'53 Hudson Hornet is coming....

[Danno]

Props for the rods. Works for me; I can live with 'em.

BTW, I've got sandpaper ... same stuff I use to thin the belts on 100% of the AMT, MPC, Monogram, Revell, Revellogram, Tamiya, Fujimi, Heller, Trumpeter, and other kits I build.

[Art Anderson]

Come on, Art... There are countless styrene pieces in model kits that are thinner than those tree trunk hood supports. I've built enough models in my day to know that you can injection-mold parts way thinner than those hood supports. Maybe they made the supports extra beefy because they thought they needed to be, in order to hold up the hood (which I doubt)... but there's no injection molding technology-based reason why they have to be so thick. Sorry, not buying the "necessary compromises" story.

Gee Harry! In real life (Dad owned, and I worked on with and for him! 3 stepdown Hudsons): Those hood supports were no thicker than 3/16", which in 1/25 scale means less than .007 inch. Now, just how do YOU propose to injection mold somthing that thin. huh? Please answer my PM to you, with your phone number, let's discuss, OK?

Art

[Art Anderson]

Come on, Art... There are countless styrene pieces in model kits that are thinner than those tree trunk hood supports. I've built enough models in my day to know that you can injection-mold parts way thinner than those hood supports. Maybe they made the supports extra beefy because they thought they needed to be, in order to hold up the hood (which I doubt)... but there's no injection molding technology-based reason why they have to be so thick. Sorry, not buying the "necessary compromises" story.

Harry, please answer my PM to you.

Art

Harry, apparently you do not have the balls to answer this, nor my PM to you?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Art Anderson

[Guest]

Good lord Harry, you are picking at fleas here.

[Swifster]

The rest of the car is soooooooo beautiful, I'll gladly deal with those supports and tap dance all they way home with as many as I can carry. I can't wait to get a bunch while I wait patiently for the C300. Art, I don't suppose as their is no need to make a C300 drop top, will there be a 300B? I'm getting giddy over these cars...

Just thinking that the engines alone are worth the price of admission.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Swifster

[Chuck Most]

The hoods on my models are usually closed or nonexistent, so I can live with the relative thickness. Perhaps they could have used a stiff piece of thin wire or flattened brass, if the thickness is an issue. The AMT '49 Ford kit has a thick prop rod, but I've never seen it actually used. (And yeah, I know, '60's tooling technology vs. '10's...)I'm just glad this feature was actually incorporated into the kit, after all these years of 'lift off' hoods in kits.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Chuck Most

[Darin Bastedo]

Yeah they could be molded a lot thinner, but at the same time they would be mor brittle and not as useful. a lot of models I've built over the years have had some really nice thinnbly molded parts only to be broken down the road by clumsy contest judges or just in normal handling. If the thickness of the part really bugs you you can minimize the thick look by filing down the edges and by painting them a dark color. and if you feel ambitious they would be simple to scratch-build out of aluminium. lets face it there is no way they could have molded them to acccurate scale thickness and make them strong enough to handle, so the next best thing is to do what 90% of the buying public wants. strong parts that won't warp or break over time. look at how many kits have no hood hinges at all.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Darin Bastedo

[charlie8575]

If you mold those much thinner, they'd warp before the styrene sets while the mold is clamped. Most parts thinner that that are made through extrusion, which is a different process altogether. The best analogy to plastic extrusion is to think of running cake frosting through the tip of the pastry bag. Those parts could then be laser-cut from extruded sheet, but that starts to get expensive, and I'd seriously question the strength of O.007" plastic being enough to hold that hood up. Remember, on the real car, that hood weighs about 250 pounds from what my friends that have restored Step-Downs have told me. And you can be quite sure that while the hood won't have scale-accurate weight (something we should be thankful for, or is that another failing people are going to go silly about?,) it is heavy enough that tissue-paper-thin plastic won't hold it up.

