What do you see as the most common problems or errors in our model builds?

[mrm]

I would like to say - what a great thread. I believe that all of us have made pretty much all of these mistakes at some point. It may have been when we first started in the hobby, but we have. The inexcusable part is when you see people claiming they have been building models for 10 years non stop to have mold lines on their models.

Although I would agree with everything written so far, I would like to point out, that some issues have "grey areas". I am talking about building "show cars". Anyone can open the first Hot Rod or Street Rodder or Mini Trucking (?) magazines and see that at the shows these vehicles seem to have brand new tires, that are shinier than the ones that come in the model kits. There is no excuse about the mold lines in their centers tho. Also we see that most "trailer queens" at the shows DO have shiny black engine compartments and color detailed undercarriages.

But I want to turn the tables for a moment and question some of the judging at the shows. I have seen models that have TPI on a Corvette sourced engine backwards, that receive trophies. Engines that are described as twin turbo that are naturally aspirated win their class on prestigious contests etc. Meanwhile a model is dismissed as a contender because of slick tires in the pro street class.

The two biggest pet peeves I have about some of the models that are "winners" are the overall design and realism in 1:1 and the bias towards given brand.

We have seen all scratchbuild models that are "national champions" and "best of show winners" that display an unbelievable attention to detail. Unprecedented craftsmanship and flawless finish and execution. Yet if you saw that thing in real life it would not only be unpractical, bordering with undoable, but it would be on the worlds top ten ugliest cars of all time. Wow, your body is all scratch built, with everything hinged, but in real life the A pillars would be a foot wide and your doors would be 2 feet wide. There are 300 hours spent on the engine alone, but there isn't a single flowing line in the whole car. The front looks futuristic, the rear is distinctly '70s, the interior is totally '80s, we have '90s horsepower and the whole thing is riding on Boranis. C'mon..............

The other thing is where one model wins over another only because it is a Ford or a Chevy or....the judges are just more familiar with it. That is just not right.

Anyway, I think I ranted enough...

[dougp]

If no one would mind I would like to paraphrase this thread and post it on our club's website. I will pm the finished list to anyone here who would like it. Let me know if anyone has any objections. Thanks

[jsimmons]

Saw that too. I think they should all be deleted.

Hmmm, I smell a high-horse...

[jsimmons]

How about shiny black painted chassis and engine compartments. Even worse in my mind is the excessive use of silver on chassis components. Silver leaf springs, silver axle housings, silver steering links and sway bars. Even silver frame rails.

All this is great info for a "Do's and Don'ts" FAQ, or "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"

When you're building a model car, you either go for "realism" or "artistic freedom". Sometimes, you can successfully mix both. It's much more difficult to go the realism route. At the same time, all of the stuff you mentioned are a reality in show cars. Personally, I'm pretty boring and not very artistic, so most of my (street car) models will have a semi-gloss black chassis and engine compartment, gunmetal suspension, and most likely a black interior. Further, they'll sit the way I like - realism be damned. All I have to do now is finish one.

[Terry Sumner]

Please...let's not drail this thread. May I ask that we keep it on topic. Not to diminish your message Mike but this thread is supposed to be about flaws that we fail to fix in our models, not judging. That subject alone can be highly volatile and isn't germane to this thread.

Thanks all!

[Art Anderson]

some of the biggest mistakes can be fixed 3 ways; 1. test fit, 2. test fit, 3. test fit. No models are pefect by a long shot and some aren't even close. But you can correct fit, stance, and assembly issues if you know wverything involved in the assembly befor you put on the shiny stuff and get out the glue. Below is an OOb Revell (perviously monogram) 1978 Firebird trans am. I spent weeks getting the front and rear bumpers to fit the body and to block sand the waves and ridges from the body as well as cleaning up the mold lines and ejector pin marks. the whole model was primered and inspected for sanding marks including the engine and any other su assembly that needed the seams filled and sanded. I then dry fitted nearly 90% of the model together to address any fit problems and aquaint myself with and assembly processes that would possibly mess up the painted model later. At this stage I also was able to address the stance which was way too high in the front, (by nearly 2mm) all the assmbly below is dry fit and now I know how the end result will end up.

