A "Rivet Counter" speaks up!

[Fat Brian]

There is the front wheelwell on the 62 Chevy. I'm still not entirely certain what is wrong there, perhaps I'm an idiot. Whatever is wrong there, it is not glaringly so in my eyes.

I have stared at these pictures until my eyes crossed and the only thing I'm seeing is that the rear of the wheel well where it comes back to the drip rail is slightly concave on the model where it's straight to slightly convex on the actual car. If thats all it is I can't see myself losing a ton of sleep over it.

[moparmagiclives]

I have stared at these pictures until my eyes crossed and the only thing I'm seeing is that the rear of the wheel well where it comes back to the drip rail is slightly concave on the model where it's straight to slightly convex on the actual car. If thats all it is I can't see myself losing a ton of sleep over it.

I can see where the body line on the 1:1 is broken by the wheel opening just below the trim.

But I can't remember a time I've ever held up a model to the real thing. It would have take Me more time then I would be willing to donate if I had to try and go from one to the other to figure that difference out.

But at the same time, Im a big fan of impalas, but I'm not intimate enough with them to call those flaws out myself.

[Ace-Garageguy]

You guys can't see that the front of the fender ahead of the wheel arch is WAY WAY longer on the 1:1 car than it is on the model? That's the most HUGELY GLARING error, but it's not all by a long shot.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Part of that length is exaggerated by the missing bumper on the model, and the upper arch taking too sharp a corner downward toward the front, too. The model's rear contour going down to rocker panel level seems to have the gentle curvature that the top border is supposed to have, and its top border is about as flat as the 1:1's rear contour. The general feeling is that Revell's arch is a little too "square", and they repeat an eccentricity of their '65 Impala in that the perimeter lip is a bit exaggerated and it doesn't fade gently into the bodywork as it goes to the rocker panel level. Also, the 1:1's upper arch is parallel with the character line just above it, and the model's is not.

Like I said, more apparent to some than to others. I still love the kit, and I don't think it's too hard to get something closer with a bit of filing and filling.

[Ace-Garageguy]

.......If you were to pull the front of the wheel arch forward into the correct curvature, there'd be almost nothing left of the lower corner of the front fender because it's so incorrectly shortened. I'm aware of the initial visual exaggeration imparted by the bumper being missing, but that fender is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

[1930fordpickup]

Just remember that a 2.00 radius on a 1:1 car is .08 radius at 1/25 sale . That is what makes somethings look to square when looking at openings. and it does bug me also.

Edited October 2, 2012 by 1930fordpickup

[Ace-Garageguy]

Just remember that a 2.00 radius on a 1:1 car is .08 radius at 1/25 sale . That is what makes somethings look to square when looking at openings. and it does bug me also.

A curve is a curve....geometrically identical (described by the same equation) if you really want to get into the math, whether in full scale or 1/200 scale or 1/ 10,000 scale. Geometrically identical curves will appear the same no matter what scale they may be in.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Art Anderson]

I'm sorry, but I simply have to disagree with some of this. I have built scale models of original designs to check design elements and viewing angles before committing to full-scale mockups, professionally, and in my OWN experience (which isn't necessarily the same as every other expert's) a model built true-to-scale and .....photographed or viewed from the same angle relative to the subject as it would be in 1:1..... looks right. Adding in some oogie-boogie-distorted-reality-factor is, in my humble opinion, WAY too subjective to be considered. I've heard countless times how things have to be distorted to look right in scale, I don't buy it, and I've NEVER heard it from people who actually do the ORIGINAL 1:1 design or model development.

Again, in my own hands-on, direct and very costly personal experience, I designed the vehicle that is my avatar (one of many 1:1 objects I've designed and built). I built the first model in 1/10 scale, the second in 1/4 scale, and the final mockup in 1:1. Amazingly (if all the necessarily-distorted-reality stuff is to be believed) the full-scale vehicle looks EXACTLY like the models. If distorting reality is necessary to achieve an accurate-appearing scale representation, this simply couldn't be.

Please understand that I'm not arguing based on what I've been taught, nor am I repeating what I've heard or read. My position on this is based entirely on empirical evidence from my own experience. And I'm not bragging or trying to be a know-it-all big-shot. I'm simply saying that I've actually done this stuff myself and CAREFULLY observed.

