SlotForum banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,186 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I probably am in the worst position to address a critic to a company that has done so much to re-invigorate the hobby, while now possibly hurting it seriously, since we are ourselves a manufacturer of slot car bits, and that we produce bodies of the type that some purists call "blobs", a critic justified in many cases.

Regardless and because I love this hobby, I would like to point out what I believe is a very valid critic, and it is one of accurate SHAPE. The latest outings from FLY are so far off, one has to seriously question the talent of the pattern makers. I am talking about the latest important important FLY releases: the Ford GT40 and the Ferrari Daytona. I have seen here a comparison of the GT40 by Scalextric and FLY, with the conclusion that the FLY was better. I also saw great praise for the Daytona.

As a person who has direct and daily access to both, I can only conclude that the fellows embracing these models need new glasses. The Daytona is SO FAR OFF, it does not even capture the look of the real car and looks more like a "custom" job. It is a full 10mm too wide and 8mm too low on the roof line, the hood is too short by nearly 10mm, the cabin too long by 6mm. Multiply this by 32 and see the problem. When I showd the model to Tony Adamowicz who of course drove the most famous of the Daytonas, he could not even recognize the car.

I also pointed out somewhere else that the FLY GT40 was WAY off, with too low of a roofline and WAY to high of a back end. Looks to me like one of those horrid fake GT40 kit cars made by FiberFab in the 1970's, of which the patterns were built by a person with no sense of proportions and dubious taste. The Daytona and GT40 by FLY brings us right back to the dark days when Scalextric cars looked like toys for toddlers.
A great disappointment indeed.

Regards,

Mr. Pea
Always a critic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
Please. These are toy cars based on real cars and whilst it`s fair to point out mistakes based on your view point, you have a vested interest and to date we haven`t seen the manufacturers bashing each other over designs. These cars are what they are, designed for the mass market,if you can match that then you may have a fair point.

The specialist in my experince will always do a better job, but charges more but then often I can`t justify racing these type of cars. To finish,be fair it`s not just Fly is it? As a model maker and manufacturer I know that liberty has to be taken along with artistic license in making scaled down models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
I think you are "spot-on" on your observations. I went to the Shelby museum in Boulder, Colo last weekend and took both GT40's with me to compare. the Fly model looked like it was squashed, just to wide. I think that Scaley captured the look much better. Specially the roof line. The rear tire width looked more correct on the Fly version though. I can't comment on the Daytona. My only reference for that would be my old 70's AFX Daytona, which I think look more proportionatly correct. Quite a sight to see all the GT40's marks lined up side by side. Anyone know if a MKIII slot car was ever made? They had John Wyers daughters MKIII there, and all I could say was WOW! What a sexy car that was!!! Would love to purchase a model of that!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,555 Posts
QUOTE ...and that we produce bodies of the type that some purists call "blobs", a critic justified in many cases.

So in this post you are taking a pop at a company whilst acknowledging the weaknesses of your own products. Trying to beat the acusations of hypocrisy, eh?

Should you not wait until you have the moral high ground, i.e. your own products are perfect before throwing the brickbats?

Most of us ain't too anal with it all, as long as the model 'feels' right then I'm content. When it 'looks' too out of whack then I'll be first in the queue to take a pop by all means - not seen a VMG Lotus 72 in the flesh yet, not looking forward to either.


My own personal theory, and that's all it is, is that sometimes models can retain a good 'feel' of the 1:1 by throwing the proportions out a bit when reduced in scale. Whether or not was done deliberately, the Daytona I saw recently looked superb - course, I've never stood next to a real one but how many of the buyers of the little version will have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
714 Posts
I read Philippe's critique, NOT as a personal viewpoint, but as a short list of significantly inaccurate numeric dimensions.

Even if it was just a matter of "I don't like the look of it", PdL is as free to express his opinion as any one else here. But he backs it up with numbers. Unless someone can prove those numbers are wrong, I don't see anything to complain about. Many purchasers want to know these things and any manufacturer who cares to improve both his quality and perceived image NEEDS to know them.

Should we all just accept anything that is released with vacant smiles and say nothing when it 'looks wrong' and, then the 'look' is also confirmed by measurement?
Not me!
I welcome knowledge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
Well I`m with Wankel. I`m saying you can`t seriously assess these models to a rivet counting standard because it is not model engineering. They are what they are for the money and that`s fair. It`s unfair to judge them on any other basis than they are toys that look ok to the majority. If you want scale accuracy and all that then take a look at most of the drivers inside the cars!
Or the circuits we race them on
Toys guys ,just toys
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,555 Posts
Meco, I've no issue with the free speech. I just read it as odd that here is a guy who peddles blobs pointing out the difficiencies in another brand. He's an enthusiast, of that I have no doubt, but he's also a manufacturer and it all looks, well, odd in a 'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' kinda way.

Guess it all depends upon which hat he is choosing to wear.

QUOTE . Purchasers want and NEED to know these things...

Not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that many will not buy this toy once they learn of its dimensional inaccuracies? I can't agree that this is important to most of the great unwashed slot car buying public. It's a Daytona. It is I believe the only slot car Daytona. It will sell aplenty when folks feast their eyes on it.

