# What has happen to Model Motoring?



## slotrod (May 21, 2007)

Does anyone know what happen to Model Motoring? I went to the web site to see if they had any new products and they only have a few lines. No Chevelle's, '55 Chevy, Camaro's, and no GTO. What is going on are they folding up or what. Any info on this would be great.


----------



## cagee (Apr 20, 2007)

I have went there several times over the past year and all they ever had was Willy's bodies. I thought surely in a year they would produce more than that.


----------



## vaBcHRog (Feb 19, 2003)

He is only selling the GM products on ebay. Some kind of licensing problems between them and GM.

His ebay seller name is ratherboring. You can also email him and buy most of his bodies on sale for 6.99. I don't have his email address here at work I'll have to post it later

Roger Corrie


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

Rumor last year was GM filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

There are members on this board with extensive information, if any will post on it now. You can look at archived posts and get a good bit of it. Somewhere online there is a copy of a court order from a major manufacturer (re slotv) as well, but it appears things have been folding up for some time.

It's a shame. As I understand it, there were some problems early on with the MM chassis, but in a quick glance you can see the, materials, casting and machining is superior to ...., and the bodies are a good bit less cheap-toy like than much other stuff that is still around. 

It certainly must be very difficult to try to run a company from design to distribution and put out a full line of (in the slot car world) high end products. Remember, he made reproduction track, grandstands, all kinds of stuff "in development. Maybe that was part of it too. 

I admire the effort, though I came back into slots well into the downhill side of it. I have purchased a couple times from MM, and several times off e bay under his old ID. Always been satisfied. I hope I can still buy some single lane track, the original is out of sight.


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

Too bad... his bodies are top notch. 

I'm glad I bought them when I had the chance.


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

*What I heard at a race in Sept*

There was a license agreement between Aurora and GM when Aurora made the TJet. When Model Motoring took over, they purchased the rights to the Model Motoring name and design rights for chassis retooling. Apparently the licensing was never renewed by GM for body retooling and they sicked their lawyer Dobermans on Harrison. I've heard GM is ruthless with licensing agreements, even down to little guys including a tiny GM logo on a decal set for pennies on the dollar. Heard that first hand from someone else getting slapped by GM's legal dogs.


----------



## Ligier Runner (Nov 29, 2004)

This more or less confirms what I thought when I saw him put up 5 of the curved bleachers kits on epay for a buy it now price of $45 (normally $20 a piece on the MM site). I bought them as this was a whale of a deal. It came out to less than $11 per bleacher kit including shipping.


----------



## bigun624 (May 11, 2005)

With GM's car sells in the toilet, they kinda like the government gotta go after the small guy. Bet it makes em feel real big.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Hey Bigun, GM has been like this for some time. A cottage industry sprung up serving people doing 1:1 GM restorations, producing decals like you would find under the hood, to put on old cars to match the unavailable originals. GM even went after them, their own fans who weren't taking a dime from GM's pockets, only paying tribute to them! You are dead on right, as far as GM has fallen from where they were, and as much as they have permanently obligated themselves to costly boondoggles (including those lawyers) - leave no stone unsqueezed.