I don't argue that artistic license may be taken by an artist to improve the proportions of a subject, or to enhance its beauty, or to compensate for odd viewing angles, but I have to take issue when this is presented as necessary to correctly portray a machine, in SCALE. And if it is in fact necessary, it would require a level of artistic judgment and subtlety on the part of model-tooling people that only one in a million posess. Just stick to the numbers, please.

Nowhere in my treatises on this topic have I ever said anything about compromising dimensions. A GM A-body is a GM A-body is a GM A-body, pure and simple. To that there should be no question. The only way to compare for accuracy of a model kit is to compare the model with the real, 1:1 object, something that isn't often possible for the model car builder (really now! How many of us have access to a '50 Olds 88 and/or a '49-54 Chevy two door sedan anyway?)

A couple of examples here, if I may: This is my '59 Chevrolet Biscayne 2-door sedan

It is based on the excellent Revell '59 Impala Convertible, first released in 1994, I owned, at the time, a '59 Biscayne 4dr sedan, and I KNOW the differences between the roof height of the sedan/station wagon/El Camino, and the Impala convertible/hardtop (and they are significant!)

Based on considerable research (I owned and operated All American Models back in those days!), I found that the length of the doors (A-post to B-Post, NOT the door skin length BTW) was 6 inches longer on the 2dr, regardless of whether it was a 2-door sedan (this model) or a convertible/hardtop body. And, all the other body dimensions all across the GM line save for the Cadillac Series 75 Sedan Limousine were EXACTLY the same that year (GM produced ONLY A-bodies in 1959, if you do not believe me, look it up!). The other issue on this conversion was the roof and the windshield (BTW, the body length back then is the length from the cowling back to the bottom of the rear window--the trunk, faired into the body is not part of the actual body shell!). Based on what I learned back in 1994 (before I had a puter, BTW) I discovered that the roof for my Chevy was exactly the same regardless of the number of doors, or the marque of the car--Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac 4dr sedans all used exactly the same body, no matter the number of doors--again, all A-bodies!). With that in mind, the roof for this model came from a JoHan '59 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special (1/8 inch actual measurement too narrow, as I pointed out earlier), but in length and height EXACTLY correct--I took my measuring tape out to the driveway, slapped it on my Biscayne 4dr, OK?). The entire windshield frame, from the beltline up is from an AMT '59 El Camino and it is correct--again, my research gave me the requisite dimensions!. This body was done in resin, at All American Models, and trust me, had it been significantly off, I would have heard about it, trust me on that one!

Now, I did slightly juggle the curvatures of the roof, but not altering the "planform" line as seen from the side, front or rear--ONLY at the sides, to give it a slight change which to my eye (and I believe my eyes were very correct in this assessment, given as I owned the real car at the time!) made it look correct. To this day (and this built example I still own!) this model is right on the money.!)

Now, for the second example: Also in 1994, I mastered a '58 Chevrolet Delray Sedan Delivery, from a PMC '58 Chevy Impala Nomad promo. Now there are contour inaccuracies in that body shell that I chose to not correct--they were just more than I was willing to make the cuts to correct (viewed from above, the real car roof is slightly bowed along the sides--think of a very subtle football shape here), and the drain molding curves ever so slightly upward from the A post to the back of the roof--something that a customer in Norway complained about--I refunded his money, told him to keep the transkit). But even at that, I learned, through research that dimensionally, my transkit was right on (in addition to the '59 I showed and mentioned, I also owned a straight and true '58 Delray Sedan Delivery!) and I did all measurements needed, including the side door length off the real car. I did alter the roof shape, to make it more correct than the PMC promo (which was done in 1957, BTW), and given that there is less than 1/2 inch difference between a '58 Chevy HT/Convertible windshield glass from that of a sedan or station wagon, that was easily taken care of--the AMT '58 Impala is a tad off in that regard!), and went forward. So go figure, huh? (a half inch in our scale is .020", and is hardly noticeable on either the AMT '58 Impala or my sedan delivery--perhaps my only deviation from perfect dimensional accuracy) But in the end, that sedel looks pretty right.

Now, will my model numerically fit the GM Fisher Body drawings, even their stamping dies? I dunno--but the bottom line is that to me, and the 400 or so customers who bought the transkit, it does--or at least allegedly does) represent the real car almost perfectly.

