Fiat 806: research and scratchbuilds

[harveyb258]

  i have just ordered an A4 size sheet of 0,5mm nickel-silver to do the chassis-frame. The 1926/7 Delage had a 3mm steel that was nickel-silver plated for the chassis-rails. I have a very strong assumption that our beloved 806 was very similar, so that's what  I want to portray! My version will be mid-testing, hard-driven and f.....d! ......no paint!

 

Cheers, H

[CrazyCrank]

30 minutes ago, harveyb258 said:

Hi lads

The only thing that keeps me going is knowing that we are all on the same wavelength! In my mind [stupid or not] another frame has to be made.....otherwise you are never ever ever gonna get an accurate model... I can promise you that!!

 

Cheers, H

 

And, preferably, scratch build it with brass sheets and tubes, with silver soldering

[Hannes]

Dear Harvey , I´m not so pessimistic regarding the frame.It can be changed and I´m just about to do so : The main problem was this wrong angle and now I´m adding strips to change it´s shape .

If I compare it with drawing 2 the shape  is OK,when alterings of the height were made.

We´re both craftsmen , you as carpenter and beeing a stone mason by myself it´s natural we tend to find exact solutions.

But in this case some tricks could suffice :  We will see...

Many greetings !  Hannes

[CrazyCrank]

6 minutes ago, Hannes said:

Dear Harvey , I´m not so pessimistic regarding the frame.It can be changed and I´m just about to do so : The main problem was this wrong angle and now I´m adding strips to change it´s shape .

If I compare it with drawing 2 the shape  is OK,when alterings of the height were made.

We´re both craftsmen , you as carpenter and beeing a stone mason by myself it´s natural we tend to find exact solutions.

But in this case some tricks could suffice :  We will see...

Many greetings !  Hannes

 

You're probably right, Hannes, but for all of us who havn't yet begun the building of this car, the kit will be a start base, containing many parts which overall do not be used as they are.

Rather than modify them to match drawing 2, I think it's better scratch build them from zero, to ,get at the first attempt the better shape.

I think it's  possible that Olivier (and you, possibly ?) , despite of his great skills and adaptative facilities, would be very tired to endless modify his work..don't you think so ?

 

I'm afraid, as a medical doctor, by the deep stress that you both suffer, and I worry for you...

 

 

[Hannes]

Dear Thierry , that´s no stess for me , it´s fun ! And it´s a challenge for my brain and that´s a good thing ! As a sculptor I´m used to change forms shapes  and surfaces all the time .

In our case I can sit in my room and work in this mini-world :

If I make a statue for example , this must made in clay first , casted in plaster and finished in stone or bronce for instance.

That´s a lot of physical work,believe me !

And here´s a new , fascinating challenge as a pioneer . If something is not right , no problem , it can be changed :There´s also no time pressure so stress can be avoided .

I was posting some pics of a mini-horse I was modelling 20 years ago to Sam´s Mef-thread. (as gratification for his generous sponsoring ) : That´s the kind of work I prefere ..,if I had to make it in 1:1,this would have made me crazy!

So no worries about my stess level , I´ll stay patient and calm :  Many greetings !  Hannes

[NickD]

To think we thought this thread was dying through lack of interest.

 

I saw Olivier's post the other day and suddenly it's pages ago so please bear with me as I want to go back a bit.

 

Olivier posted the picture below which caused me some concern.

It highlights exactly what I was warning about the other day. The red area is distorted (the wheel is not round!) The green length is therefore wrong. The others are affected by perspective but are otherwise OK. All the studio shots seem to have the same distortion in the same place. Photo 4 appears to be OK.

 

So as I suggested before, be very wary of the photos and use Roy's modified Drawing 2 instead. It is much much better than scaling off a photo.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

Love the progress above by the way.

Regards

 

Nick

 

 

[harveyb258]

No stress here either! As soon as I can get the modified blueprints copied (I don't have a printer), about 10 copies will do, I think, then work will begin in earnest.....the body buck and the chassis will be the "main-meal" of the day, everything else shouldn't really be a problem!

 

Cheers, H

[Roy vd M.]