----------



## tomhocars (Oct 19, 2005)

I didn't want to comment on the constant rumors about Model Motoring but I feel I should put in my Two cents.Yes there are law suits with GM and Model Motoring.There are no problems with Ford or Mopar.GM's licenseing agreement was based on a complete car in a package at a set price.This was fine.Model Motoring does not sell complete cars in the package anymore.They may have a small amount left.GM still wants to get the same money whether they are complete cars or not.When thelicense was first issued to make GM cars this was the banks reccomendation.I guess it would have been better to negotiate on quantity produced.Right now things are stilll in limbo.(court)
Now I have this to say about Harrison.I know him a long time.Before MM he owned a company that used to make reproduction Camaro parts,so he was familiar with copyright legalities.He was an HO COLLECTOR for years before he started MM.The name was just lying there waiting to be scoopoed up.He was smart enough to do this.A couple of hundred dollars and he was Model Motoring.He had great plans for the company.He actually succeeded witth most of them.He showed Bob Beers and myself the first cars he was going to produce at the Midwest Slot car show about a year before they became available.There were new body styles and old cars about to be born.It's just like now with Dash Motorsports and JL/AW getting people back into the hobby for a low price.The money Harrison invested was big.He was very generous with his time and money .Do you know of another mjnufacturer who donated rare first run test shots to raise money for childrens charities.He did this at Slot car 2000 in Ohio.Some of these cars went for big money at the time$400.00 TO $500.00.I actually bid on the 55 Chevy and didn't win.I did get it years later along with another 55 plus the Corvette and the never produced GN Buick.When he did the Bob Beers show in New York He always had the Hilton put up free food and coffee for breakfast.He did screw up on the sets.but so many other things came out So many bodies and colors,grandstands,posters.The big blow came with the chassis.When he first sold his cars they had original Aurora t-jet chassis.They aren't going to be available forever.The new manufacturer did a poor job and you were always wondering why they were so slow and when they were going to set off the smoke alarms.Talk about realistic.A fortune was spent and lost on this major item.When a profit margin is so small,a company can get murdered in no time.How long can someone keep putting money in without a return.AFX flex track is what started Aurora's crash.If it was easy everyone would be doing it.So right now MR.H is looking back and wondering if he should have really started this endeavor.I personally think he was one of the major reasons this hobby survived years ago.You can't get new blood into any hobby with expensive products at the start.New blood and enthusiasts need a low priced entry.Then they can decide if they want to step up.I see alot of kids,boys and girls, with their Dads at the shows.I think the future looks good.Thanks Harrison.
Tom Stumpf


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

Thanks for setting the record straight Tom. I spent a lot of money on his stuff over the years. I bought everything ... cars, parts, bleachers, posters, single lane track, etc... if he put the sets out, I would have bought a few of those as well. I'm a HUGE fan of his stuff ... chassis excluded... I only had a few and I would usually hop them up with green arms and super II magnets. 

He was always cool with me and I would always be surprised when I heard some of the crap I heard about him. Now that I know the back story, it all makes sense. I never understood the disproportional amount of anger people had over his chassis though ... especially back then, because Aurora chassis were everywhere and usually only around 6-7 bucks a pop. Different story now, huh? 

It's really a shame how a few bad breaks can undo such a great effort. 
Again, thanks for setting the record straight


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*No doubt*

It was an out and out Gol darned shame.


----------



## slotrod (May 21, 2007)

Thanks for the info. I hope that he can turn this around. You would think that GM would want companies like MM to produce their cars. How many of us remember playing with a car that we wanted to own. It keeps the brand image in the back of there minds. Now GM has lost alot of the market share and kids wouldn't even thing of purchasing any big 3 products. GM ,Ford and Mopar need to wake up before it is too late. Thanks Tom for the low down.


----------



## A/FX Nut (May 28, 2004)

Union Pacific RR was sueing people for making everything from Locomotives to Decals. This went on for a couple of years until finally someone in upper mangement realized this was bad public realations and pulled their head out of their keister. People in the Model Railroad hobby quit buying anything to do with Union Pacific. U.P. was being called Utterly Pathetic. 

Word got to U.P. and they worked out a low cost licencing agreement to product makers. Randy.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Never understood the licensing mentaility. If someone wanted to give me free advertising, I'd take it. Companies will pay millions to get their names and stickers on a NASCAR car, yet they will charge the small guy who wants to advertise their product by promoting it on a toy. Of course, millions of people will see it on a NASCAR car, but what damage is done when a small manufacturer puts out a toy replica?

