SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Al Schwartz
Joined
·
3,396 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was messing about this evening doing up some wheels for the BRM project that I am chronicling in another section. I had just finished making a set of front wheels (the lazy way - I modified some BWA wheels that I had on hand) And was very pleased that I had found a combination of wheel diameter and tire that gave me very close to the design goal in terms of size - 5.25 X 18" should be between 29.5 and 30.5 " or a median 0.9375" in 1/32 scale. I ended up with 0.925" - pretty close.

Although things are not permanently mounted, the body and chassis are far enough along so that I could do a trial mounting of the wheels to see how they looked - I even had turned-down Ninco Classic wires as inserts.

It didn't look right! I played with different tires, took the body off and put it back on, looked at the reference photos that I have and just couldn't get comfortable. They seemed to be too big.

Finally I decided that all I was risking was a wheel ($3.25) and the 15 minutes it takes to do the modification so back in the lathe it went. I took about 0.030" off the tire seat and the edge of the rims and remounted the tire, now down to 0.895" - and it looked great!

Perhaps when the body is painted and detailed the wheels will be less prominent and I may decide that I made a mistake but, for the moment, I'm going to trust my eye over my caliper and calculator!

EM
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,683 Posts
To answer the question you pose, I'd rather the dimensions of a model be massaged to look right than be 100% scale and look odd.

I understand that the Fly 908 is too big for 1:32 but it looks good to me and I'm happy to have the five variants I possess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
I agree with Wankel. Not every part of any model works or looks right scaled down to exact dimensions and far better to go with what looks right. Ask yourself the question what are you trying to achieve? Set your goal and strive to achieve it and you cant go wrong. In short the essence of quality standards is `say what you do and do what you say` (Thanks to `Len the lecturer` and Author of `Quality Standards and practise in the work place and my lecturer,who summed up British Standard BS5750 in those few words).

No doubt this will go pear shaped as most discussions of this type do but it`s about pleasing yourself when you are doing something like this for your pleasure
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,634 Posts
I agree with the above comments, but thats quite a big discrepancy! Are any of your source pictures side-on so you can measure the proportions on them? could your figures be wrong?

Thinking about it, I guess getting wheels to look right on modern cars must be tricky, since the scale ground clearance has to be bigger on slot cars than on 1:1, and that would mess up proportions/wheel arches and all sorts. But I can't think why it would be so difficult on older cars
 

·
Rich Dumas
Joined
·
3,675 Posts
As far as I am concerned if it looks right, then it IS right. When I used to scratch build bodies I was only concerned with the scale of the major dimentions, length, width, height and wheelbase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
Hi

While we like to do simple calculations on the wheel size. When I measured old cars and all, I realized that they ARE smaller than the sums!
A, for instance "16 inch rim", the actual bead seat is slightly under, the mounted tire, unloaded is closer to the right size, but add a ton of car and the "sit" is lower. Not much, only an inch or so with this size and aspect ratio. But for me, this means a 7/8th is close where a 15/16ths starts looking wrong.

So, I agree EM...I think I indicated that when we chatted last on the phone. But I get weary of the subject because some of the people in our group... Schlieicher and Dan Wilson particularly get really fussy about it.

Curiously, I once went out and MEASURED Schleicher's Morgan, I was "wrong" because that is now.

Anyway. the sums don't work because of the above and, oh, ya, the sectonal value is only .80 as well.

Sorry to ramble.

Fate
 

·
Al Schwartz
Joined
·
3,396 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I looked again in the cold light of morning and decided that what I was dealing with was essentially an illusion - this is not neccesarily a bad thing - after all, modeling is about illusions.

