1/24th-1/25th scale, why is it a big deal

[Junkman]

I keep coming back to the fact that the majority of models and kits of American cars are 1/25th scale and have been since the early '50s. A builder of American car models in Europe, Asia or anywhere else in the world is going to be building those models from the same 1/25th scale kits we're building here in the U.S. and would rather have a new kit of an early '70s Mopar to be in scale with their other models of Chrysler products from that period.

I am a European modeller and I can subscribe to this. I also asked around on several European modelling forums and I got pretty much the same answer everywhere.

US-Cars are traditionally 1:25 and should remain in that scale, because all 1:24 scale US-Cars look woefully out of scale when mixed with the 1:25 ones. European modellers do not want their US Cars in 1:24 scale.

It does not matter to mix in 1:24 scale European or Japanese models, because they are still dwarfed by 1:25 American models.

[Art Anderson]

Regardless if scale in this day and age of 3D scanning and 4 & 5 axis CAD/CAMs we should be getting nothing but the most accurate, most correct, easiest to assemble (with next to no fit or finish issues) kits ever.

Clearly that's not the case, and I wonder if we're to cheap to pay the associated "freight" when it comes to kit cost, model companies are too stuck on the past and ergo "lazy", or it's a nice symbiotic combination of the two.

James, back in 1969, when I had my first exposure to Computer Science in college--THE watchword was "GIGO" which stands for "Garbage in, garbage out" (meaning of course, no computer knows anything more than what imput it receives)

CAD/CAM is virtually omnipresent in model kit tooling and design nowadays (drawing boards, draftsmen with pencils, and pattern makers carving 1/10 or 1/12 scale solid wood body mockups and all the rest of the parts for a new model kit have all but disappeared), trust me on that one--I've seen more than one example of it.

It is now possible, for example, to 3D scan a real car, come up with the essential CAD files for scaling the bodywork down to any scale you want. However, there are some things that cannot be gathered by scanning, short of tearing down that real reference subject to the last part, nut and bolt, so a lot of work has to be done from photographs (often multiple shots of the same part or detail), and from that, CAD files created). Typically, a minimum of 200-250 photo's can be taken of the real, 1:1 reference subject, not just of the whole car, but any details that need to be shown more clearly. In addition, one thing that still remains in the toolbox for a photoshoot is an old-fashioned folding carpenter's rule, with every other inch blacked out, so that when the rule is laid over say, a vent wing, or to ensure the correct location for a badge or script, the kit development people in the tooling shop can see clearly what the spacing is to be, top to bottom--left to right. Factory information is an absolute Godsend, but with many cars, such archival historical references are nearly non-existent, particularly with an orphan car (the Hudson kits come to mind here, being orphaned when AMC dropped Hudson 55 years ago, and that after closing the Detroit plant in the summer of 1954--tons of reference materials likely were lost forever then!).

With modern cars or trucks, those which were designed with CAD, often the manufacturer will have those CAD files available, and if one has a license with the manufacturer in place prior to developing the kit--most times, the automaker will be more than happy to supply those to the licensee (I've dealt with that in my past life as a product development specialist for Johnny Lightning diecast cars) and I am pretty sure that just about anyone developing new plastic model car kits has had, and is still experiencing that sort of input.

As for your comment (lament?) about model companies being perhaps lazy or cheap by holding onto the past--if you mean by that they are unwilling to do new renditions under today's state-of-the-art technology, I can't agree that this is the situation, nor the reasoning:

I would be pretty certain that anyone who's ever been in the position of developing new product in any area of scale models, has gone through the process of proposing that their employer (or their company that they own themselves) offer a new, perhaps better version of an existing product. Now, we all know accountants--generally speaking, "Bean Counters". In any properly run company of any size, the accountant serves at least two functions--that of a "record keeper" as well as being an advisor to the owners/managers. One question the accountant (today the buzz words are "Chief Financial Officer" --CFO) will ask is along the lines of "If we invest X dollars as you suggest, how many more units will we sell of that subject. Trust me: If one does not have a ready and decent answer to that question, more than likely the idea will be turned down (reasoning: Why spend scarce capital for no additional gain?). If a product is still selling well, and there is no assurance that spending money in 6-figures will result in added gain to the company--then why do it? Now of course, there are other considerations, to be sure, but the financial question is sure to come up.