If someone wants absolute fidelity, grab the sandpaper like Dan said. Or make them out of brass or aluminum.

Those look good to me, and I wouldn't complain at all.

Now...if someone wants to show us how to build functioning metal ones....that's a detail I'd be very interested in seeing made, and might even give a shot at.

Charlie Larkin

[Harry P.]

Geez, all I said was they looked a little thick. Which they do. Sorry to cause so many of you such intense anguish and pain!

Charlie... yes, thinner pieces can be injection molded. Some models have separately molded side trim and hood trim strips that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have very thin shafts and linkages that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have separate horn rings that are thinner than these hood supports... and on and on.

BTW Art... I really wasn't in the mood to hear a three hour lecture on injection-molding last night.

Bottom line: to everyone I offended and caused extreme mental anguish and distress by my observation, I am SO sorry. How dare I comment on the fact that I think the hood supports are out of scale? What was I thinking? I guess I just went crazy or something... somehow I was under the impression that this was a model car forum, and that we were allowed to have opinions. I don't know where I get my crazy ideas from sometimes...

So sorry... I guess I don't understand the purpose of a discussion board.

[sjordan2]

Here's a better look at how extremely thin those hood supports are, and they appear to have very deep grooves. I'd say files and sandpaper would be the way to go to get a thickness you're satisfied with.

Edited July 16, 2011 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

Now...if someone wants to show us how to build functioning metal ones....that's a detail I'd be very interested in seeing made, and might even give a shot at.

Charlie Larkin

Functioning ones? With working torsion springs? At this scale that would be too hard to do. But to make static ones for display...the arms can be made of brass strip. The torsion springs could be faked by coiling some very thin brass strip. Of course they wouldn't really work, but the look would be there. The arms would have to be glued in the "open" position like the kit's arms are, and they would have to rest where the lit pieces are designed to rest, but they'd look a whole lot better than those plastic ones.

[sjordan2]

I think it would also be a bit tricky to make accurate-looking hood hinges, which appear to be side-mounted.

[Harry P.]

I think it would also be a bit tricky to make accurate-looking hood hinges, which appear to be side-mounted.

not only accurate but functional... because if you want functional hood support arms, you'd also obviously need functional hood hinges.

[Harry P.]

I applaud Moebius for bringing this model to the market, and I give full credit to anyone and everyone who was part of that.

But I think the reason that some of us are wondering about the flaws in the kit (and dare to actually say something!) is because this car has been on many adult modeler's "most wanted list" forever! And after waiting and hoping and waiting some more, seeing the flaws in the kit is sort of a letdown.

Yeah, yeah, I know... a good modeler can correct those flaws, you're nothing but a rivet counter, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah... we've all heard that a thousand times before.

But apart from Moebius itself, and speaking strictly about those of us here on the forum, I really don't think anyone who notices a flaw or mistake in the model needs to be treated like some sort of model car hobby traitor. A discussion board is just that. So if someone makes a comment on what they see as a mistake or flaw in the model, it's just part of the conversation. It's not an attack on anyone. It's meant to start a discussion, not verbal warfare!

[Darin Bastedo]

Geez, all I said was they looked a little thick. Which they do. Sorry to cause so many of you such intense anguish and pain!

Charlie... yes, thinner pieces can be injection molded. Some models have separately molded side trim and hood trim strips that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have very thin shafts and linkages that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have separate horn rings that are thinner than these hood supports... and on and on.

So sorry... I guess I don't understand the purpose of a discussion board.

The horn rings and linkages that you mention aren't structual pieces. Take a .5mm styrene rod and have it hold up the hodd on your model. in a week's time it will have warped like crazy. Remember model parts don't have to hold once, they have to hold for years. take a look at many of the 1/8 scale Monogram Big Dueces after aten tears. many have warped and broken suspension parts.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Darin Bastedo

[Harry P.]