The project has certain boundaries - I chose to modify existing wheels but had I wanted to, I could have chucked a piece of alloy bar and gone from there but - I have a good but not unlimited range of available tires and since I have, for the moment, abandonned the project I started some time ago to produce my own photo-etched wire inserts, I have a limited range of choices - Slot Classics, turned down Ninco wheels, and the 1/32 and 1/24 BWA resin inserts (Patto makes some vac-formed ones but they don't do it for me) The 1/32 BWAs are too small and the 1/24 just a tad too big - they are about 0.59" which would be OK if I were using a ridge mounted tire instead of a conventional one but, given the need for a tire bed and looking at the most I could trim them and still have them look "whole" - I would be dealing with a rim thickness of about 0.007" - maybe a bit fragile. that leaves me with the Slot Classic and Ninco - both a bit small but the Ninco is the larger of the two and besides, I have a good supply.

So - working backwards from the tire seat diameter and up from the Ninco wheel, I got, in the first ry, an insert diameter of 0.505" and a rim edge(not seat) diameter of 0.62" which left an exposed rim of almost 0.06" - nearly 1/16". With EJ's #5 tires, I got a good tire section and the desired O/A diameter but it looked "chunky" - too much rim showing around the wire (these are the front wheels) - so - turned down by 0.030", I lost a bit of diameter but the effct was better. The rears that I am working on are to the original dimensions with a bigger section Ortmann tire and the insert recessed further - the O/A diameter is larger than the fronts, as intended and the combination of the bigger tire and deeper recess makes them look "right"

Here's the illusion: The P15 mounted 7.00 X 17 tires at the rear and 5.25 X 18 tires at the front. i.e. the front wheels where actually larger than the rears although narrower. The wheels that I have made are actually the opposite when measured but the effect of the differences in insert diameter to rim width and tire section make them look correct!

I reveal this despite the fact that I know, should I enter this car in next year's Marconi Proxy race, I will have sacrificed at least 5 concours points!

EM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
658 Posts
It's unanimous...so far! I agree that certain liberties have to be taken sometimes to get things to look right. As an illustrator and technical renderer (before the days of computer generated images) there was an art to interpreting the plans to "make it look right." The best trained professionals I've seen used to "eyeball" a lot of the dimensions! (They are trained professionals so don't try this at home!)


Bob S.
 

·
Russell Sheldon
Joined
·
2,855 Posts
I think that we have a case in point here. That old chestnut; the Scalextric versus Fly Ford GT40.

To me, the Scalextric GT40 looks "right"; the Fly version looks too "flat". Yet, if you have the current issue of Model Car Racing magazine, you would have read Robert Schleicher's article, pointing out in detail that the Fly version is indeed far more accurate than the Scalextric rendition. So yes, eyeballing it to get it to look 'right' does sometimes give a better impression than exact scale.

I must however disgree with Wankel on the Fly 908 (and Chevron). Having actually seen the real cars, it does look silly to me having a 908 the same size as a 917. The Fly 908 and Chevron however look just 'right' sitting alongside the VMG Can-Am cars!



Kind regards

Russell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
QUOTE (jonny s @ 31 Mar 2004, 14:29)That`s right and leave the ugly ones to me...they are normaly at least grateful! Were you guys talking about cars or....?
Jonny! Ooh Matron! Saucy!

I like mine with some fat rubber on them, they look so much better than stock IMHO (Cars, that is
) even if the original never had hoops as large.
It's a shame that sclaey made the GT40 a sidewinder. If it had been inline then the rear tyres would have been proper fat, like!

Mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
Some interesting points come up here and I remain to be convinced that it is ever necessary to massage the figures.

1. It's amazing how often the raw data is in error and equally amazing how people simply accept someone's claim of being 'right'. The most reliable and careful of people are still only human and we all make mistakes, no matter how much we may wish to deny it. So that which is claimed to be dimensionally accurate to scale, sometimes, simply is not. Usually he who shouts loudest appears to win the day, but it doesn't make him or her 'right'!

2. Just as 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', so is 'looking right'. What may look right to me might not look right to you - or anyone else for that matter!

3. For most of us, what we compare the model with is only ever a photograph and photos are notorious for distortion of dimensions.

Add this lot up (and there might well be more factors), no wonder we tend to experience a little disagreement from time to time!
 

·
Brian Ferguson
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
I think the whole thing boils down to two points:

1) If you scale the real car down perfectly to 1/32 it will be "scale".