Case in point: AMT Corporation released a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air Sport Coupe (hardtop) in early 1962. That kit stayed in continuous production for the next 34 yrs. It appears that AMT/Ertl, seeing the very real possibility that Revell-Monogram could well expand their fledgling "Tri-Five Chevy" line of kits to include that subject (actually, that original AMT '57 Chevy hardtop, nice as it seemed in 1962, simply was way outdated by modern standards in 1996). So the die was cast--make new, more up-to-date tooling that reflects modern model car builders' tastes and expectations, and in the bargain, try to rectify the numerous and obvious (to the trained, knowledgeable eye) scale and detail problems. So they did, and the rest, as they say, is history. No other model company has ever done that version of a '57 Chevy hardtop in a full detail 1/25 scale kit. Protect your position, but that gets done only if a company's top selling product is in danger of being overshadowed by a competitor.

I hope this helps answer some of your concerns.

Art

[Art Anderson]

You have established the difference, now which one is correct ? Is the smaller 1/25 too small? Is the 1/24 to large ? Had you taken a picture of a 1/24 cuda and a 1/25 Chevell, complete on a shelf together, would the average model builder be able to tell the diff? Or would they just see two great muscle cars ?

Could be both, actually! The only way to tell is to assemble the model, then dig out the information as to dimensions, and slap a digital calipers on it (I bought my digital calipers at Harbor Freight, 3 yrs ago, for $12, about half the price of a new model car kit today!), see how long, wide and tall, AGAINST known dimensions of the real thing (i.e. from The Standard Catalog seris of American cars, such reputable magazines as Hemmings Classic (or Muscle) Cars (both picked up were their older title, "Special Interest Autos" left off several years ago). See which is accurate, the 1/25 (easy conversion to scale--.040" equals 1 scale inch in English, for all intents and purposes 1mm equals one scale inch in Metric (I know there are dozens of engineers reading this who will insist that it's not EXACTLY 1mm, but it's far closer than perfectly to the nth degree, given that we work with files, sandpaper, and razor saws, not precision machine tools--got that?). Now if you want to compare further--the difference between the same model subject in 1/25th 1/24th is 1/25 scale is 3.41% smaller. That is far less than the photographic comparo's I am seeing in this thread, seriously! 3.41% means that 100 inches in 1/25 scale is 3.41 inches shorter than 100 inches in 1/24 scale. But in the end, no comparison of a 1/25 scale kit of whatever subject you want to talk about with the same subject in 1/24 scale, without knowing the actual dimensions of the real thing means not a hill of beans UNLESS you know that at least ONE of the two kits in question is TRULY accurate dimensionally. To do oherwise is very much a case of the "blind leading the blind".

Art

[TooOld]

If a 1/24 scale car is 7.5 inched long , minus the 3.41% you say is the difference , gives us 7.24 inches in 1/25 scale . That's 1/4 of an inch difference .

Edited August 31, 2012 by TooOld

[Art Anderson]

If a 1/25 scale car is 7.5 inched long , minus the 3.41% you say is the difference , gives us 7.24 inches in 1/24 scale . That's 1/4 of an inch difference .

Nope, remember fractions from grade school? The higher the numerator (Iower number) the smaller the fraction (or model car body in this instance)O

Art

[Ace-Garageguy]

I wonder if the reason most car modelers don't seem to be fazed by such discrepancies in the shape and contour between two different kits of basically the same subject (and the flaming that occurs when inaccuracies are pointed out in new kit releases) is related to the thinking that consistent scale in new kit releases is not important, comes down to this — many, if not most, car modelers don't care about scale fidelity, consistency, or accuracy.

Umm hmm. I wonder where the line is between obviously horrible in-accuracy like the old Palmer kits and sort-of-okay stuff most people seem to be satisfied with. What percentage deviation from accuracy in a 'scale model' is allowable before something becomes just a 'toy'? And why do so few really care? I know the answer is going to be "this is supposed to be fun", or something similar, but to me it's NOT fun to open a kit, full of high hopes and anticipation for building something beautiful, only to be confronted by a mis-shapen blob that will take many hours to even get the proportions right. If I did my own job as poorly as some of the tool makers, I wouldn't be able to get work in my field, period.