One of the biggest paint issues I see partly comes about due to not doing the block sanding, and partly because many of us use spray cans to paint rather than an airbrush. Now I realise that an airbrush is a bit costly but so are spray cans at 5-6 dollars each.

The problem is the paint pulling away at the door lines and body lines. you can see this most in metallics and candies. The problem is that the plastic is still warm when the body is ejected from the mold. This causes ridges around door lines and seams and if they aren't block sanded the paint will pull way from them. sanding though won't totally fix the problem, but by using an airbrush you can pay special attention to the areas that are trouble spots and start with thin light coats that will help the paint adhere to those ares.

After you are done and all the tricky areas are covered you can paint the rest of the car as usual.

Those "raised edges" around otherwise recessed panel lines (doors, trunk lids) are actually in the tooling all too often. It's a result of the engraving process--just to correct this misunderstanding. That said, you are very correct that some block sanding of the body shell is often required to get rid of those imperfections. The same is true of those bothersome "sink marks" which happen where the plastic is thickened on the back or inside of say, a body shell, particularly on older kits which were engineered and tooled in a much earlier era, for use with harder grades of polystyrene than is used in today's model kit industry. Those need to be filled and smoothed out as well.

Art

[Art Anderson]

I would like to say - what a great thread. I believe that all of us have made pretty much all of these mistakes at some point. It may have been when we first started in the hobby, but we have. The inexcusable part is when you see people claiming they have been building models for 10 years non stop to have mold lines on their models.

Although I would agree with everything written so far, I would like to point out, that some issues have "grey areas". I am talking about building "show cars". Anyone can open the first Hot Rod or Street Rodder or Mini Trucking (?) magazines and see that at the shows these vehicles seem to have brand new tires, that are shinier than the ones that come in the model kits. There is no excuse about the mold lines in their centers tho. Also we see that most "trailer queens" at the shows DO have shiny black engine compartments and color detailed undercarriages.

But I want to turn the tables for a moment and question some of the judging at the shows. I have seen models that have TPI on a Corvette sourced engine backwards, that receive trophies. Engines that are described as twin turbo that are naturally aspirated win their class on prestigious contests etc. Meanwhile a model is dismissed as a contender because of slick tires in the pro street class.

The two biggest pet peeves I have about some of the models that are "winners" are the overall design and realism in 1:1 and the bias towards given brand.

We have seen all scratchbuild models that are "national champions" and "best of show winners" that display an unbelievable attention to detail. Unprecedented craftsmanship and flawless finish and execution. Yet if you saw that thing in real life it would not only be unpractical, bordering with undoable, but it would be on the worlds top ten ugliest cars of all time. Wow, your body is all scratch built, with everything hinged, but in real life the A pillars would be a foot wide and your doors would be 2 feet wide. There are 300 hours spent on the engine alone, but there isn't a single flowing line in the whole car. The front looks futuristic, the rear is distinctly '70s, the interior is totally '80s, we have '90s horsepower and the whole thing is riding on Boranis. C'mon..............

The other thing is where one model wins over another only because it is a Ford or a Chevy or....the judges are just more familiar with it. That is just not right.

Anyway, I think I ranted enough...

You make some valid points, Mike, but this should be a post for another time, another thread. Just my $.02 worth.

Art

[MikeMc]

Expensive solution???

You can make an alternator bracket out of a small piece of scrap sheet styrene, a short length of thin brass strip, heck, even a strip of thin cardboard or card stock. Paint it semi-gloss black and glue it in place.

Expensive? No, free! All it takes is a few minutes and a little ingenuity.

Whenever I see a "detailed" engine with ignition wires, battery cables, heater hoses, etc., and that "magic floating alternator" I always think... why??? Why go to such trouble to add all the details, then leave off that one obviously missing detail?