2) Unless you scale yourself down to 1/32 you will never see the "scale" model in the same perspective as the 1:1 car.

The visual input we get when looking at the model just isn't the same as what we get when eyeballing the real thing. Our perception changes. Unless your eyes are scale size, a scale distance apart, and you can view the model from scale distances at typical angles, you may well find that the model doesn't quite "look" right! Even photos mimic the perspective, so those don't really equalize our perception either.

This doesn't mean I want non-scale models, however. What looks "right" to me may not look "right" to someone else. I'd rather have true scale, and leave it up to my brain to understand why it might not look "perfect" to me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
QUOTE (ProfFate @ 5 Mar 2004, 10:37)Hi

While we like to do simple calculations on the wheel size. When I measured old cars and all, I realized that they ARE smaller than the sums!
A, for instance "16 inch rim", the actual bead seat is slightly under, the mounted tire, unloaded is closer to the right size, but add a ton of car and the "sit" is lower. Not much, only an inch or so with this size and aspect ratio. But for me, this means a 7/8th is close where a 15/16ths starts looking wrong.

So, I agree EM...I think I indicated that when we chatted last on the phone. But I get weary of the subject because some of the people in our group... Schlieicher and Dan Wilson particularly get really fussy about it.

Curiously, I once went out and MEASURED Schleicher's Morgan, I was "wrong" because that is now.

Anyway. the sums don't work because of the above and, oh, ya, the sectonal value is only .80 as well.

Sorry to ramble.

Fate
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Sorry to get into this so late.............
Irrespective of the opinions of the great Prof. Fate, I'll also come in on the side of "what looks right, is good". While MESAC required scale wheelbase and track to +- 2 scale inches, we never worried about wheel diameters. Once you determine that a body is pretty close to scale, then the wheels and tires are a matter of looking right. Between that and the "stance" of a car, they are the two most important parts of the cars' appearance. Some exaggeration of components can make a car look more aggressive as well. Given the narrow choices of brass/alum. tubing, I'll always pick the next larger size for exhaust pipes. And given the limited sizes of proper (alloy setscrew) wheels and tires to fit them, we will usually have to make a choice here, too.
And then considering the actual specs of the prototypes, which information is always questionable, consider this old story:
Ron von Klein, a master body modelmaker of the old school, went to the Ferrari dealer in Hollywood to measure a particular car for the purposes of carving a slot body pattern. When measuring the wheelbase, it seemed to be "wrong" according to what the available published specs were. Measuring the other side, the "specs" were correct. There was close to a 1 1/2" difference between left and right. Ron told me he "averaged" in the body carving and called it good.
I figure that if the car looks right, it probably is, and that only when folks start to have selective scale visions, like MG Vanguish, is there a problem of a different magnitude. dan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
I have to agree with the "if it looks right bunch"...and I don't concede that it is in the eye of the beholder. This is not about personal judgement, it is literally as Fergy says (and others have alluded to)...it is a matter of perspective. Artists know this, for example...when you see large bronzes, they are intentionally out of scale, and get more out of scale the higher you move up the statue. In order to perceive it as correct, you have to distort it. The same is true with 1/32 scale cars, if you make them literal miniatures, they look off. Meanwhile, I think it is interesting that some still adhere rigidly to precise numbers instead of what they actually see. I can just imagine someone looking at a precise miniature and rationalizing that it looks right even though it doesn't. Maybe it's because people rely on different senses for "reality". If you rely on visual input, then it is not numerical accuracy but what you see that matters. If you are more auditory or kinesthetic, then perhaps the numbers rule irrespective of your eyes actual perception. Wow...diversity in the slot car world, who'd have thunk it?

cheers,
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I was told when I was an apprentice " If it looks right chances are it is right "
But as far as the Fly cars go I must contradict that , when I put my Airfix F3L on the track with the 908 it look ridiculous !
The Fly,s sure look pretty but having got back into scratch building I think they will become donors ......

Richard
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top