On the other hand, I really have to say that MOST of the kits I've purchased over the years have been completely satisfactory, possibly because I'm willing to do the extra required to 'get it right', or to simply modify the car so heavily that the little stock-proportion problems lose importance in the course of the build. But there are several that I've had for YEARS, and haven't been able to come up with even a reasonable idea of how to go about correcting the deficiencies. They'll probably never get built, so in that case, I've paid good money for absolutely nothing of value.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Casey]

If I did my own job as poorly as some of the tool makers, I wouldn't be able to get work in my field, period.

"Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

Now, applied to model kit tooling and the kits they produce: Tooling time and detail costs money. How nice do you want the kit to be, and how much are you willing to pay for it?

You could grind down every weld bead to perfection on every rod you work on, perfectly space every fuel and brake line clip along the full length of each car, make sure each stitch in every leather seat is uniform with all the others and so on, but you (or your customers) have to decide how perfect it needs to be, and/or how close to perfect they're willing to pay for.

The interview with Revell's Ed Sexton II posted really hammered home this point, but here it is again. Revell's kits will never be perfect or a world-class standard, because the majority of their customers wouldn't pay the final retail cost of such a product. They (Revell) know the quality and price points they must hit in order to generate the sales numbers they need to be profitable, so spending two times more in development and tool engraving isn't going to result in twice the amount of sales.

I think a lot of us, and bu "us" I mean adult, experienced hobbyists (versus the average Joe/Jane) care deeply about scale accuracy, and most of us seem to understand and acknowledge kit's limitations, even though we might not agree with or like those limitations.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Casey, I understand the dynamics of business and cost/benefit ratios and all the rest. I'm not talking about hair-splitting perfection. I'm talking about GROSS inaccuracies like AMT's tiny little just-plain-wrong Ala Kart engine, or the fact that of all the available '34 Fords, for instance, no two have the same length hood and NONE of them are correct.

I'm very happy with the majority of the available kits. I simply don't understand sloppy measuring. It takes EXACTLY the same investment to manufacture a kit to CORRECT DIMENSIONS as it takes to manufacture exactly the same kit, with the same level of detail, to wrong ones.

PS. If my 1:1 work was done to the same standards as these two, my client's doors wouldn't close, the hoods wouldn't fit, and the engines probably wouldn't run for long, if at all.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[niteowl7710]

I think it's the ubiquitous Catch-22. I respect Ed Sexton immensely, but anyone who buys any Japanese or Revell AG only kit is already spending upwards of $45 per kit already. Heck that London Bus is over $125 now!

Revell says no one is willing to pay $45 for a model, I say Revell had never shown me they can produce anything worth $45.

[jaydar]

i like to think of my builds as a collection. if i did a train layout, i'd want everything to be the same HO scale. by the same reasoning i want all my cars in the same scale. i don't mind the 24/25 difference, but i'm not interested in 1/32 or 1/20 scales that some model cars come in.

it's really hard too, because i build cars based on subject and so many are just not available in 1/25.

I feel exactly the same way about my builds.

Different scales means different shelves. I just cannot put them side by side.

Joe.

Edited September 1, 2012 by jaydar

[Casey]

Revell says no one is willing to pay $45 for a model, I say Revell had never shown me they can produce anything worth $45.

No, Revell is saying the majority of people who buy their kits want them in the $15-$30 range, and that group is their core customer base. They took a big risk with the 1/12 Shelby Mustang GT-500 kit, which was both priced and sized out of their core customers' comfort zone, so it's not like Revell never tries to appeal to the "willing to pay" crowd, but you'd be correct to say they don't do it very often.

[martinfan5]

No, Revell is saying the majority of people who buy their kits want them in the $15-$30 range, and that group is their core customer base. They took a big risk with the 1/12 Shelby Mustang GT-500 kit, which was both priced and sized out of their core customers' comfort zone, so it's not like Revell never tries to appeal to the "willing to pay" crowd, but you'd be correct to say they don't do it very often.

If I am going to spend $30 or more on a Revell kit, it better be just as good as Japanese kit, including window mask ,mesh screen for the grills, no metal axles,or axle holes through engines blocks, ill fitting window glass, blank tire sidewalls, improper sized or wrong tires.

I have no problem with spending $30 or more for most Japanese kits, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. My only gripe with spending the amount for a Japanese kit is most of time the kits are curbside , but I can live with that.