horsepower Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 There actually was a rear bumper without guards offered, I don't know if it's the optional one or the standard one, but the '57 Ranchero my father in law had was without guards on any of the bumpers, the only difference I can see and it's not a big one is the center section where the plate goes is a little deeper recess, and the lights for the plate are in the bevels on each end of the plate, but they didn't work very well because they came even with the plate surface without any frames on the plate and with plate frames most were almost covered by the end surface and only about half the light actually was able to shine across the plate.
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Huh. There you go. Addresses that issue for me.
bobthehobbyguy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I stand by my comment if you don't think a product meets your expectations then don't buy it. If you do you are a hypocrite because you are accepting the mediocrity that you are critizing. It is up to the consumer to decide if a product is worth their money.
Ace-Garageguy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I stand by my comment if you don't think a product meets your expectations then don't buy it. If you do you are a hypocrite because you are accepting the mediocrity that you are critizing. It is up to the consumer to decide if a product is worth their money. I don't see it that way. If you really THINK about what I've been saying, I'm not criticizing the models themselves so much as the failures in the PROCESS that allow misshapen panels, windows, grilles and badly proportioned tops to creep into the products (not to mention two kits that have engines that should be identical, and are in fact several scale-inches different in length). I often say that I think the manufacturers are giving us a pretty good bit of excellent work, and anyone familiar with my own work can see I'm probably capable of correcting the issues that have been pointed out. I'll buy what looks like a generally good starting point for a '57 Ford wagon, and finish it up to my own satisfaction. It's a lot more cost- and time-effective for me to buy a model that's 90 or 95% there and bring it the rest of the way than it is to carve one from a chunk of wood. But the PROCESS of getting an idea for a kit into a box on the shelves could use some fine tuning. Reasonable accuracy of all the parts in each kit (not perfection, as so many try to interpret my words to mean), where every part is up to the excellent standards we know the manufacturers are CAPABLE of (because they deliver it frequently) requires more of a feedback loop BEFORE expensive injection-molding tools are machined and test-shots with immediately obvious errors are released for public scrutiny.
Rob Hall Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I But the PROCESS of getting an idea for a kit into a box on the shelves could use some fine tuning. Reasonable accuracy of all the parts in each kit (not perfection, as so many try to interpret my words to mean), where every part is up to the excellent standards we know the manufacturers are CAPABLE of (because they deliver it frequently) requires more of a feedback loop BEFORE expensive injection-molding tools are machined and test-shots with immediately obvious errors are released for public scrutiny. It sounds like their quality control/quality assurance efforts with regards to accuracy could use some improvement at various stages of the process.. I wonder if Revell, etc practice TQM, Six Sigma or ISO9000;;
Brett Barrow Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) As Luc said, it's the transition from the designer's 2d drawings to the pattern maker's 3d (as in real, actual. Not 3d as in computer) master is where most inaccuracies creep in. Sometimes there's just not enough information on the drawing and the pattern maker has to use his skills to fill in the missing information. Some are better at it than others. Then that pattern has to be input into a computer to where they design the actual "kit" parts and layout the runners and cut the tool, again another step where inaccuracies can creep in but I believe they are using 3d scanning for this step now to alleviate this. The trend is moving towards doing it all in 3d in the computer from initial design to tooling. I think that will alleviate a lot of the mistakes. Edited June 28, 2015 by Brett Barrow
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) I stand by my comment if you don't think a product meets your expectations then don't buy it. If you do you are a hypocrite because you are accepting the mediocrity that you are critizing. It is up to the consumer to decide if a product is worth their money. And what blows your whole notion of hypocrisy to smithereens is that you make no allowances at all for somebody pointing out the problems and then fixing them. Or even showing people how to fix those problems. In national publications sometimes, and yes, even online forums. But these are the sorts of things such a viewpoint has to ignore in order to make sense and allow such lofty judgments to be passed on fellow modelers. Edited June 28, 2015 by Chuck Kourouklis
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 ...The trend is moving towards doing it all in 3d in the computer from initial design to tooling. I think that will alleviate a lot of the mistakes. And that's the little bit in the "Behind The Scenes" flyer featuring the '57 Ford sedan that really piques my interest - there's a strong hint that Revell's pushing to go that way 'round the middle...