When I was in college, there was a picture of a dollar bill in the paper. My friend pointed to it and said "Look, here's a picture of God. This is why we're here (college)." Unfortunately, that comment really does sum up the business and corporate mentatility. The guys at the top really do worship the dollar bill.

I wish Harrison all the best. I have every one of the cars he produced and they are terrific.

Joe


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

I'm not too keen on the licensing thing myself, I've even had threats to "turn me in" by another person who also makes paper bodies. 

2 points to consider for better or worse, though. If you were in the market for decals, and had a choice between sheet A with a bunch of authentic logos or sheet B with with some no-name made up stuff, which set would you chose? I'm sure most would choose sheet A, and this is proof enough to the courts that the decal maker is profiting from someone else's work (building the brand).

2nd point is that it mostly boils down to precedent. If they let Joe Modeler sell protected items from his basement, then they'd have to let Mattel, RC2, etc do the same. So basically beating up on the little guys keeps the big companies in line.

What needs to be done unfortunately is to see one of these cases make it to the Supreme Court, which would cost somebody a lot of money though it would put the auto companies' bullying tactics under public scrutiny. The way trademark law is written, there has to be damages arising from use of a mark in order for a plaintiff to have a solid case. My guess is that things are the way they are because it would simply cost too much to make a change.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

True enough Gene.

I can clearly see why a manufacturer (like GM) would need to approve the use of their logos, car likeness, etc. After all, they did build the brand and any use of their intellectual property is a reflection on them. That only makes good, common sense. I back them here 100%.

What doesn't make sense is that they turn down free advertising when it's available.

I always find it funny that people pay money to buy a shirt with a company logo on it. You want me to walk around with a shirt that has your logo and you want me to pay for it? No thanks. Either give me the shirt for free or treat me like a NASCAR car and pay me for advertising your product.

Joe


----------



## tjd241 (Jan 25, 2004)

*Nice bodies...*

I like many of the ones they've made. Always good service too. I'm kind of light on them these days... think I'll pick up a couple just on general purposes.  

nuther dave


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Grandcheapskate said:


> I always find it funny that people pay money to buy a shirt with a company logo on it. You want me to walk around with a shirt that has your logo and you want me to pay for it? No thanks. Either give me the shirt for free or treat me like a NASCAR car and pay me for advertising your product.
> 
> Joe


So if Nike makes a shirt, and puts their logo on it, you think they should give you the shirt for free, or pay you to wear it?


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Grandcheapskate said:


> True enough Gene.
> 
> I can clearly see why a manufacturer (like GM) would need to approve the use of their logos, car likeness, etc. After all, they did build the brand and any use of their intellectual property is a reflection on them. That only makes good, common sense. I back them here 100%.
> 
> ...


I'm confused how use of a brand name, logo, product likeness, design or intellectual property of one concern by another for the purpose of generating revenue and profit is "free advertising". 

Say, for example, I decided to print a ton of Model Motoring t-shirts and ball caps and sell them for a profit. Is Mr. Harrison supposed to just accept this as free advertising of his business? I think not. Clearly, I would be violating his rights as owner of the MM brand. This is why we have trademark and copyright law.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get why people believe GM or Union Pacific railroad or whoever (place business name of your choice here) should be any different where their respective brands are concerned.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Scafremon said:


> So if Nike makes a shirt, and puts their logo on it, you think they should give you the shirt for free, or pay you to wear it?


 By logo I meant something large across the front or back, not a little mark over the shirt pocket. Identifying your product is not an issue.

Kinda like when a car dealer puts a sticker on your car advertising where you bought it. Why should I be a traveling advertisement for the dealer? What's he giving me in return?

If, for example, someone has a shirt that says "Eat at Joe's", that is advertising. For me to pay to buy that shirt and then walk around like a roving billboard is free advertising for "Joe's". "Joe's" gave me nothing in return - no shirt, no advertising fee. In fact, I paid "Joe's" to advertise for him.