Nobody has ever posted a" WHY TO" with a how to about this

[Art Anderson]

There's an old saying that goes like this: Too many of us fail to plan, which leads us to planning to fail--and that is just as true with a model car as it is with life.

With any model project, planning should be a key, and early step in the process--be that model "Out Of The Box" or a fully detailed major conversion or even a scratchbuilt project.

Many of the problems I've seen addressed in this thread are very directly related to planning how the work needs to be done to overcome the inevitable shortcomings any builder will find in any model kit he/she attempts--it's been a part of the game since time immemorial, and likely will remain so even after we all assume room temperature.

Treat each part of a model project as if it were a scale model in its own right--that's how most top-level builders do it. BUT, along the way, keep in mind that each component, each subassembly will have to relate to the rest of the project, otherwise unnecessary compromises wind up creeping in, compromises that could have been avoided with this sort of "planning". If you need an alternator or generator bracket, think about that for a bit--how can this be achieved, and still give at least the illusion of realism? It may actually be easier than you think!

this is the chassis of a factory stock '27 Model T Tudor Sedan that I built 10 years ago. This model took a full 6 1/2 months to build, start to finish--started it on New Year's Day, finished it on July 15. What you see in this pic is the detailed chassis, with the rough engine set in for test fitting. Those running board brackets? They were done using the fender/running board assembly test-fitted to the frame, to ensure that the bracketry truly fit to both frame AND to the bottom sides of the running boards. What I did not do were the similar front fender brackets, which if I were to do this project again, would definitely be there. In addition, you can see the mechanical parking brake lever I scratchbuilt, installed in the chassis, which required test fitting the floorboard frequently to ensure that I could drop the assembled body onto the car once painted and trimmed without any trouble.

The chassis, painted and ready to accept the fenders and body. In this step, the test fitted engine shown in the first pic above was fully detailed, THEN assembled permanently in the chassis.

Finally, this is the finished chassis assembled with the completed body and fenders--the result of all the planning that was done at the very beginning of the project. Every part, every subassembly came together as I envisioned it, again by planning up front, and all along the way:

The same sort of planning had to happen with using the Revell Li'l John Buttera '26 T Tudor Sedan/Sedan Delivery body with the fender/running board and radiator units from the AMT '27 T Touring car. In this case, the Revell body's cowling was too low to mate up properly to the AMT hood--due to Revell's not tooling in the "hood shelves", which on the real car are wooden blocks atop the front fender sheet metal where the fenders bolt to the frame--something I knew immediately, given my study of Model T Fords over the years (another important step here that all too many modelers forget--RESEARCH! You can never have too much reference material, take too many photographs, do too much research!) Once the cowling shape was corrected, it all came together "If it fits, you must convict" style:

Unfortunately, I don't have any pics of what was done on the interior of the body, but one major goal of this project was to negate something I was told at an IPMS Convention about 35 years ago: "Model car builders always leave the edges of that overly thick "glass" showing inside the roof of the cars they build" or words to that effect. So one goal on this one was to eliminate that "bone of contention", by using clear plastic as close to scale thickness as I could get away with. Here's where the "illusion" of scale reality comes into play. Real plate glass as used on a Model T Ford was about 1/4" thick, which would have meant using .010" thick clear plastic--but that thickness tends to come out wavy, unrealistic, so .020" thick PET-G plastic was used. The driver's side window is depicted halfway rolled down, so the edge shows, but nobody has ever commented that the glass is a scale half inch thick--so the "illusion of realism" seems to have worked.