bobthehobbyguy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Whatever you say you have all the answers. Me I'm going to work on building one of my flawed models. Edited June 28, 2015 by bobthehobbyguy
bobthehobbyguy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 As Luc said, it's the transition from the designer's 2d drawings to the pattern maker's 3d (as in real, actual. Not 3d as in computer) master is where most inaccuracies creep in. Sometimes there's just not enough information on the drawing and the pattern maker has to use his skills to fill in the missing information. Some are better at it than others. Then that pattern has to be input into a computer to where they design the actual "kit" parts and layout the runners and cut the tool, again another step where inaccuracies can creep in but I believe they are using 3d scanning for this step now to alleviate this. The trend is moving towards doing it all in 3d in the computer from initial design to tooling. I think that will alleviate a lot of the mistakes. Another thing I see helping is for them to preview the work with 3d printers before commiting to tooling. I would guess in most cases issues like a part being too big and require filling in and recutting get nixed because of cost and time. Fixes that require material removal would seem more likely to be done.
Chuck Kourouklis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Not all, just enough. Including one that makes a mockery of your signature:
wku88 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Another thing I see helping is for them to preview the work with 3d printers before commiting to tooling. I would guess in most cases issues like a part being too big and require filling in and recutting get nixed because of cost and time. Fixes that require material removal would seem more likely to be done. Um, no. Material removal from a injection molding tool makes the part larger, or even more out of whack. Although most tools are made to the small side, to allow for tool wear over time(and according to the material), Welding it back up and recutting is not half the deal it might seem to be. Especially in the era of CNC mills. Biggest issue I face is when a supplier sources a tool from China, and then has it sent over on a boat to a NA facility. If it needs rework, you end up getting a local guy to do it, because of the cost and time to send it back to China. In fact, a lot of my suppliers are now sourcing tools in the US or Mexico after getting burnt on the Chinese tools.
unclescott58 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I spent a little time doing some research on '57 Ford wagons this evening. Mainly trying to figure out if they came with rear bumper guards or not. First, I do have a original 1957 Ford accessory brochure. There is nothing noted in there about optional rear bumper guards for station wagons. There is a grille guard designed to attach to your front bumper guards. But, that's it. I also looked though several other books I have on the subject. I then spent some at 1957ford.com. Seeing what they had to say. First they had no specific list of what was standard on each model. The accessory section again does not show optional rear bumper guards for any '57 Ford. Looking up each individual model, and then looking at the picture galleries under each model, I did notice that the plain, non-Custom Rancheros and Courier sedan deliveries showed some rear bumpers without bumper guards. But, from what I could see all '57 Ford station wagons and the Custom Rancheros came with rear bumper guards. I can find nothing other than later pictures of '57 station wagons without bumper guards. Vintage pictures always show rear bumper guards. None of the sources I have, including a reprint of the '57 Ranchero brochure, show any '57 Ford station wagon or plain and Custom Ranchero without bumper guards. So what does this all mean? I'm guessing Revell has made a mistake by not including them with their new Del Rio Ranch Wagon model kit. But, I can't say for sure. Either way will this story me from buying and enjoying the kit? Heck no. It's a minor thing that I'm willing to live with. And it's really no worst than I've seen on other kits. Even those of cars that were new at the time. I wish it was perfect. But, it's not. Scott
Guest Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I don't see it that way. If you really THINK about what I've been saying, I'm not criticizing the models themselves so much as the failures in the PROCESS that allow misshapen panels, windows, grilles and badly proportioned tops to creep into the products (not to mention two kits that have engines that should be identical, and are in fact several scale-inches different in length). I often say that I think the manufacturers are giving us a pretty good bit of excellent work, and anyone familiar with my own work can see I'm probably capable of correcting the issues that have been pointed out. I'll buy what looks like a generally good starting point for a '57 Ford wagon, and finish it up to my own satisfaction. It's a lot more cost- and time-effective for me to buy a model that's 90 or 95% there and bring it the rest of the way than it is to carve one from a chunk of wood. But the PROCESS of getting an idea for a kit into a box on the shelves could use some fine tuning. Reasonable accuracy of all the parts in each kit (not perfection, as so many try to interpret my words to mean), where every part is up to the excellent standards we know the manufacturers are CAPABLE of (because they deliver it frequently) requires more of a feedback loop BEFORE expensive injection-molding tools are machined and test-shots with immediately obvious errors are released for public scrutiny. Well put Bill.