Everyone will get to the results they strive after, I am convinced of that. The way I see it (of course I'm not sure, but is just the idea I have in my head): 

 

- Hannes' image of the car will be like a sculpture, maybe not exactly millimeter-exact the way it was but probably in a way better than it was, like some cars are restored so painstakingly and carefully that they can be said to be 'better than original'...;

- Olivier is doing an extremely ambitious job trying to get as close to the real lining of the car as is reasonably possible.. please remember and respect that at the end of the Gangshow thread Olivier was in doubt whether it would be worth all the trouble of trying to make the car as it was, rather than as Protar thought it to be; now he is going all the way and that's to be admired by all means;

- Vontrips will probably want to put as many turned and milled pieces in as is possible (which I can imagine very well), because it looks beautiful and is rewarding to make stuff like that. I can imagine Vontrips waiting for Hannes and Olivier to proceed a bit further before tackling the job of finalizing what was paused due to Protar's (de)faults;

- Judging from his Mephistofele thread I reckon Sam will follow approximately the same path as Olivier, improving more Italeri parts than are left alone and focusing on a realistic paint and weathering job; 

- Nick seems to thoroughly enjoy making a 3D replica of the Fiat and if I were him I'd be proud of what has already been achieved there. I'm not sure whether and, if so, in what way Nick will build the kit;

- Crazycrank and Harvey will probably leave more parts of the kit alone, Harvey maybe even all of them. Chassis will be scratched, body will be scratched, etc. As the kit engine is approximately correct, probably that will be used. This is, incidentally, also the way I intend eventually replicating the model. 

 

All in all I don't think there is one way to do this. Everyone should do as they deem most fit for their own purposes, using the tools and techniques available (or realistically obtainable) for them. 

 

Regarding the frame I think everyone agrees it is one of the most important components of any car with a separate chassis. I strongly doubt that the 1928 Fiat 806 chassis were to be changed from the 1927 version, mainly because as far as I know it wasn't customary and usually not necessary except when wheelbase were to be changed or other structural changes were required. 

 

If I were to build this car I would base myself mainly on Drawing 2, as I think that document is most reliable to establish general shape. Of course we now know that it didn't represent the 1927 car but a development of that car. However, when retro-'correcting' some easily distinguishable differences we get, as Nick mentioned, a shape that closely resembles the character of the car we see in the photos. Those differences are mainly the radiator, the tail, the fairing, the tyres and the steering wheel. Regarding tyres... even with the Delage I have seen several tyre diameters, e.g. 29 inches and 30 inches. So Drawing 2 (honorarily to be renamed '1928 Blueprint' really!) may not be perfect but will be my foremost piece of info to base the model on.

 

To check the dimensions and shape of Protar's frame against Drawing 2 (on second thought let's just keep that name, it's easier) I made this:

 

 

 

To use it, perform the following steps:

 

• Click this link. By doing so, the image will be copied to your hard disk.
• Go to your download folder and locate the downloaded file (in Google Chrome you can alternatively click on the arrow in the 'downloaded' tab in the bottom of your screen and choose 'Show in Finder'). 
• Open the image with a good viewer. On the Mac I use 'Preview'. 
• Print the image. Use a landscape orientation, otherwise the A4 (or Letter) page will be too small. Choose '100%' otherwise the drawing will be printed too small. The correct settings can be seen here:

 

 

 

• When printed, check if the distance between the two blue lines is exactly 200mm. This is the wheelbase (2.400mm. / 12 = 200). Maybe Hannes would want to print the document a bit larger, for example 105% or so. This is what it should look like at 100%:

 

• If the wheelbase on the printout is indeed 200mm., glue it on a bit of thin but firm cardboard and then cut out the top and side views. 
• Now you can compare the kit to the drawing. If necessary, secure the cardboard to the frame by Blu-Tack or so, and use a high-tech tool (e.g. a pen) to check the contours. 

I left the Italeri frame rails in their plastic bags and I intend to keep it that way, so that now I can't make the comparison for you (even if I had the frames out of their bag, I couldn't make the comparison for Olivier or Hannes because their frames have already been amended) but these are some things that caught my attention when superficially comparing them:

 

In the first picture I aligned the first crossmember. Camera is perpendicular.

 

 

The camera still being perpendicular, halfway across the frame it can be seen that drawing and frame have a considerable mismatch. 

 

 

 

The blue arrows indicate where the four rivets for the central crossmember are / should be.

The red arrows indicate the start of the frame's angle. The difference of almost 1 centimeter is, well, enormous.

 

Last picture, camera again perpendicular:

 

 

 

As we already knew, Protar's frame is longer than Drawing 2 would prescribe. 

 

I hope this is helpful.  

Edited January 26, 2017 by Roy vd M.

[Hannes]

Dear Roy thanks a lot for your efforts regarding the frame. I´m sure it will be useful for all of us.