As to the last point raised about the Model Motoring shirt. If someone wanted to print up shirts, mugs, or whatever with the Model Motoring logo, permission would have to be granted from Model Motoring. That is undisputed. You cannot just use someone else's logo or intellectual property.

Now, if someone wants to print up shirts that say "Model Motoring" and use the logo, the owner of the logo has to decide whether that would be good for his business. From my point of view, I would consider a couple factors.

1. Did I have any intention of printing up shirts?

2. Does it cost me any money or expenses?

3. Do I get something in return, like free advertising?

If the answers to these questions are (1) no (2) no and (3) yes, then it's a good deal for me. I may put limits on what can be sold and have to sign off on the final product, but the bottom line is it's a good deal for me. It gets my company name out there. Exposure - that's what you are looking for.

Joe


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Joe "GCS" is exactly right - it is utterly hilarious to me that someone would pay big bucks to wear a NASCAR leather jacket with home depot or lowes, etc, and whatever other logos there are all over it. If anything, I would expect to buy that jacket at a discount, not pay extra for it. Kind of like the guy on the side of the road with a tent sign or a clown suit on trying to steer people into a business - that's a paying job. I would expect my clothing to have its brand logo on it, as my car does, but I don't need a Nike swoosh on my car or a Mr Goodwrench logo on my coat.

I think some of you guys miss the point. Yes of course, any company should approve anyone using their logo or likeness of their products on something sold for profit. If they don't like it, they have every right to shut it down. But GM does not make small toy cars, and UP niether makes nor markets model trains. It does not affect their businesses one iota. Actually, anything done well in toys and models enhances their repective images and reputations - and they don't have to pay a dime for it as they have to with image building advertising or philanthropy. Making it difficult for people to pat their backs does not make sense. 

Maybe GM needs to sell its logos, and likenesses of long out of production cars. It's an easier sale than what they make now.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Let me just add a fourth, fifth and sixth question I would ask myself before granting permission to my logos, etc.

(4) Will it do any harm to my reputation, product, business or image?

(5) Will it enhance my company image?

(6) Will it give me (greater) product exposure to a whole new audience I might not otherwise reach - and do so at no expense to me?

If all these questions come out in my favor, it would not be business smart for me to pass up these opportunities.

Joe


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

Big logo, small logo - makes no difference. For the record, I was actually envisioning a large Nike swoosh on the front with "Just Do It" when I made my post. Should it be free now?

I submit that, in general, people have no problem and often enjoy being adverstisements for products they like. If someone laughs at the NASCAR fan in his leather "Lowes" jacket, then surely they laugh at all sports fans, who fill stadiums adorned in advertising for a product they enjoy. What does a $3.00 cap run nowadays, when adorned with a sanctioned MLB team logo - $26.00? I think that's what I paid for my Angels cap, although I did get a free one at a game last year. Says "AM/PM Mini Market" on the back.

I'll send it to ya SP.  

I think all your ponderances are very well stated Joe. I would just add another point. 

If I, as the business owner, am unsure of the answer to any of them (ie. will it harm, will it enhance, etc) then it is a risk, and it needs to be thought of as such. Even if the risk is small, if the potential benefit is not worth the risk, why bother?


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Grandcheapskate said:


> Kinda like when a car dealer puts a sticker on your car advertising where you bought it. Why should I be a traveling advertisement for the dealer? What's he giving me in return?
> 
> As to the last point raised about the Model Motoring shirt. If someone wanted to print up shirts, mugs, or whatever with the Model Motoring logo, permission would have to be granted from Model Motoring. That is undisputed. You cannot just use someone else's logo or intellectual property.
> 
> ...


I always have the dealer remove the sticker before I take delivery, but it's not because of the advertising aspect. I just think in general, the dealer stickers detract from the look of the car. But anyway.....

