1/4 Speeder Bike
- Thread starter akumazeto
- Start date
Really nice. Those close up shots make it really hard to tell what scale it is.
akumazeto
Sr Member
Thank you! It’s massive. Has many inaccuracies and for what they charged it shouldn’t have. Like the toe in for the front canards. I removed the link between them and angled them in. Also the thickness of them. Don’t get me wrong it’s a super nice piece and jealous its not mine. Just thought for what they charged it had a bunch of stuff that was just easily fixed on their end. They used far to much white metal as well. Really fun to paint though.
Do you have any pics of how it came before you started?
akumazeto
Sr Member
Last edited:
akumazeto
Sr Member
It was a mix of a few pots from above. The piece has many issues. The angle of the front canards and their hilarious thickness. The angle can be remedied by removing the stabilizer link and angling inwards. Creating a new one was not in the customer's budget nor was re-creating the panels with the proper thickness. The ones on the model are well over 4-5mm thick and it looks bad in that regard. They should be 1mm or so.
Overall the piece from sideshow is a nice base and would love to have one myself if the market did not have them priced so high. Maybe someday we will get a resin kit this size. Again I think this is the same size as the filming miniature but I cant comment 100% on that. But it looks like it.
That being said I am FAR from the expert/competent on anything movie-related or model building itself or painting said models. Take anything I say/said with a massive planet size grain of salt.
joberg
Legendary Member
Difficult for a toy-maker to get those front panels thinner (packaging, etc)...I believe that on the miniature, the thickness was more in the 2 mm area. Thinner would make those too fragile under studio lamps and they could warp easily
akumazeto
Sr Member
yes fully understanding that aspect. Not everything is always an aesthetic choice. They used far to much white metal as well. People are always lamenting that they don't use metal. So they opted to use white metal on this unit as it was a higher-end product. It is always super soft though and again snaps easy bends etc. The shipping style they did on this was abysmal. The unit should have separated into multiple parts like removing forks etc. I am guessing they assumed like most manufacturers the end-user had little to no desire or skills to assemble. That being said I am no expert and don't expect expert answers its just all speculation. I just know the way it was packed seemed overly risky and that white metal is always super fragile and many pieces broke on this bike in shipping from the factory and in route to me and in route back and while working on it lol.Difficult for a toy-maker to get those front panels thinner (packaging, etc)...I believe that on the miniature, the thickness was more in the 2 mm area. Thinner would make those too fragile under studio lamps and they could warp easily
Thanks for the tips on 2mm thickness. Again I am not an expert and was just speculating at what size I thought it would be in scale based on my years of fabrication and mechanical work. Not knowing at all about the real prop. Just speculating what I thought it would be. Sometimes my Autism takes me to strange places in my mind.
I digress. Sorry.
joberg
Legendary Member
No problem, we (model/prop builders) can sometimes over think and concentrate on one particular aspect of the building/research. And you're right, white metal is not the best to work with
Similar threads