And your observations of our different goals are very precise imho ! I can´t speak for others but in my case you are right My goal is to celebrate an idea and some kind of a dream.

I don´t like over-restaurated cars because they very often lost their charme by these measures.

But this is a model and  miniatures have their  own rules .I want my own joy to get transfered to the spectator  and that´s why I choose to represent an idealizised  version.

Because this car had such an brutal end it has the right to be reborn as some kind of sculpture.imho And that´s not nostalgia or romantic sentiment , it´s about fascination like looking at a strange insect or a reptile.

Many greetings !  Hannes

[CrazyCrank]

Amazing job, as always, Roy

I've followed your tutorial, and got, printing through Adobe Photoshop, a perfect scaled drawing, exactly 200 mm between the two blue lines.

This will be a very good starter for scratchbuilding the frame rails, what remains after that will be firmly depending of this starting base.

and, as whe say in French: "Y'a du boulot !" ("there is hard and long work to do")

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by CrazyCrank

[Totally Mad Olivier]

20 hours ago, Hannes said:

The frame´s rails are too close together ! If you look exactly to our photos you can see a tiny ledge ! This means,the distance between the rails must be somewhat wider compared with the body´s width !

A little drawing, even simple, would be useful for me to see what you mean here... What "tiny ledge"?

 

20 hours ago, Hannes said:

The lever seems to be too close to the handbrake and should get delayed

Here too, labels to precise what you call "the lever" and the "handbrake"... Sorry, I really need to be sure there is no misunderstanding...

 

17 hours ago, Hannes said:

I forgot to mention the issue regarding that article : Yes it´s exactly what I was meaning and it would be very helpful if Paul could send us a high-res version

Ok, I will ask him if he may send us a HR version, but I 'm afraid the photos were not in HR in the article itself...

 

12 hours ago, harveyb258 said:

another frame has to be made.....otherwise you are never ever ever gonna get an accurate model... I can promise you that!!

If I were you, I would indeed scratchbuild the frame. But for me, who has ever been working a lot on the kit's parts, I will go on with them, and I will try however to have a quite accurate build (with compromises, of course, because I don't want my build to last 3 years...)

[Totally Mad Olivier]

12 hours ago, CrazyCrank said:

Rather than modify them to match drawing 2, I think it's better scratch build them from zero, to ,get at the first attempt the better shape.

I think it's  possible that Olivier (and you, possibly ?) , despite of his great skills and adaptative facilities, would be very tired to endless modify his work..don't you think so ?

Good diagnosis, dear doctor Thierry! I must say sometimes, I think about Andi who said one time in the Gangshow, about the nipples (remember, it is so far away...) that he used to be a purist modeler until he fed up. Too much was too much... and he took another way, admitting his work was not accurate but just nice to look at... 

Sometimes, I worry a bit about feeling the same kind of "burn out" and my intention now is to be as accurate as possible, but not going all the way, to protect myself against any discouragement.

But anyway, whether you choose the scrachbuild or the frame's modif solution, it will be much easier than for me - and for Hannes-, because you will anticipate the changes, what I could not do, because wrong stuff were discovered too late, with time. So, modifiing the chassis angle required me to come-back to the 1st step, floor removed, screws removed, rods removed etc. It is the hardest and you have no choice if you want to modify the angle, just to speak about that point...

Edited January 26, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph
correction

[Totally Mad Olivier]

8 hours ago, Roy vd M. said:

it would be worth all the trouble of trying to make the car as it was, rather than as Protar thought it to be; now he is going all the way and that's to be admired by all means;

Thank you very much for your kind words, Roy! But I must bring to be honest some nuances to what you say there: as soon as I began to post in the Gangshow, I was trying to be as accurate as possible, being the first -as far as I know - to remove all the thick strips of the grille to make a new one, made of fine steel rods. It was the same for the engine and Thierry certainly remembers the hints he gave me to find the good thickness for ignition wiring, the debates we had about the tubes - existing or not - in which they would go and so on. In the same order of idea, I asked VT to provide me Protar's cast tyres, because I could not imagine using the Mef's one. Then it was the steering wheel, the wheels to respoke, the nipples etc. All that in the Gangshow...

The doubts I had came for a good part of some bad comments we had and the disappointment to see the Gangshow stop because of the noxious climate...