I am well aware that in classic Greek architecture, there are relatively few perfectly straight lines, but those Greek architects were masters of optical illusion. Beat, battered and weathered as it is, the Parthenon in Athens shows that to this day--but that is not what I have postulated, or proposed.

Compromise dimensions (and yes, in 1949-50, Oldsmobile DID use the very same A-body as did Chevrolet, but to get a true reading, GO MEASURE A REAL ONE!,l NO?) but do not compare one model kit to another, done 37 years apart to state which is accurate (and which is not, please!. I will, even though I had to fudge a dimension on that Sedan Delivery, I will hold out for correct dimensions EVERY time.

And it is experience such as this that got me the job of "Automotive Research Specialist" (product development guy) at Johnny Lightning Division of Playing Mantis, with the side job of assisting at Polar Lights, and more recently, aiding with the development of model car kits for Moebius. (and yeah, I still put my pants on, one leg at a time!)

Art

[935k3]

One thing that bothers me about the domestic kit makers in particular is how many kits they screw up the ride heigth on. Some of the cars look like they are 4 wheel drive. Some things might measure in scale but just do not look right when scaled down.

Edited October 2, 2012 by 935k3

[Fat Brian]

One thing that bothers me about the domestic kit makers in particular is how many kits they screw up the ride heigth on. Some of the cars look like they are 4 wheel drive. Some things might measure in scale but just do not look right when scaled down.

A lot of that comes from using the same tires for every kit they make for twenty or thirty years at a time.

[Art Anderson]

One thing that bothers me about the domestic kit makers in particular is how many kits they screw up the ride heigth on. Some of the cars look like they are 4 wheel drive. Some things might measure in scale but just do not look right when scaled down.

The biggest fly in the ointment here is the tires! When one looks at a real car, one sees a car with the tires having squished down due to the weight of the car against the road. That is almost impossible to translate into model kit tooling, frankly, unless a model company is willing to buck consumer expectations, make the tires with that "squish" in order to get the correct height. Are you willing to accept that, as opposed to perfectly round, fully inflated tires in a model kit?

Just sayin'

Art

[Draggon]

Ive avoided this topic for fear of being too anal, but I gotta agree with a lot of whats been said. I'm a VW guy, having owned a 67 Bug, a 68, a 69, and a 71 Super, as well as doing a lot of work on a 58 big window, and a 72 round window. I have the Revell VW kits, and the body has kept me from building them for many years. I got the Aoshima 1303, and the body is so bad its stuffed in my reject pile. Im not sure about the Hasegawa, or the Tamiya versions,. The Revelle and Aoshima pigs prevent me from building a really nice model of a pig,

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Just remember that a 2.00 radius on a 1:1 car is .08 radius at 1/25 sale . That is what makes somethings look to square when looking at openings. and it does bug me also.

I hear ya, Andy, and that's why I brought the two images closer together in size. It's arguably subtle, but fairly clear if you look close, that the radii are too tight even for scale. And I'm sorry, but there's no argument for perspective that can support Revell's deviations there.

Fwiw, I went back out to the neighbor's car, and closely as I could without actually touching it, took a few tape measures. The easiest one was at top-of-bumper level, measuring a clean 9 inches from fender arch to the forward edge - and don'cha know, the Revell kit measures about 9mm at close to the same area. I tried a few other measurements too, but they were too problematic; the forward fender peak really interests me now. I may give 'er another go earlier in the day at some point.

[jbwelda]

draggon, you might check out the tamiya bug, to my eye its pretty much right on and the gunze one doesnt seem bad either, and its an earlier year (might even be split window?).

this has been an interesting thread. and i gotta second this: "oogie-boogie-distorted-reality-factor"

Edited October 2, 2012 by jbwelda

[jaydar]

The biggest fly in the ointment here is the tires! When one looks at a real car, one sees a car with the tires having squished down due to the weight of the car against the road. That is almost impossible to translate into model kit tooling, frankly, unless a model company is willing to buck consumer expectations, make the tires with that "squish" in order to get the correct height. Are you willing to accept that, as opposed to perfectly round, fully inflated tires in a model kit?