The horn rings and linkages that you mention aren't structual pieces. Take a .5mm styrene rod and have it hold up the hodd on your model. in a week's time it will have warped like crazy. Remember model parts don't have to hold once, they have to hold for years. take a look at many of the 1/8 scale Monogram Big Dueces after aten tears. many have warped and broken suspension parts.

I have 7-8 big-scale (1/9) motorcycle kits on my shelf... they've been there for many years, more than ten. They are all held up by their in-scale thickness styrene kickstands. And not one of them has fallen over. The plastic kickstands all have held up. I have a Big Deuce and two Big Ts, also about ten years old or so... all the parts are still fine, nothing warped, nothing broken. I'm pretty sure the weight of the Hornet's hood (what, a couple of grams?) could be held by two supports that were a bit more in scale than those in the photos of the kit pieces. Maybe not to exact scale thickness, but closer than what we've seen here.

Can a modeler fix the kit pieces? Sure. But that's not the point.

All I said was they were a bit thick. That's all! And that simple comment started all of this???

[sjordan2]

All I said was they were a bit thick. That's all! And that simple comment started all of this???

You mean...stirred up a Hornet's nest?

[Harry P.]

You mean...stirred up a Hornet's nest?

[Darin Bastedo]

I have 7-8 big-scale (1/9) motorcycle kits on my shelf... they've been there for many years, more than ten. They are all held up by their in-scale thickness styrene kickstands. And not one of them has fallen over. The plastic kickstands all have held up. I have a Big Deuce and two Big Ts, also about ten years old or so... all the parts are still fine, nothing warped, nothing broken. I'm pretty sure the weight of the Hornet's hood (what, a couple of grams?) could be held by two supports that were a bit more in scale than those in the photos of the kit pieces. Maybe not to exact scale thickness, but closer than what we've seen here.

Can a modeler fix the kit pieces? Sure. But that's not the point.

All I said was they were a bit thick. That's all! And that simple comment started all of this???

I'm just saying sometimes it's better to err on the side of caution, that's all.

[Swifster]

The thing I look at with the Hudson is that with the car in production or close to, there are not going to be anymore changes until secondary kits come out. And really, until you have the kit in your hand, I don't know that critiques are valid or not. There are pictures and there are PICTURES. I've seen a lot of crappy kitsbut first impressions are good.

[Danno]

Geez, all I said was they looked a little thick. Which they do. Sorry to cause so many of you such intense anguish and pain!

Charlie... yes, thinner pieces can be injection molded. Some models have separately molded side trim and hood trim strips that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have very thin shafts and linkages that are thinner than these hood supports. Some models have separate horn rings that are thinner than these hood supports... and on and on.

BTW Art... I really wasn't in the mood to hear a three hour lecture on injection-molding last night.

Bottom line: to everyone I offended and caused extreme mental anguish and distress by my observation, I am SO sorry. How dare I comment on the fact that I think the hood supports are out of scale? What was I thinking? I guess I just went crazy or something... somehow I was under the impression that this was a model car forum, and that we were allowed to have opinions. I don't know where I get my crazy ideas from sometimes...

So sorry... I guess I don't understand the purpose of a discussion board.

And, on the other hand, perhaps you now know how it feels to make any kind of observation or comment (other than purely mindless chihuahua-praise) on a most-perfect-ever-General-Lee-build-adnaseum thread, only to suffer the wrath and castigation of illiterate posters and their barbie-cheerleaders who finally run to management for protection from the evil 'nay-sayers' who don't bow to their self-ordained wonderfulness. Ultimately, apparently, what they feel they need is absolution for their continued worship of mediocrity and lowest common denominator effort ~~~ and new rules against stating the honest. After all, there's no place for critiques or criticism, constructive or otherwise.

[Harry P.]