With no offense intended, free advertising is thinking for small business. It may be a good idea for a small business trying to establish itself because it has no draw in public interest. But that's where it ends. On the other hand, large companies have marketing budgets and operate on the understanding that revenue generation has an expense side. They've grown beyond the idea of looking for freebies. So, why in the world would General Motors think small? Their business has been established for decades and has a draw on public interest, To them, licensing agreements that involve them getting a cut of the profit being made is all part of how business is done. It reminds me of what Barzini said...."certainly he can present a bill for such services. After all, we are not communists". 

PS I also don't consider my Chevrolet T-shirt "free advertising". The T-shirt licensee expensed production of the shirt same as the company that made my plain shirt. The point of wearing it is to make a statement about myself. That I am a "Chevrolet man" as opposed to Ford or Dodge. Same reason I wear a Phillies t-shirt. The point is it says something about who I am, where I am from, and who I cheer for.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Now Scaf, if they gave you a Chico's Bail Bonds hat I'm all over it  

The logo/licensing difference is distinct between sports teams or entertainers and manufacturers/marketers. In sports the products ARE the logos, sights, sounds and images, whether you buy a ticket, listen to broadcast and the commercials, or proudly wear the hat.

I don't think it is strange at all that anybody would wear a shirt with a Chevy logo on it if they are a Chevy guy. I've got my Humber Super Snipe sweater vest around here someplace.... But... ask yourself this question: If you are going to spend a day with your family at the mall or the amusement park, do you think that a car company would prefer you wear a shirt with their brand on it? Lots of exposure from "that guy in the Chevy shirt." Therein lies the reason why they can't give the shirts away - a bunch of homeless all wearing new Lexus polo shirts wouldn't be in the best image of the company.

You may not consider that you are endorsing the product yourself, but your perception at that point is the smallest part of it. You can't read your shirt while you wear it. The name is placed in view of others. You have a solid opinion. They may not.

I learned a good lesson about advertising perception years ago. I was driving a company car, and the dealer who delivered it put a front license plate on it. I thought nothing of it. Went to a different (Ford) dealer in town closer to home looking at a car for my wife - got literally chewed out by the senior salesman asking why I was spying and test shopping for the other dealer! I didn't know what he was talking about, until he marched both of us out of his office and pointed the tag out to me. Didn't know whether to laugh or get mad, so I left and ended up not buying a Ford at all.

Sorry, GM and all the car companies DO think small too. They just don't sell direct - so Car dealers and brands are heavily represented at the municipal ball park, at the school fundraisers, in newsletters and programs, and in my mailbox.

I do think it is darn funny when I see kids wearing jackets with huge M&M and Home Depot logos, in many people's view that makes them fans of candy and home improvement products :thumbsup: , not a (smaller logo)race series, team or driver.


----------



## videojimmy (Jan 12, 2006)

All I say for sure is this: the cars I had a kid definately imfluenced the cars I like as an adult.

Example: I never saw a Porshe Carrera until I had the AFX car, today it's still one of my favorite cars. I had an AFX Camaro when I was a kid... loved it so much, when I was older I bought a real one. 

There is a connection there.... maybe American car makers should stop thinking about short term pennies when they go after smaller businesses and start thinking long term dollars. Let the kids develop their own love affair with their cars when they're the most impressionable. It's not rocket science.


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

To me a bigger question is what ever happened to artistic license, especially when it comes to model cars? These cars are an artist's rendering, and the products are made from that rendering. I can see a license being needed to use manufacturer's logos on the packaging, but that's where it should end, and personally I don't think a logo on the box is so important, it's what's inside that matters. As to calling the product a "'55 Chevy"...well, that's what it is a model of. It's areas like this that have gotten out of hand, at some point the manufacturers should be told to butt out unless they intend to make a competing product. 

Though I could be wrong, I highly doubt Andy Warhol had to strike up a deal with Campbell's soup, and I doubt that anyone making reproductions of that painting do either (though of course there should be royalties to Warhol's estate).