Just sayin'

Art

This was a big debate among airplane modelers. there was a line of squished tires but they were a bit exaggerated and many said unrealistic. Most modelers just file a flat on the tire and this will work very well. For auto modelers this is not so easy because of the tire material we get. Still if you work it you can get a bit of a flat spot and this will fix the over inflated look of the tires.

joe.

[gtx6970]

I am a detail fanatic, And I consider myself something of a rivet counter,,,,,,,, BUT.

As long as it represents the subject matter without an extremly vivid imagination. I'm good.

I read about the rivets counters harping about the roof line of the new 1955 300 kit. But I feel it's one of the top ten kits of the last decade.

[Guest Johnny]

I agree, but I have this thing about the model actually looking like the car it represents.

Except I doubt that even 1% of the people looking can even see any difference.That includes those building on a regular basis and probably less that 1/10th of a percent of those really care that much.

[Greg Myers]

My head hurts.

[Guest Johnny]

My head hurts.

Go work on a model for a while and the pain will go away!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Except I doubt that even 1% of the people looking can even see any difference.That includes those building on a regular basis and probably less that 1/10th of a percent of those really care that much.

Yeah, and that obviously goes for many of the people working for the model companies making the tooling. Some days I'm almost sorry I CAN see the problems and that I care. I said almost.

[Guest Johnny]

Yeah, and that obviously goes for many of the people working for the model companies making the tooling. Some days I'm almost sorry I CAN see the problems and that I care. I said almost.

If it is that bad why are you still buying and building them? Makes no sense, why waste your time and money?

[Ace-Garageguy]

If it is that bad why are you still buying and building them? Makes no sense, why waste your time and money?

What ???

Probably because MOST of the time, I'm happy enough with the quality and accuracy of MOST of the kits I come across, and I have the ability to fix what really chaps me. Still, when I open a kit and find glaring errors, that really REALLY chaps me. I shouldn't have to RE-do the work someone got paid to do right the first time.

Is expecting people to do their work accuratemy and competently in exchange for the money they're paid (in part from money I paid for the kit) just too much to ask?

Nobody comes behind me to re-do my work, and I'm sick of having to re-do stuff that should have been right the first time.

WARNING WARNING OMG OMG !!!!!!!!!! THERE IS A HUGE GLARING TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THIS POST (kindly pointed out by an alert forum member) SO NOTHING IT CONTAINS HAS ANY VALUE WHATSOEVER. AS WE ALL KNOW, ANY TYPO, GRAMMATICAL INFRACTION, OR MIS-SPELLING IMMEDIATELY INVALIDATES ANY OTHER CONTENT.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy

[Ron Hamilton]

Nowhere in my treatises on this topic have I ever said anything about compromising dimensions. A GM A-body is a GM A-body is a GM A-body, pure and simple. To that there should be no question. The only way to compare for accuracy of a model kit is to compare the model with the real, 1:1 object, something that isn't often possible for the model car builder (really now! How many of us have access to a '50 Olds 88 and/or a '49-54 Chevy two door sedan anyway?)

A couple of examples here, if I may: This is my '59 Chevrolet Biscayne 2-door sedan

It is based on the excellent Revell '59 Impala Convertible, first released in 1994, I owned, at the time, a '59 Biscayne 4dr sedan, and I KNOW the differences between the roof height of the sedan/station wagon/El Camino, and the Impala convertible/hardtop (and they are significant!)

Based on considerable research (I owned and operated All American Models back in those days!), I found that the length of the doors (A-post to B-Post, NOT the door skin length BTW) was 6 inches longer on the 2dr, regardless of whether it was a 2-door sedan (this model) or a convertible/hardtop body. And, all the other body dimensions all across the GM line save for the Cadillac Series 75 Sedan Limousine were EXACTLY the same that year (GM produced ONLY A-bodies in 1959, if you do not believe me, look it up!). The other issue on this conversion was the roof and the windshield (BTW, the body length back then is the length from the cowling back to the bottom of the rear window--the trunk, faired into the body is not part of the actual body shell!). Based on what I learned back in 1994 (before I had a puter, BTW) I discovered that the roof for my Chevy was exactly the same regardless of the number of doors, or the marque of the car--Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac 4dr sedans all used exactly the same body, no matter the number of doors--again, all A-bodies!). With that in mind, the roof for this model came from a JoHan '59 Cadillac Fleetwood 60 Special (1/8 inch actual measurement too narrow, as I pointed out earlier), but in length and height EXACTLY correct--I took my measuring tape out to the driveway, slapped it on my Biscayne 4dr, OK?). The entire windshield frame, from the beltline up is from an AMT '59 El Camino and it is correct--again, my research gave me the requisite dimensions!. This body was done in resin, at All American Models, and trust me, had it been significantly off, I would have heard about it, trust me on that one!