Hell, I don't care for Ferrari cars at all but I will have to have one of these.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
Keeping it mellow and friendly guys...I bought the Fly CSl last nite, got home and plaved it along side my Scalex version. You reckon that these are the same car? Same scale? They are toys.
 
G

·
I agree with PDL the Daytona looks wrong and I have lots of pictures I took of my daughter Jenny modelling for a Ferrari dealership with one. I personally don't care if the dimension are accurate, as long as the car looks right.

RR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
714 Posts
QUOTE It is a full 10mm too wide and 8mm too low on the roof line, the hood is too short by nearly 10mm, the cabin too long by 6mm. Multiply this by 32 and see the problem.
So, multiply by 32 and, if these errors are truthful, then the car is over a foot too wide AND nearly a foot to low in the roof line. That's a HELL of a long way from rivet counting. Also, don't forget Gaugemaster's description of Fly being high quality models, with particular reference to detail!


One of the reasons people want to know if the basic dims are reasonably close to correct is to avoid questioning their own sanity when those with the vacant smiles claim there is nothing wrong! My initial reaction to the Daytona was that it looked as though it had been trodden on. I haven't changed my mind and Philippe's data rather confirms this view. Not only does it not look right, it isn't right. No need to get knickers knotted over the truth?

I don't doubt that the car will sell anyway, but please let's not try to dumb down informed facts.
Of COURSE these are toys, but they also purport to be high quality 1/32 scale models.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,587 Posts
It still looks like a nice slot car to me and I`m happy with the one I have. Don`t get me wrong, the closer they are to the real thing the better but I started Slot racing when the cars were little better than if they were made out of margarene containers
I am also the least knowledgeable person on real cars and have no interest in the real thing cos they are more exspensive to fix and you get even dirtier fixing them than when slot cars break
They are just toys
 

·
Scott Brownlee
Joined
·
4,275 Posts
If you accurately scaled down and car or aircraft it wouldn't look right. Dimensional accuracy isn't what our eyes see, or more correctly what our brain's recognise. Compound curves are especially difficult to scale down, or up for that matter. Hence, most diecasts tend to be too wide since they look more 'right' that way.

In the interests of balance can we now hear form someone criticising Ninco for consistently being too wide, or does the fact they handle nicely make up for it.

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
714 Posts
QUOTE can we now hear form someone criticising Ninco for consistently being too wide
We probably could, in a Ninco topic, but would that actually make the Daytona look any better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,493 Posts
yeah the factor is though most people say scalex are too thin tall and top heavy (which they are) but the measurements are correct.

I feel nincos look right, they dont have to be to scale for me, if they look the right size, handle well and are nice cars I aint complaining but i will complain when they look out of scale

other factor? TSRF can admit whats wrong with his cars to us, Fly cant.

Rob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
I think mr. PdL is right; no need to get angry, but the Fly GT40, I have it, is a little out of scale; if you like it, buy it as I have done, but the concept is right: the model maker has goofed a little.
The Proteus Murcielago, for example, is a model which has a " good feeling" : no need to make precise measurements, because it was built exactly, and without too much and breakable details: it is a Lambo for all; however, this it is only my point of view.
One last point : these models are not toys! Otherwise the manifacturers would have built them more and more simple : they are made with US, slot lovers, in mind. What we like, people will buy!

Ciao
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
Just got in.
The Fly Daytona always looked too flat and wide to me and Phillipe's figures confirm it. Now I know it wasn't just the photos or my eyes. Why the fuss when possibly the most knowledgeable guy in the business actually points out the truth of what we can already see?
What funny people!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,070 Posts
QUOTE we produce bodies of the type that some purists call "blobs", a critic justified in many cases

...but not justified in all cases imho


"Blob" isn't necessarily a derogatory term in my book. Some of the nicest and most accurate slot car body shells ever produced have been vac-forms: the '60s Lancer range springs to mind.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
QUOTE (Mecoprop @ 23 Jan 2004, 07:05 PM)So, multiply by 32 and, if these errors are truthful, then the car is over a foot too wide AND nearly a foot to low in the roof line.
I'd like some clarification here. Is it being stated that the model is too wide when compared to the actual TRACK competition car? Or is the model too wide when being compared to a ROADGOING Daytona? I didn't think the road car had such large bubble arches at the rear.

Thanks, Mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
349 Posts
I am not a calliper guy, i go with my minds eye. I know that the Fly Coda Lunga's rear is off, the 917's are a little lean, but hey thats ok.

FYI on the Daytona, a quick check of www.barchetta.cc (the ultimate Ferrari reference (every car down to the serial #) suggests the GTB Daytona evolved from The series 1 which was I believe a 71 stradale conversion, through the Series 2 and into the series 3.

A quick inspection of the various photos does suggest the latter versions (series 3) were lower and wider that seires 2 and much more so than series 1. Although i couldn't be bothered checking dimensions...

here's a composite image of some Daytona's mostly series 2 and some 3's (you tell me!) along side the FLY cars...

So are they horribly off? Enough to be called blobs? You be the judge!

I'm buying 'em when they get here!!!

Photo credits: sphobbies.com, getslotted.com, barchetta.cc



cheers, Ken R
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top