Greg Myers Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) Quote My question is this: Why are there so many obvious mistakes? Quote Edited February 23, 2014 by Greg Myers
Greg Myers Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 12:46 PM, southpier said: so if they're not toys, why do we act like children?
Harry P. Posted February 23, 2014 Author Posted February 23, 2014 The kits are manufactured in China, not designed and engineered there. Or am I wrong?
charlie8575 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 James- great video in Post #81. Quite illuminating. Kevin- nice work on those cars, and yes, the 727 automatic in the '71 Charger would be correct for a 1969-model (and back to around 1962-63) Chrysler product with a big-block. Greg- I like that graphic. Where did you find it? I think we all agree on one thing here: no matter how we get it, we all deserve value for our money and time invested. Some of us just get different value than others, and for different reasons. Charlie Larkin
Art Anderson Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 If one really thinks about it, were there to be a model car kit, any model car kit, that was completely and totally accurate down to a gnat's whisker what would we complain about, huh? (perhaps that it had so many tiny, thin, almost unworkable parts? Hmmmm.) Art
JohnU Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Wouldn't a completely accurate to scale 1/25 model weigh in at almost 120 lbs. if it were 3000 lbs. 1:1?
Art Anderson Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 5:22 PM, JohnU said: Wouldn't a completely accurate to scale 1/25 model weigh in at almost 120 lbs. if it were 3000 lbs. 1:1? Not to mention the sheer thousands of parts, most of them so miniscule as to almost require a microscope and micro-surgery tools to build! Art
Ace-Garageguy Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) On 2/23/2014 at 5:15 PM, Art Anderson said: If one really thinks about it, were there to be a model car kit, any model car kit, that was completely and totally accurate down to a gnat's whisker what would we complain about, huh? (perhaps that it had so many tiny, thin, almost unworkable parts? Hmmmm.) Art On 2/23/2014 at 5:29 PM, Art Anderson said: Not to mention the sheer thousands of parts, most of them so miniscule as to almost require a microscope and micro-surgery tools to build! Art And not to mention, if one really thinks about it, why bother to stay on the reasonable topic of obvious and easily foreseeable LARGE flaws, when we can go off on totally irrelevant and silly tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the central issue of the original post ? Correct proportions and correct scaling of the parts that ARE represented and included in the kit is all any of us really want...and ejector pin locations on the NON-visible surfaces...or correct me if I'm missing something here. That is NOT unreasonable. Edited February 23, 2014 by Ace-Garageguy
Harry P. Posted February 23, 2014 Author Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 5:45 PM, Ace-Garageguy said: And not to mention, if one really thinks about it, why bother to stay on the reasonable topic of obvious and easily foreseeable LARGE flaws, when we can go off on totally irrelevant and silly tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the central issue of the original post ? Ditto. Nobody is demanding a "perfect" model. Let's stay on topic.
SteveG Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) On 2/23/2014 at 4:54 PM, Harry P. said: The kits are manufactured in China, not designed and engineered there. Or am I wrong? That depends, I know the CAD design work for the Testors - Lindberg Charger kits was done here. Some additional parts were hand mastered in China. The Chinese still do a lot of hand mastered parts in plastic and will make resin copies for approval. I've personally held samples in my hands. Below is a photo of the hand mastered body parts for the soon to be released Moebius Ford Pickups. It took this photos at last years Toledo NNL. It looks to me that all the design and engineering for that kit is being done in China. I believe all the recent Moebius car kits are done this way. I'm pretty sure that their Lonestar and Prostar kits were done with CAD design with support from I-H so I would say they were designed here. I can't say for sure about Revell or Round 2 but I guess the majority of the all the new tooling work is being done in China based on the finished products. Edited February 23, 2014 by SteveG
Tom Geiger Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) Quote I'm not an industry insider, so just a guess on my part... but I'd say a combination of trying to keep manufacturing costs as low as possible in these days of far fewer kit sales (fewer parts equals simpler tooling that costs less to make) coupled with the "good enough" mentality that is so pervasive in the business. Harry, just like every project you do professionally, I believe each kit project starts with a budget and project timeline. The design team must decide how much detail they can afford, and how many rounds of tooling reviews etc are in the budget and timeline. So for instance the team may want to do separate door handles and wipers, but having those added to the piece count may not be in the budget. It's much cheaper to just have them engraved on the body. To have them designed as separate parts involves designing all sides of them (on the body you're just engraving the top side), figuring them into a tree configuration, designing the attachment points and ejector pins needed to get a perfect part. I'm sure each decision on the kit has a lively debate about time and budget. I'm sure with many kits on round 3 of tooling modifications, there may still be some little details needing fixing, but the team reluctantly approves the tool for production because they don't have the time or funding to go through another round. In my own professional corporate life, everyone on my design teams truly wanted to do the very best we could. We'd design the Cadillac of facility projects, then we'd submit it to the estimators to find out just how far out of budget the ideal was. Then we'd go into the 'value engineering' phase where we debated how to produce it cheaper and which elements we wanted to include just didn't make it in the budget. Someone else mentioned