Now, I did slightly juggle the curvatures of the roof, but not altering the "planform" line as seen from the side, front or rear--ONLY at the sides, to give it a slight change which to my eye (and I believe my eyes were very correct in this assessment, given as I owned the real car at the time!) made it look correct. To this day (and this built example I still own!) this model is right on the money.!)

Now, for the second example: Also in 1994, I mastered a '58 Chevrolet Delray Sedan Delivery, from a PMC '58 Chevy Impala Nomad promo. Now there are contour inaccuracies in that body shell that I chose to not correct--they were just more than I was willing to make the cuts to correct (viewed from above, the real car roof is slightly bowed along the sides--think of a very subtle football shape here), and the drain molding curves ever so slightly upward from the A post to the back of the roof--something that a customer in Norway complained about--I refunded his money, told him to keep the transkit). But even at that, I learned, through research that dimensionally, my transkit was right on (in addition to the '59 I showed and mentioned, I also owned a straight and true '58 Delray Sedan Delivery!) and I did all measurements needed, including the side door length off the real car. I did alter the roof shape, to make it more correct than the PMC promo (which was done in 1957, BTW), and given that there is less than 1/2 inch difference between a '58 Chevy HT/Convertible windshield glass from that of a sedan or station wagon, that was easily taken care of--the AMT '58 Impala is a tad off in that regard!), and went forward. So go figure, huh? (a half inch in our scale is .020", and is hardly noticeable on either the AMT '58 Impala or my sedan delivery--perhaps my only deviation from perfect dimensional accuracy) But in the end, that sedel looks pretty right.

Now, will my model numerically fit the GM Fisher Body drawings, even their stamping dies? I dunno--but the bottom line is that to me, and the 400 or so customers who bought the transkit, it does--or at least allegedly does) represent the real car almost perfectly.

I am well aware that in classic Greek architecture, there are relatively few perfectly straight lines, but those Greek architects were masters of optical illusion. Beat, battered and weathered as it is, the Parthenon in Athens shows that to this day--but that is not what I have postulated, or proposed.

Compromise dimensions (and yes, in 1949-50, Oldsmobile DID use the very same A-body as did Chevrolet, but to get a true reading, GO MEASURE A REAL ONE!,l NO?) but do not compare one model kit to another, done 37 years apart to state which is accurate (and which is not, please!. I will, even though I had to fudge a dimension on that Sedan Delivery, I will hold out for correct dimensions EVERY time.

And it is experience such as this that got me the job of "Automotive Research Specialist" (product development guy) at Johnny Lightning Division of Playing Mantis, with the side job of assisting at Polar Lights, and more recently, aiding with the development of model car kits for Moebius. (and yeah, I still put my pants on, one leg at a time!)

Art

I have both the '58 Sedan Delivery (built as a street machine with Impala parts)

and the '59 Biscayne 2 door sedan (not built, and not for sale), and I can say that Art's mods are right on.

[southpier]

What ???

Probably because MOST of the time, I'm happy enough with the quality and accuracy of MOST of the kits I come across, and I have the ability to fix what really chaps me. Still, when I open a kit and find glaring errors, that really REALLY chaps me. I shouldn't have to RE-do the work someone got paid to do right the first time.

Is expecting people to do their work accuratemy and competently in exchange for the money they're paid (in part from money I paid for the kit) just too much to ask?

Nobody comes behind me to re-do my work, and I'm sick of having to re-do stuff that should have been right the first time.

i didn't want to take this out of context, but it did give me a chuckle

[Ace-Garageguy]

i didn't want to take this out of context, but it did give me a chuckle

Ummmm, you DID want to take that out of context, because that's exactly what you did.

Still, I have to admit it's pretty funny.

Maybe you should start a new thread entitled "A Typo-Counter Speaks Up".

Edited October 5, 2012 by Ace-Garageguy