many subjects that can be reissued from those old tools would not stand the test of sales numbers to justify making new tools of a lot of them.

Art

[sak]

So far very good points, all of them. Some of my peeves, aside from the ones already mentioned

- under-detailed, molded in wiper arms and blades. Example, AMT 1971 duster.

- "Bucket" style interiors on older kits.

- embossed gauge numbers, rather than decals

- inner fenders with molded in hoses, batteries etc.

- floating alternators. Be nice if they molded them with the brackets at least, like the Revell 67 coronet

- no steering shaft on most model kits

Things I would like to see

- vent windows frames and fuel tanks as seperate pieces, especially the fuel tank. I find it a PITA to mask this off and alclad.

Am I being too nitpicky? Probably. Personally, I think the AMT 66 olds and the AMT 71 duster and 2 of the best kits I have ever seen so far. Be nice if the kit companies could take the best elements of the best kits and drop all the worst and agree on a common configuration and build the kits to that standard. Production defects will always be there to some degree but if fixing a sink hole or two if the only issue with the kit, rather than having to scratch build things or wasting time masking off washer fluid bottles, all in all, building the kit should prove to be considerably more enjoyable.

Jeff

Edited October 23, 2009 by sak

[Guest arni]

Yes chrome is a big annoyance to me also.Another thing that bugs me is when you have a very fine item,say a gear lever or radio ariel and the gate is crowded with other parts and so on.What I do nowadays is to cut the gate away in sections until I can make one clean cut at the end of the item to be removed.

Another thing that bugs me is poor packaging..Having chrome and clear parts-especialy clear parts floating loose in the box to collect all sorts of dings in transit.

The last moan is Revell end opening boxes,a great way to lose small parts once a project is started.

[E St. Kruiser50]

Alright, we all have our own “pet peeve’s†when it comes to modeling. You know, difficulties with airbrushes not shooting paint and all of a sudden the clog clears and big blotches spray on to your car, or why does super glue fog your windows, or even kit directions that either mislabel parts or neglect to put the assembly order, in the right order…..you know, there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of little things that tie your shorts into a knot.

Well, this is most probably the one thing that upsets me the most. It is most prevalent on American kits mainly because our cars have the most chrome…..and I realize that the manufacturers claim that they can’t cure this from happening, but it fries my butt none the less.

So, I will just throw it out there…..why do the kit designers seeming find the very worst spot on a chromed piece to attach it to the tree???? Look at the way the bumpers on the MGB that I am working on are attached to the sprue.

Could they have found a worst spot to attach them? What are they thinking here?

“Hey, I know, lets attach the bumpers to the tree so when that unsuspecting modeler goes to remove the parts, he will have huge white spot right on the edge where it is the most visible!†“Yeah, that’s the ticket…we’ll really screw him up.†Now I realize that parts are attached to the tree for the most efficient flow of molten plastic. And the economy of space is a consideration, but really, why would they blatantly stick it on the outside edge….the most visible spot. I know, I can Allclad the parts, or send them out to be re-chromed, of cover the spot with BMF, or even use some paint….but that is not the point.

I think they could do a better job of engineering this, but make no attempt to do it because it is just an accepted part of the hobby.

OK, I now feel a whole lot better.

I'll say it simply - Plastic has to flow and these are the simplest places for molding.

A SIMPLE FIX:

BARE METAL FOIL - I just clean up those small attachment points, use a foil adhesive, and add a small piece of foil, and the foil blends in perfectly with the surrounding chrome - WALA .

NEVER HAD ANYONE CATCH IT .

(Sorry, no peeves. Got a buncha kits, and I love each one . Some could be better I suppose, but I remember the wood kits that came before plastic. IT'S ALL GOOD .)

Edited October 23, 2009 by Treehugger Dave

[Craig Irwin]

Chrome head and tail lights.

[envious8420]

my biggest peeves, there are 2.

1) the line where the molten plastic comes together inside the mold, usually in the middle of the roof.

they are almost impossible to paint without showing through.

2)molded in axles and exhausts.

Edited October 23, 2009 by envious8420

[Lownslow]

multipiece bodies enough said