In final assembly, making the chassis AND engine relate to the rest of the project was key--test-fitting, tweaking of the upper radiator hose (the lower hose had to be added, AMT never had that detail in their kit!) to make it mate up to the top tank of the radiator took a bit of fiddling, and then there was the matter of adding on the fuel outlet and sediment bulb, which was scratchbuilt, then connected to the float bowl of the carburetor. Unfortunately, I had a "failure to plan" event with the essential bell cranks and pull rods for spark advance (connecting to the "timer" or distributor at the front of the engine) and the throttle rods and bell cranks, both systems connecting to the sides of the steering column just in front of the firewall. Also, I didn't think to either thin down the thickness of the kit hood, or add the anti-rattle webbing around the lip of the firewall and radiator shell, but again, nobody but me (probably) ever noticed that, certainly no one ever commented on the lack of these details--but still, those were my failure to plan ahead for them,

But, with all the planning, and even with a couple of failures to plan, the end result:

The car has been shown numerous times, won Best Factory Stock at Goodguys Berrien Springs MI in 2002, Goshen IN (First place), Indianapolis IN (first place), Classic Plastic in MA, 2nd place award). It's now retired, only comes out for a couple of club displays a year. Does it have flaws? Yes it does--I know where they are, even if nobody else either notices or comments on them. But, have I learned from those mistakes? Yes you bet your bippy I have learned, and hopefully will avoid those in future projects. One of the mistakes that I think many of us make in modeling is to fail to notice our mistakes, our miscues, little things that could have been done but were overlooked. Nothing wrong with self-criticism--it's one of the ways we can grow as model builders, regardless of our age.

Art

Edited July 2, 2011 by Art Anderson

[MikeMc]

Art....that post and builds are worth pinning...WOW

(and the glass is bulletproof!)

Edited July 2, 2011 by MIKE THE MANIAC

[Ron Hamilton]

I love this topic. One thing I have noticed over the years, is that quite a few modelers assume that what the kit manufacturers put in that box is an accurate representation of the real thing. Nothing is further from the truth IMHO. There are allowances made for tooling, as some angles of the real car make it impossible to remove the thing out of the mould. I take a lot of time doing reasearch on the real subject, and I also take a lot of time test fitting, and "massaging" the bodies on my builds (removing mould lines, deepening door and trunk lines, block sanding the model before and after priming, etc. (Thank you Darin Bastado for showing the work you are putting into that Firebirsd!!!)

Most modelers do not research the model they are building against the real thing, therefore unless it is a full custom, a junker, or heavilly modified race car, unless they do a lot of prep work, their efforts will be passed over in the contest world.

Gloss paint used in the interior of a car is quite silly to me, unless it is a race car where the real one used a gloss finish in places. Bad paint jobs often hurt one's chances of winning anything in the contest world.

I once judged a contest where the modeler, clear coated the colored plastic on the model with a heavy coat of clear, represented an "up" convertible top with masking tape, painted gloss black, and used Testors Silver to represent the chrome on the car, over the kit's moulded in hardtop. He was quite proud of his effort, as his friends told him that his model was the most accurate rendition of the subject they have ever seen as a model. The modeler who built this "gem" was not a child, but a full grown adult.

On the other hand I saw a built up model with NO exterior paint, just the polished out plastic, and Bare Metaled detail painted and decaled, and let me tell ya, it was beautiful.

We all have various skill levels, and I compensate for my declining skills by just taking my time. I do not profess myself to be the best modeler here on the board, but I know a well built model when I see it, and I am happy to offer my assistance to any modeler who needs it.

[charlie8575]

One problem I see in my cars is when I think I did a decent job with seams, filling sinks, etc., painting it, and then one I missed jumps out at me!

Or a deep gouge from sandpaper or something similar that you needed a glossy (i.e., paint as opposed to primer,) surface to make it visible.

Ouch.

This problem has surfaced with a rebuild I'm working on right now. I prepped the body as best I could, but a lot of little (and not so little) issues have now surfaced.

As this car was going to represent a "used, but not abused" car, given the shape of what I started with, it was nearly impossible to get it perfect again, so in this case, I'm just running with it. Sometimes, you can use the issues to your advantage, especially if it lends some credibility to your build.

But when it happens on cars I don't want it to happen on (and I didn't really want it here, either, but, as stated, it won't really harm the final outcome, either,) it's painful and upsetting, especially when oftentimes, a great deal of labor has been placed into the build to start with.

