Race cars paint jobs

[ismaelg]

Hello,

We have always heard that race cars don’t have show car paint jobs. From my experience, this is true. I’ve seen pro race cars with really bad paint jobs. I remember a particular IMSA GTP Jaguar years ago with runs in the paint you wouldn’t believe. However, that seems to be changing. Today, race cars are rolling marketing billboards. Sponsors want them to look their best, especially if the sponsor is the manufacturer of the car. Point in case: The C6R Corvette. While not exactly show car quality, these cars have decent paint jobs. I had the chance to look closely at one of the Aston Martins, and the door looked like my model paint jobs when I was 14 years old. The Corvettes, Ferraris and Porsches all had better quality paint jobs. However, they were still NOT show car or even showroom production car quality. I'm not talking about chips, dents or scratches, but rather orange peel, fisheyes and uneven finishes.

This creates a dilemma in the modeler. This has been the center of many heated debates. Do you go for the best paint job on a race car? On one hand you know they are not supposed to be perfect, yet on the other hand, you don’t want it to look like a lousy paint job. Proper weathering on a race car is very hard to achieve.

I’m going thru that now on the C6R. My reasoning is this: A scale model represents a car as you would see it from a certain distance. In order to see the “defects†in the real car, you need to get very close. But you usually see the race cars from a distance, and they look great. So, based on that I’m going to chase the “best paint job†path. After all, it will never be perfect and that is exactly what I am after, isn’t it?

What do you think? Just curious.

Thanks,

[jamie]

Well, as a NASCAR builder, I go for the best paint job possible. As a couple of members here know, I also like to weather some of my cars, which really isn't that hard to do. I agree that the cars (mainly the older ones) don't have showroom paintjobs, but in NASCAR the cars recently have had amazing paint. I personally don't have easy access to 2-part clear, so 99% of the time I'm using Tamiya clear, which is ok, but it's not going to look pristene. I built a Buick a little while ago and had a buddy shoot some 2-part clear on it, and it looked like a mirror. If you have any questions as far as weathering goes, let me know. I have a few tricks up my sleeve...... Basically, I try to get the best paint possible, unless the car's really banged up, like a car from Days of Thunder! Hope this helps.

Jamie

[LDO]

Another issue is reproducing minor flaws 24-25 times smaller than the real one. That's why models with hand-painted graphics look so bad. If enlarged 25 times, it would look like it was done with a 3" wide house-painting brush. Just make it look good.

[Modelmartin]

The thing is that if you do a realistic finish like Jim Drew's 1/12 Corvette Grand Sport you get punished for it in model car contests. IPMS guys believe in realistic finishes but don't know jack about judging cars.

I figure they are model cars and I give them a glossy paint job and clearcoat a lot if not all of the graphics and decals. I recognise that I am not being completely realistic but that is how I like to build my models.

[Guest Davkin]

you get punished for it in model car contests.

I think the difficulty there is it's just too hard to judge wether flaws in the paint are there on purpose or are just poor craftsmanship. Without knowing for sure a judge would just have to give the award to a perfect, glossy finish all else being equal. Many flaws obvious on a real car would be very difficult to see in 1/25, for example, how do you do 1/25 orange peel? Would that even be visible? Weathering is also difficult to judge but I wouldn't put weathering and modeling flawed paint in the same camp. Paint that's flawed because it was poorly applied is different than weathered paint. Also military modelers are typically dealing with smaller scales were it's even less likely that paint flaws would be visible.

I figure they are model cars and I give them a glossy paint job and clearcoat a lot if not all of the graphics and decals.

That's what I do as well unless it is a fully weathered vehicle. Not so much because I want to win contests but because I beleive modeling scale paint application flaws is just not worth the hassle and maybe looks exagerated on a model no matter what you do. Besides, I'm attracted to shiny objects.

David

[David Thibodeau]

I agree with all here Ismael. as an avid Nascar modeler I like my cars to have perfect paint jobs and I use 2 part clear to achieve this. I dont clear over my decals normally unless they are ALPS unless the car I am modeling is a Superspeedway modern era car. I took a trip to Daytona in 2005 and Jeff Gordons 500 winner was there, the actual car and everything on that car was clearcoated, I mean ALL DECALS! I guess they really want those bodies slick at the SS tracks. I dont see a problem with trying to achieve a perfect finish. It is a huge debate on many boards but I have seen these cars in personand they are usually beautifully prepared machines and the paint does not lack a beautiful finish.

My 2 cents,

DaveT

Edited August 10, 2007 by David Thibodeau

[Zoom Zoom]

I put just as much effort into a paintjob on a race car as I would any street car. They simply look the best with the best finish possible; a fisheye on a 1:1 scale car wouldn't be visible on a model. You scale down factory orange peel to 1/24 or 1/25 and it's going to be awfully smooth on a model. IMHO you have to make the paint really smooth, and then make a decision whether the decals need to be a natural finish over the clear, or clearcoated over. A model is a depiction; you'll never be able to make an exact match of the finish in the right scale. Even when I've weathered a race car, I made the underlying paint job as smooth as possible.