And, on the other hand, perhaps you now know how it feels to make any kind of observation or comment (other than purely mindless chihuahua-praise) on a most-perfect-ever-General-Lee-build-adnaseum thread, only to suffer the wrath and castigation of illiterate posters and their barbie-cheerleaders who finally run to management for protection from the evil 'nay-sayers' who don't bow to their self-ordained wonderfulness. Ultimately, apparently, what they feel they need is absolution for their continued worship of mediocrity and lowest common denominator effort ~~~ and new rules against stating the honest. After all, there's no place for critiques or criticism, constructive or otherwise.

Easy, Danno!

I see your point, believe me, I do! I've been whacked on the snout plenty of times for being a "naysayer" or a "bad ambassador to the hobby" and who knows what else it is that I am...

But I don't think we want this to turn into another flame war... so we better all cool it.

I really don't think my comment that the hood supports are a bit thick is worth any of us getting worked up. Back to the model...

[sjordan2]

Easy, Danno!

I see your point, believe me, I do! I've been whacked on the snout plenty of times for being a "naysayer" or a "bad ambassador to the hobby" and who knows what else it is that I am...

But I don't think we want this to turn into another flame war... so we all better all cool it.

I really don't think my comment that the hood supports are a bit thick is worth any of us getting worked up. Back to the model...

So I shouldn't mention that the trunk will need the same kind of supports for the lid?

[Art Anderson]

Harry et.al.,

For starters, please consider that any model car kit (with the glaring exception of Accurate Miniatures' colossal commercial failures in this area), done in styrene, is or has been, tooled with a very broad market in mind. By this I mean that in order to be commercially successful, any plastic model car kit necessarily has to be designed, tooled, and molded to entice modelers of all skill levels, or at least those whose skills and model building "confidence" are above that of simple snap-fit kit assembly. I would submit, based on my now 59 years as a model builder, 29 years in retail hobby shops (full time, part time, owner of my own store 1984-92), 6 yrs building boxart and presentation models for AMT Corporation, 3 years developing diecast miniatures and so forth), that the vast majority of model car enthusiasts are very much "kit assemblers", the absolute scale fanatics/superdetailers/scratchbuilders being a small minority here (and I am NOT denigrating any segment of the model car building community here, just calling things as I have seen them for all but 8 yrs of my existence on this planet!).

Some things about how a model car might be engineered for its assembly can be traced to structural integrity of the finished model, others may well have to be compromised for rapid mass-production (and injection molding of plastic parts for model kits is rapid in its cycling, both in the molding department as well as on the kit packing assembly line). Other things happen due to the limitations of molding styrene plastic in steel dies.

Someone keeps mentioning, or at least alluding to the existence of a pretty thin locating "post" for mounting the rear axle onto the Hudson chassis. Well, considering that the rear leaf springs are "underslung" below the axle, this is a consideration. For the more average builder, using either tube glue (or whatever!) having the axle break loose from its perch somewhere AFTER this assembly stage has occurred could well be enough to make that "victim" shy away from this or any similar kit in the future--and frankly, I cannot believe that any model company would want that to happen. Now, for the more discriminating, more experienced (or daring, if you will) builder, the clipping off of this thin mounting post (which BTW, once the chassis is painted and assembled, is practically invisible to the vast majority of those who would look at the model upside down) should take no more than about 5-seconds per side to achieve--that's one of those little things that separate a model car BUILDER from that status as a "kit assembler".

The same thing comes to mind when I consider another criticism, that being the oblong "tab" used to locate the Hudson Hornet "Rocket" emblem on the trunk lid: That assembly concept assures that this "Rocket" installs at the correct angle on the rotund, bulbous "Rubenesque" (look up Ruben, the 19th Century painter of very amply filled out women, "fat ladies" if you will!) trunk lid. I suspect this criticism comes from the idea that someone wishing to nose and deck this car might just have to fill that slot--to which I say, "Big Whoop!"--that is something easily accomplished by any model car builder with any of the various techniques that have been, are, and will continue to be, addressed on this very set of forums. Again, the difference between those who are still at the "kit assembler" stage (nothing wrong with that, BTW, we all started there, and many are quite happy to stay at that level--it's still FUN for them, and that should not be a deterrent for those who've taken their interpretation of this great hobby to that next level).