But it is true that:

1) I was first a bit impressed by your will to go very far in the research, and, as I wanted to go on and finish my build in february, I was first not sure to dive in all that stuff. I must say I was very happy to take my part to this "new thread", never had any regrets, and, even if the new discovers we made required me to redo many things, it was so exciting and I got hooked, as everyone here... and your power of persuasion was not foreign to that enthusiasm.

2) I never imagined how far we would go, as on shaping and building aspects, as in historical and technical ones.

 

Anyway, thank you again, I need encouragements to go on (I cut myself with my blade yesterday when separating the frame from the underbody, take care!), with Hannes who - it is not a blame, of course - finds every day another wrong thing to modify! 

 

P.S: I must go now, not the time to read your post, that seems to be very interesting (as usual), I will as soon as possible

 

All the best

 

Olivier, cut 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Olivier de St Raph
add

[Hannes]

Dear Olivier , the handbrake is the long stick at the body´s right side.It´s connected with the lever for the brake wires behind it by a very short wire and not by gears like in the kit´s solution

There should be a little more distance , that´s all.  And the lever itself is a bit  oversized so alterings or scratchbuilds might be a good idea .  Hannes

[Hannes]

Today I was printing out  the frame Roy showed us last night .I made it a bit larger  as my uncut kit´s frame , glued it on a cardboard ,  cut out and compared.

Starting points were the 4 mounting points where the frame bends slightly.

Important distances were the distance to the frontal leaf´s springs rear suspension and the frontal tip of the frame.

Surprise , surprise there are interesting discoveries : According my subjective comparisons ( because I use my fantasy scale ) the frontal tip of the frame is somewhat too long ( about 2,5 mm )and the rear tip too short ! ( about 4 mm !! ) That means,the short body´s end as we can see on photo 3 is not only the result of a shortened taill´s end ( compared with the kit ) but also of a longer frame !

My result : For my construction an altered kit´s frame is OK ( height , mounting points for the rear spring´s frontal suspension , shortenings and elongations ). Everybody who wants to build a scratch frame be warned : If you want to use parts of the kit like body ,  bonnets ,  radiator case and so on ,it might be necessary to alter the scale somewhat !

I also don´t trust the drawing 2´s rear part of the frame regarding his height and shape : On our 806 there were triangular constructions to support the axis for the rear spring´s rear suspensions.

On dawing 2 they don´t exist anymore(  maybe  one of the weight - reducing measures ) so alterings of the frame in this region   could have been considered for the successor car :

Many greetings !  Hannes

[Hannes]

I forgot to mention : My frame is already altered regarding the angle we were talking about the last two days :.Because it´s a stable Protar metal frame I want to use it for my model.

Hannes

[Roy vd M.]

 

22 hours ago, CrazyCrank said:

Amazing job, as always, Roy

I've followed your tutorial, and got, printing through Adobe Photoshop, a perfect scaled drawing, exactly 200 mm between the two blue lines.

This will be a very good starter for scratchbuild the frame rails, what remains after that will be firmly depending of this starting base.

 

Good to see it works. 

 

20 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

But I must bring to be honest some nuances to what you say there: as soon as I began to post in the Gangshow, I was trying to be as accurate as possible, being the first -as far as I know - to remove all the thick strips of the grille to make a new one, made of fine steel rods. It was the same for the engine and Thierry certainly remembers the hints he gave me to find the good thickness for ignition wiring, the debates we had about the tubes - existing or not - in which they would go and so on. In the same order of idea, I asked VT to provide me Protar's cast tyres, because I could not imagine using the Mef's one. Then it was the steering wheel, the wheels to respoke, the nipples etc. All that in the Gangshow...

 

You're right that my summary did not reflect the fact that you were one of the first in that thread to not only substantially question, but also correct several aspects of the kit. Before you Vontrips and Andi had performed some serious surgery, Andi mainly regarding the louvres and Vontrips mainly regarding the improvement of numerous turned parts. Vontrips was the first to criticize the very wrong overall shape of Protar's body shape. I feel that, after discovery upon discovery of faulty kit parts, Vontrips slowly lost some of the fun during the build (hopefully the developments in the current thread work favorably in that respect) and Andi didn't want to commit himself to changing the Protar kit into a more realistic replica of the Fiat 806 racer, concentrating more on weathering. Then, as a fresh breeze of energy and ambition, came you Olivier who was willing to perform serious surgery, for example on the grille and the steering wheel as you say. Some time after that Hannes joined the club, sharing his interpretations of the grille et cetera. 

 

Quote

The doubts I had came for a good part of some bad comments we had and the disappointment to see the Gangshow stop because of the noxious climate...