that the tooling designers needed to have a passion for the subject. Not so, they just need really good information from which to accomplish their task. These folks (the Chinese here) are very talented craftsmen and work on a variety of projects, not just model cars, maybe not even in the realm of toys. They are injection molding specialists and can translate anything to a workable mold. For instance a friend of mine was a designer for AT&T and worked on product design for phones, cases, equipment enclosures and anything else that got injection molded. When that ship sailed, he managed to get hired into medical devices. A totally different product, but his skills translated. What happens is there is a loss of material from those who have done the photographing and measuring, as it goes down the food chain to those actually putting this into CAD or cutting into metal. It's happened to me many times. No matter how well we thought we took all the critical dimensions in the field, sitting at the CAD terminal, we discover we neglected one critical measurement that has us in a corner. In my world most of the time it was as easy as going back to the area and looking at it again. When you're in China and the subject matter and the team who provided you with the data are in the USA, it's much more difficult. Sometimes they are forced to make decisions as best they can with the lack of data to make a deadline and move the project along. I'm sure someone who has actually worked on model car projects can provide a better explanation, I'm just relating the realities of business project management. And I respond much better to an explanation of HOW and WHY than a biased blanked statement that "All Revell kits are garbage." I believe it was Greg Wann who jumped into the Mustang kit fracas and explained with exact measurements and his fixed master in each of the areas of design deficiency. That was an unbiased review, that also provided remedy of the situation. I know he was producing the 'fixed' resin body, and I'd be curious to know how many of the loud mouth complainers from the board actually ponied up the money to buy one. Edited February 23, 2014 by Tom Geiger
Harry P. Posted February 23, 2014 Author Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 6:22 PM, Tom Geiger said: Harry, just like every project you do professionally, I believe each kit project starts with a budget and project timeline. The design team must decide how much detail they can afford, and how many rounds of tooling reviews etc are in the budget and timeline. So for instance the team may want to do separate door handles and wipers, but having those added to the piece count may not be in the budget. It's much cheaper to just have them engraved on the body. To have them designed as separate parts involves designing all sides of them (on the body you're just engraving the top side), figuring them into a tree configuration, designing the attachment points and ejector pins needed to get a perfect part. I'm sure each decision on the kit has a lively debate about time and budget. I'm sure with many kits on round 3 of tooling modifications, there may still be some little details needing fixing, but the team reluctantly approves the tool for production because they don't have the time or funding to go through another round. Yeah, I understand all of that. I'm familiar with the process of designing and manufacturing. I get it. But that doesn't explain stupid boneheaded mistakes like "magic floating alternators" or backwards gas tanks and the like. Cutting the tooling with the gas tank backwards costs the same as cutting the tooling with the gas tank in the correct orientation. It's not about time and/or money, it's about people either not paying attention to their job, or the "who cares, it's good enough" attitude.
martinfan5 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 3:33 PM, Ace-Garageguy said: Name calling and psychological bashing is childish behavior, granted. Pointing out flaws in manufactured products, made by well-paid professionals in ANY industry is not. It's called "quality control" if it happens BEFORE the product is released to market. You win the internet
Bowtienutz Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Quit complaining and fix the little problems, After all you are modeler. The kits today are far superior to what was available in decades past if you can't fix it donate them to the boy scouts like it was pointed out on the first page of this topic. Harry if your so good at this why aren't you working for the manufacturers? Get a job as a consultant. Offer to build test shots. Your a moderator why do you start such topics that you know will start a #%&* storm? I guess I'll get 1 warning point for this this post.
Harry P. Posted February 23, 2014 Author Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 7:21 PM, Bowtienutz said: Quit complaining and fix the little problems, After all you are modeler. The kits today are far superior to what was available in decades past if you can't fix it donate them to the boy scouts like it was pointed out on the first page of this topic. Harry if your so good at this why aren't you working for the manufacturers? Get a job as a consultant. Offer to build test shots. Your a moderator why do you start such topics that you know will start a #%&* storm? I guess I'll get 1 warning point for this this post. A couple of problems with your post. First, I never said anything about how good I am. My comments are about inaccurate kits, not about me or whatever skills I have or don't have. I'm talking about the people who are paid to create the kits. Not about me. Second, this is a perfectly logical topic for an online forum about model cars. And third, no, no warning points for expressing your opinion. That's what we do here. That's what an online forum is for.
Luc Janssens Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 7:24 PM, Harry P. said: And third, no, no warning points for expressing your opinion. That's what we do here. That's what an online forum is for. Not. even for the hard to read, font choice? Darn! ;^)
Greg Myers Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 Quote I think we all agree on one thing here: no matter how we get it, we all deserve value for our money and time invested. Some of us just get different value than others, and for different reasons. Most profound.