Someone else has expressed a fear that the windshield might be too thick, with a "halo" surrounding it. The concept used here is that Moebius wanted the glass to be far more nearly flush with the outside of the car than is the norm for model car kits, all the while having very positive locating design, hence a slight, thin flange around the inside edge of the "glass" in order to achieve this. A more competent, perhaps slightly adventurous "model car builder" might step beyond the level of "kit assembler", and carefully trim away this flange, and guess what? The windshield glass will still locate in the opening, given that the center "divider" post used on most all cars until 1951-53 is a part of the body shell, not something simply tooled into the glass, as has been the case with far too many model kits of cars of those years. And, the fit is pretty precise in the bargain.

As for the immediate subject of this part of the thread, those nasty hood props: For starters, the notion of adding hood hinges and the spring-loaded "scissors" props for both sides of the hood was something that we came up with upon looking at the first tooling mockup. Why not give builders the option of being able to display the car with the hood open, but without the usual heavy tabs into slots in the firewall, as most model companies have done this sort of thing (I've never seen that sort of tab and slot arrangement on any real Detroit car, have you?), and having the perfect option of providing factory hood props instead of expecting modelers to use toothpics, pieces of wire, or a straightened out paper clip to support the hood in the open position (have not most all of us seen that on a contest table?) or worse yet, simply having to lay the hood on a table or shelf next to the model (now how prototypical is that, outside say, a fiberglass or carbon fiber hood from a race car, hmmmm?). Even with this concept, it's not quite possible to mold those prop units even close to scale thickness--the originals were between 1/8 and 3/16 inches thick, rolled into a slight hat-section for stability (I had to remove one, along with a hood hinge, from Dad's '54 Hornet, take them to a local welding shop for repair, then reinstalled them -- AFTER taking the hood itself off, and then bolting it back on--now YOU try hefting a sheet metal structure weighing over 50-lbs at the age of 16, weighing yourself perhaps 95lbs soaking wet after a full meal--not easy!). To make those two struts even close to scale thickness would have meant their coming out somewhere between .005" and .0075" thick, which dimension in scale would equal that actual 1/8 to 3/16 inch thickness. To mold those, as has been done, with but one sprue attachment allowing for plastic flow (there are no ejection pin marks on this part, no other injection points for the molten styrene either) in scale thickness would have meant two problems--either "short shot" parts (where the plastic failed to fill the mold cavity), or considerable warping or even breakage of the parts in question anywhere from the packaging line, to shipping, to handling by the end user--again something that would be counter productive, period. For those who want that more correct, scale thickness part in an area such as this--it would surprise me if no photoetch aftermarket producer came up with those struts in metal.

But, for someone in an official capacity with the magazine whose forum this is to make some rather blanket criticisms, particularly if that person has (to my knowledge anyway) never participated in any way in the design and development of any model kit--simply begs all reason. I should think that anyone in such a position with a model magazine would be far better served (and increase his or her credibility among readers) to ask a few questions off the board, do a bit of research before making any bald, blanket statements. Of course, I would not expect those who are laypersons in a situation such as this to do that, after all that is one of the definitions of "layperson" that being one who's not a professional in the area under discussion, not someone even indirectly involved in the process of developing a model kit. But perhaps my hopes are a bit too high--"SIGH!"

Art

[sjordan2]

Thanks, Art. Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

For those who really want to geek out on this kit, which appears as if it will be a remarkable canvas for artists to use their own touches, you can find original and reproduction parts catalogs on eBay. I assume, like other parts manuals I have, they will feature accurate drawings of individual parts plus exploded assemblies, though I don't know for sure.

Edited July 16, 2011 by sjordan2