 

I admire you for changing your mind and executing this build in what you think is the right way, not being the easiest way by far. 

 

13 hours ago, Hannes said:

Important distances were the distance to the frontal leaf´s springs rear suspension and the frontal tip of the frame.

Surprise , surprise there are interesting discoveries : According my subjective comparisons ( because I use my fantasy scale ) the frontal tip of the frame is somewhat too long ( about 2,5 mm )and the rear tip too short ! ( about 4 mm !! ) That means,the short body´s end as we can see on photo 3 is not only the result of a shortened taill´s end ( compared with the kit ) but also of a longer frame !

 

The differences can only be realistically deduced if the plan is printed 100%. I personally believe that the main problem with Protar's frame rails lies in the front section, in that it is too long. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Roy vd M.

[Hannes]

Dear Roy , the points from where you can measure the rest of the frame lie in the center of the frame imho ! These 4 mounting points where the frame bends slightly are the best location from where the rest of the frame can get judged in my opinion ! The frontal part seems to be OK only the tip is a bit too long. The main problem  lies within the rear part imho !

I have my already a bit  altered frame right before my eyes and can compare it directly with the plan´s frame´s shape .

The center is the best place for all following measurements imho.Even if my measurements are not 100 per cent correct , they show me one  result: the rear frame is way too short ( and so are  the leaf springs ) Of course it´s my own scale and system , but the ratios remain in any scale !  Hannes

[sharknose156]

10 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

(I cut myself with my blade yesterday when separating the frame from the underbody, take care!),

 

dear Olivier,  sorry to read this, specially that you needs your hands to work as a great dentist.

 

2 hours ago, Hannes said:

Everybody who wants to build a scratch frame be warned : If you want to use parts of the kit like body ,  bonnets ,  radiator case and so on ,it might be necessary to alter the scale somewhat !

 

dear Hannes, do you mean if one wants to scratch build the frame, one can not use bonnets as they are from the kit ?

 

for my 806, i am considering building a new frame from brass, but use the bonnets from the kit with minor alterations.

 

by the way i received a great book which i recommend : "Model Building with Brass" by Kenneth Foran.  

Since i got my small lathe, i discovered i enjoy working with this metal. there are different qualities of brass too. i have not reached the part of soldering though... and i have the Mef. to finish.

 

 

[Hannes]

Dear Sam , of course you can alter any part of the kit when builing an exact 1:12 model. In my opinion it´s just easier to use a somewhat larger scale : It´s also the wheels tyres and other kit´s parts which are a bit oversized . It´s just a recommendation for making things easier for those who want to avoid  too much scratchbuilds. It really was a friendly " warning " !

Liebe Grüsse !  Hannes

[Hannes]

[NickD]

At the risk of stating the obvious. The frame from drawing 2 will be too short in side view because it curves in plan view. The error won't be huge because the curve is small but it does exist.

 

I have the geometry in Blender but it is not obvious to me how to draw a true side view - probably over complicating as usual.

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Hannes]

Dear Nick , the plan´s " frame" just lies flat on the surface , the real frame above curves of course..The rear of the plan´s frame is much longer , the frontal tip a bit shorter.It´s not exact in a mathematical way , but it shows the main differences imho .  Many greetings !  Hannes

[NickD]

Hannes, I see what you mean. It does indeed.

 

I did a quick check. The curvature adds 22mm to the distance ( 1.83mm at 1/12 scale) so a frame that is taken directly from the plan sideview will be short by about that amount because the flat frame  will need to be curved

 

Regards

 

Nick

[Roy vd M.]

That is why the printed sheet should be 'laminated' by a cardboard sheet or the like, to provide stiffness. It would of course be very inaccurate to simply glue the printed bit to the kit part, full length. 

 

I refer to what I said before:

 

20 hours ago, Roy vd M. said:

If necessary, secure the cardboard to the frame by Blu-Tack or so, and use a high-tech tool (e.g. a pen) to check the contours. 

 

maybe I wasn't clear here, what I meant by securing the cardboard to the frame by Blu-Tack is fixing in one spot, for example the center. Like this:

 

 

 

Now you can use a pen or, maybe even better, a bit of cardboard (doesn't weigh as much so won't disturb the Blu-Tack bond) to compare drawing to kit part. 

 

In order to get an even better comparison, you can add the top to that scene. Like this:

 

 

 

That way you can get a better view on how to correct the kit's frame, if so desired. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Roy vd M.