niteowl7710 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 6:22 PM, Tom Geiger said: And I respond much better to an explanation of HOW and WHY than a biased blanked statement that "All Revell kits are garbage." I believe it was Greg Wann who jumped into the Mustang kit fracas and explained with exact measurements and his fixed master in each of the areas of design deficiency. That was an unbiased review, that also provided remedy of the situation. I know he was producing the 'fixed' resin body, and I'd be curious to know how many of the loud mouth complainers from the board actually ponied up the money to buy one. Lets see here I can pony up an extra $30 for a body to fix a nearly $30 model, that being a resin copy of something will require a defined amount of cleaning up and fiddling with no matter how good a copy it is, in addition to the fact that the roof was only part of the problems the LX has baked in. Oooooooooooor Revell can pony up the cash to fix the effing mold that they knew was incorrect (and everyone loves to just ignore -- THEY KNEW, THEY WERE TOLD!) before the model went into production in the first place. Weighing the option...weighing the options...yeah gonna have to go with Revell has to fix the mold.
sjordan2 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) On 2/23/2014 at 7:21 PM, Bowtienutz said: Quit complaining and fix the little problems, After all you are modeler. The kits today are far superior to what was available in decades past if you can't fix it donate them to the boy scouts like it was pointed out on the first page of this topic. Harry if your so good at this why aren't you working for the manufacturers? Get a job as a consultant. Offer to build test shots. Your a moderator why do you start such topics that you know will start a #%&* storm? I guess I'll get 1 warning point for this this post. Why call out Harry, who doesn't need to be reminded, "You are a modeler"? There were a few better kits in days past, such as the Jo-Han Gold Cup series, many worse, and much better technology available today to make kits that shouldn't have glaring flaws. Considering the amount of time, enthusiasm and investment that modelers (especially those who are interested enough to frequent this forum) put into the hobby, shouldn't the kit makers be held to certain standards? And, as has been mentioned multiple times here, criticisms should be aired or we'll all get the lower-quality kits we would deserve. Criticism is necessary to progress. Edited February 23, 2014 by sjordan2
Agent G Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 5:22 PM, JohnU said: Wouldn't a completely accurate to scale 1/25 model weigh in at almost 120 lbs. if it were 3000 lbs. 1:1? Actually no. There's a formula that allows for this type of calculation. It has been posted here before, but I cannot find a link to it. Safe to say it should weigh out to around 5lbs in scale. G
Bowtienutz Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) I still feel the problem in today's kits are minor compared to what we had to deal with in years past. I wish I was 30 or 40 years younger to be a modeler and to enjoy all the aftermarket stuff that is available today and learn from all of us guys (my age) that are dying off and who's collections are available for a song. You can't deny that every thing that a manufacturer does is a based on a budget and a timeline. What an engineer has to say gets overruled by an bean counter as a former engineer I will bet my last dollar on that. I do wish you would lock this post I think it has proved it's point and run it's course. Sorry Harry. But I don't see what the point of it is. Hey Luc, I'm have double vision since my assualt causing a kind of blindness so I use a font and a size that appeals to me sorry for the funky font I thought it looked good I hope this is better. Edited February 23, 2014 by Bowtienutz
Guest Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 5:22 PM, JohnU said: Wouldn't a completely accurate to scale 1/25 model weigh in at almost 120 lbs. if it were 3000 lbs. 1:1? If it was made of identical materials a real car was made of. Plastic is lighter than metal.
Tom Geiger Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) On 2/23/2014 at 7:55 PM, niteowl7710 said: Lets see here I can pony up an extra $30 for a body to fix a nearly $30 model, that being a resin copy of something will require a defined amount of cleaning up and fiddling with no matter how good a copy it is, in addition to the fact that the roof was only part of the problems the LX has baked in. Oooooooooooor Revell can pony up the cash to fix the effing mold that they knew was incorrect (and everyone loves to just ignore -- THEY KNEW, THEY WERE TOLD!) before the model went into production in the first place. Weighing the option...weighing the options...yeah gonna have to go with Revell has to fix the mold. Well, here's the deal... there were a few niggly details other than the roof he also fixed. There was something with the curve at the rear spoiler / trunk lid edge and something else with the shape of the bottom of the rear bumper. Quite frankly I didn't see any of the issues until he pointed it out with Before and After photos. And I don't think it matters a whole lot that "THEY KNEW, THEY WERE TOLD!" about the roof height. That change is a major rework of the largest part of the tool (and many parts it touches, like the glass shot and maybe more). No doubt, by the time they knew, it was too late to completely rework it, and stay within their time frame and budget. Where the problem is, is that we who see this hobby as near religion are maybe 5% of Revell's business. 95% of the people who buy the kit think it's just fine, and that's who they are out to please. The majority. The very few, a small percent of our 5% who absolutely can't live without these minute details being fixed, well they need to buy the resin. Yea, perfection costs a bit more. But you've illustrated my point clearly. You were one of the vocal guys complaining about the kit, but you're not buying the corrected resin. Edited February 23, 2014 by Tom Geiger
Harry P. Posted February 23, 2014 Author Posted February 23, 2014 On 2/23/2014 at 8:18 PM, Bowtienutz said: I do wish you would lock this post I think it has proved it's point and run it's course. Sorry Harry. But I don't see what the point of it is. Then why do you keep reading it and commenting here? Is someone forcing you to keep coming back to this topic? There are plenty of other topics on this site that you might like better. I have this weird sort of thing where if I don't have any interest in a particular topic, then I don't comment on it. That's crazy, right? Must be just me...
Recommended Posts