Charlie Larkin

[Terry Sumner]

Charlie...the best way I know of to check your surface prep is to give it a light coat of Testor's Metalizer aluminum. This stuff will make EVERY flaw in your work stand out plain as day. This comes from my airplane modeling when I'm trying to achieve a natural metal finish. To get a perfect NMF the plastic prep has to be flawless because the metalizers all make flaws readily apparent. Try it...it sands off easy and you will be able to see in minutia where your flaws are...

[FASTBACK340]

Oh boy, I'm going to take this is a totally different direction......

My biggest pet-peeve is the unrealistic builds. I'm talking about the builds all agreed as epic. Then when you really start looking you see the glaring inaccuracies. The coil wires coming out of MSD ignition boxes, seat belts attached to aluminum wheel well tubs, or 97 coats of smooth-as-glass paint totally obscuring all body panels and trim. Then about 7 lbs. of photo etched sprinkled all over the car with no purpose or reason for being there. But boy-oh-boy does it look important! You know, Dzus fasteners on roof panels...without any apparent seams. Or cooling grills randomly glued to tops of fenders or trunk lids. There's been models that were joked about the weight. The more photo etched, the better the model mentality. There's so much fluff that's not necessary or incorrectly installed.... and these are built by experienced builders, none (that I know of...) whom are posters here, but some are well known.

Never mind the levitating alternators or starched plug wires .... But beautifully assembled and realistically recreated scale safety belts anchored to aluminum wheel tubs in a Pro-Mod? C`mon...

[FASTBACK340]

BTW: I'm no world-class builder, but I do know a coil wire only goes in ONE end of a coil, and that it doesn't go THROUGH the coil..... no matter how nice a piece of billet metal that coil is or how realistic that bracket is for the coil, or how nicely attached those custom machined nuts & bolts are holding it all together.

Yeah... I said it. Flame away....

[seeker589]

In some cases, that could merely be accurate modeling. I've seen more than a few new cars with mis-matched panel paint density.

David G.

I have seen alot of this! I saw a vintage Corvette (survivor - not restored) with various amounts of paint coverage (some gel-coat was visible) and paint consistency the ranged from perfectly smooth to orange peel that looked like sandpaper. All on the same Car!!!

[Art Anderson]

I have seen alot of this! I saw a vintage Corvette (survivor - not restored) with various amounts of paint coverage (some gel-coat was visible) and paint consistency the ranged from perfectly smooth to orange peel that looked like sandpaper. All on the same Car!!!

Amen on Corvettes. Perhaps my favorite Corvette sighting was at the Auburn Auction (Auburn IN during the Labor Day Weekend ACD Reunion in that small Indiana city). It was one of the first production '53 Corvettes, a total survivor--having never seen any restoration (with only about 5,000 miles on the clock it didn't need it), still wearing its Polo White nitrate DuPont Duco nitrate lacquer with red accents in the interior (only color available ona '53 Vette from the factory).

A couple of things jumped out at me as I ogled this car: First of all, the serious roughness of the body--while most panels were reasonably "straight", being that the fiberglas body was assembled from a series of subassembly panels and units (not unlike any steel bodied car), joined together with a layer and a patch of polyester resin and glass cloth--VERY rippled in those areas of the car. Second, and most important, how the lacquer finish had shrunk when it dried (lacquer, by its very formula, dries entirely by evaporation, which leaves a very thin finish that will show virtually any surface imperfection in the substrate). I could see virtually every single bit of glass fiber in the fiberglas surface, even the gel-coat had shrunk over the decades. Most interesting was the dashboard--being laid up with fiberglas cloth rather than sprayed on bits of glass fiber from a chopper gun--I could see the weave of the glass cloth clearly.

Now I realize that I was looking at a Vette a couple of years past 50 years old--but it sure was intriguing to study!