Guest Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I spent a little time doing some research on '57 Ford wagons this evening. Mainly trying to figure out if they came with rear bumper guards or not. First, I do have a original 1957 Ford accessory brochure. There is nothing noted in there about optional rear bumper guards for station wagons. There is a grille guard designed to attach to your front bumper guards. But, that's it. I also looked though several other books I have on the subject. I then spent some at 1957ford.com. Seeing what they had to say. First they had no specific list of what was standard on each model. The accessory section again does not show optional rear bumper guards for any '57 Ford. Looking up each individual model, and then looking at the picture galleries under each model, I did notice that the plain, non-Custom Rancheros and Courier sedan deliveries showed some rear bumpers without bumper guards. But, from what I could see all '57 Ford station wagons and the Custom Rancheros came with rear bumper guards. I can find nothing other than later pictures of '57 station wagons without bumper guards. Vintage pictures always show rear bumper guards. None of the sources I have, including a reprint of the '57 Ranchero brochure, show any '57 Ford station wagon or plain and Custom Ranchero without bumper guards. So what does this all mean? I'm guessing Revell has made a mistake by not including them with their new Del Rio Ranch Wagon model kit. But, I can't say for sure. Either way will this story me from buying and enjoying the kit? Heck no. It's a minor thing that I'm willing to live with. And it's really no worst than I've seen on other kits. Even those of cars that were new at the time. I wish it was perfect. But, it's not. Scott Even if they did not come without guards, I would rather have a kit with none than a kit with ones too large that would interfere with dropping the tail gate if it was real.
Bob Ellis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Okay, a mistake (most likely) was made. Maybe Revell would supply another bumper (probably not)? It's all too late now. Maybe somebody like Missing-Link could offer these bumpers guards? I look at it this way; is the kit 95% of the way to my objective? Could I scratch build it for less, and that good? I am not a hypocrite. Just realistic. Nothing in the world turns out exactly the way we want or expect.
unclescott58 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I'm just happy Revell is offering us fairly pretty accurate, in general, '57 Fords. I'm pleased so far with my Custom 2-door. And I'm sure I'll be pleased when I pick up my wagon. Heck I'm still pleased with AMT's old '57 Ford kit. I guess I'm just too easy to please. Have pity on me! Scott
Jon Cole Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Okay, a mistake (most likely) was made. Maybe Revell would supply another bumper (probably not)? It's all too late now. Maybe somebody like Missing-Link could offer these bumpers guards? I look at it this way; is the kit 95% of the way to my objective? Could I scratch build it for less, and that good? I am not a hypocrite. Just realistic. Nothing in the world turns out exactly the way we want or expect. Amen to that. Of all the "important" things in my life, models are not one of them.
Jon Cole Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Amen to that. Of all the "important" things in my life, models are not one of them. BLASPHEMY!
Bob Ellis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Airplanes are built to Six Sigma, which is better quality than a model car kit.
Luc Janssens Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Oh God people! I was just commenting on 99% quality control. This was not meant to imply a model manufacturer had to adhere to airframe standard and regs. Oops, sorry, I misread your post. Sometime we take this hobby much to seriously, me included. In the pre-internet days, we 'd be building instead of these endless discussions, again me included Edited June 28, 2015 by Luc Janssens
mrm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 People do take the hobby WAAAAYYYYY to seriously, to the point of sometimes taking the fun out of it. What is worse, in a very comical way tho, is how seriously some people are taking themselves on here.
gtx6970 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I've seen enough I WILL buy at least one of the wagons . ( maybe more ) But I want to replicate this car in a BAAAAAAAAAAD way
unclescott58 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I was just wondering on how the decision was made to even offer us a Ford Del Rio ranch wagon in the first place? Talking with people over the years I thought I was one few people out there that had interest in '57 Fords. Everybody else is talking how much they love the tri-five Chevy's. Especially the '57. And no one until this model was announced seemed to even know what a Del Rio Ranch Wagon was. Like few people can tell you what a '56 Ford Parklane is. So where did this idea of making a Del Rio model kit come from? Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted this car has been done as kit. But, you ask most modelers a few years back if they would even be interested in a model of a Del Rio. The first thing they would have asked you, "is what a Del Rio?" And when they found what it was, they would tell not to hold your breath waiting for it to be done as model. They may have thought the Del Reo was cool once they learned about it. But, no one would have expected to see a model kit of one. So where did this come from? And if we can now get a Del Rio Ranch Wagon, what are the chances of someday seeing a Parklane too? I know. Don't hold your breath.... But, I wasn't holding my breath of ever seeing the Del Rio. And yet here it is! Scott
martinfan5 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 It is said that 99% quality would result in at least one plane crashing per day at O'Hare airport Sounds like O'Hare is the problem, and not the planes
Recommended Posts