On another note, when I walked into Fireproof Garage in Lafayette IN to see my '70 Cuda 340 after the truck delivered it--I was shocked to disbelief when I saw, right in the middle of the passenger side door--a common house fly that had gotten sprayed into the red paint! Needless to say, I didn't take delivery until Fireproof's body shop refinished that!

Art

[Art Anderson]

Charlie...the best way I know of to check your surface prep is to give it a light coat of Testor's Metalizer aluminum. This stuff will make EVERY flaw in your work stand out plain as day. This comes from my airplane modeling when I'm trying to achieve a natural metal finish. To get a perfect NMF the plastic prep has to be flawless because the metalizers all make flaws readily apparent. Try it...it sands off easy and you will be able to see in minutia where your flaws are...

Or, good ol' red oxide lacquer primer! I like to use the stuff as a guide coat for bodywork--just airbrush the stuff where I do bodywork, so that I can see the low spots. One distinct advantage of lacquer primer is that once I am ready to paint and finish, a thin coat of the primer, followed by a Micro-Mesh polishing cloth (generally I use 4000 grit here) gives a satin finish that makes for virtually perfect paint jobs requiring very little in the way of color sanding (in fact, almost NEVER) and only minimal polishing compound work.

Art

[Scale-Master]

Finally, this is the finished chassis assembled with the completed body and fenders--the result of all the planning that was done at the very beginning of the project. Every part, every subassembly came together as I envisioned it, again by planning up front, and all along the way:

Art

OK, I'm confused. I hope I am allowed to point out the ejection pin marks without being accused of being a jerk.

But since this thread is about common errors in building, and this model was used to represent how to "do it right", yet those pesky ejector pin marks are still there. (Look to the sides of the transmission on the fenders.)

Not being overly picky, but only partly removing them is not the same as fully removing them. And in an example of the correct way? Confusing...

[sjordan2]

OK, I'm confused. I hope I am allowed to point out the ejection pin marks without being accused of being a jerk.

But since this thread is about common errors in building, and this model was used to represent how to "do it right", yet those pesky ejector pin marks are still there. (Look to the sides of the transmission on the fenders.)

Not being overly picky, but only partly removing them is not the same as fully removing them. And in an example of the correct way? Confusing...

Point taken, in pursuit of absolute perfection, but if you can't see it, why worry about it? As one modeler mentioned, "I don't display my model sitting on its roof."

If perfection is required, every model with wire wheels would have to have them totally scratch-built since there are few or no manufactured kits with proper wire wheels, including this one. But Art's build is still killer and obviously authentic beyond the norm.

Edited July 4, 2011 by sjordan2

[Scale-Master]

Point taken, in pursuit of absolute perfection, but if you can't see it, why worry about it?

Again, not trying to be difficult, but the fact that we can see it in a post explaining of all things, "the right way to do something" means we CAN see it. And again, confusing...

[Harry P.]

Point taken, in pursuit of absolute perfection, but if you can't see it, why worry about it?

Good rule to follow in most cases...

but not when the photo you posted is supposedly an example of the "right way" to build a model!

[sjordan2]

Good rule to follow in most cases...

but not when the photo you posted is supposedly an example of the "right way" to build a model!

True.

[sjordan2]

Based on a comment above, you would think that with today's technology and materials that kit companies could come up with far more realistic wire wheels, and the aftermarket choices are better but not great.

And if finer materials and manufacturing techniques could be available, why not offer separate chrome window surrounds and body trim that would make BMF obsolete?

Edited July 4, 2011 by sjordan2

[Danno]

Point taken, in pursuit of absolute perfection, but if you can't see it, why worry about it? As one modeler mentioned, "I don't display my model sitting on its roof."

However, some critically judged contests make it clear that the entire model will be judged, including examination of the undercarriage/underside. In those competitions, it matters greatly and untreated ejector pin marks, mold lines, parting lines, and copyright engraving are deal-breakers.

If one is building with a plan to never show or compete, no problem. One just shouldn't take pix of the underside when one is bragging about his world-class best ever build.