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

But Gene.....it's not just about logos. They also own the name Chevy. They also own the rights to the shape and design of the body. That is intellectual property. 

The fact that GM doesn't produce model cars makes no matter either. Just as in the example I put forth earlier, I can't start producing MM t-shirts just because they don't. There would have to be a license agreement between myself and MM in order to do that. And rightfully so, it would probably involve me having to come up with licensing fees as part of my expenses. 

On the point of big versus small, let me ask this question. License agreements represent an already existing revenue stream to large companies like GM, whose products have a following. Where is the money in giving away what they are already in a position to sell?

I know we are not going to all agree. But one thing about HT, it is a great source for invigorating conversation. :hat:


----------



## tomhocars (Oct 19, 2005)

Joe,I understand your feelings on why should you pay for something that is advertising someone elses products.There must be some reason you like it.I guess that's where your screen name comes in."GRANDCHEAPSKATE".I'll see you in a few weeks. Tom Stumpf


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

I think that if you own a piece of clothing with a company logo or such on it you should have to get permission from the company to wear it!!!


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)




----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

micyou03 said:


> I think that if you own a piece of clothing with a company logo or such on it you should have to get permission from the company to wear it!!!


LOL!  

"Excuse me sir. I couldn't help but notice that terrible slice you have. Permission to wear that Titleist cap is DENIED."


----------



## 55 Chevy Nut (Jan 30, 2007)

Capitalist Society! I hope GM's lawyers don't come after me for my name! LOL Have fun! Greg :wave:


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

I had an opportunity to talk to one of GMP's reps at SEMA last year and we were discussing licensing issues. He told me how tough GM and NASCAR is and how hard it was to sell a product at a profit that has anything NASCAR or GM on it. Their licensing fees in particular are very costly.

As far as law suits go, they are all designed to do one thing in particular: make an example. And big corporations will always win regardless of the case because they can afford to throw money at lawyers all day and just continue cases until you run out of money and give up.

I spend a lot of time with our patent lawyer with some of the new products I've designed for my company. He also handles copyright infringement. If you guys want to see an example of how a country operates without copyright laws, just look at China and some of the vehicles they are proposing. They look just like American made SUV's and vehicles but aren't built to American standards are very dangerous in crash situations. If these vehicles are produced for sale around the world, the general public will be in danger when they are deceived into buying a product because it resembles something else that is made to safety standards.

-Scott


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

Looks like Ford in pileing on with similar foolishness. Even photos of your own car.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/14/1628204


----------



## valongi (Dec 23, 2007)

I sit on the side of the folks who don't like to advertise a brand name on my body. I have a brother-in-law who you wouldn't catch dead in public WITHOUT a piece of clothing / hat that tells of his allegiance to his favorite team. I find it sad that he's fallen prey to the marketing monster - it's become rather predictable on his part, and contrived. He even has a new doormat that I love to step all over.... when does it end?

With respect to slot cars, this is a such a niche hobby to the point it does look silly for a company like GM to get heavy-handed with the "little guys". However, it is business, and I get that. 

When it comes down to brass tacks, It's not about GM, it's about the attorneys who f_ck everything up for everyone involved. In no way, shape or form will a slot car with an unauthorized logo or physical representation of a GM automobile EVER affect the share price for GM. It's always about overzealous attorneys trying to prove their worth as valuable assets to corporate America, creating billable hours, and generally living up to their stereotypes.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Grandcheapskate said:


> You want me to walk around with a shirt that has your logo and you want me to pay for it? No thanks. Either give me the shirt for free or treat me like a NASCAR car and pay me for advertising your product.


Bless you, Joe. I thought I was the only crusty old grump who felt that way. 

I have a perpetually malcontent friend who who thought she was making a nonconformist statement in her high school days, by wearing a ratty, torn old sweatshirt on which she had scrawled the name of one of the chic designers in Marks-a-Lot. She was stunned to find that she got mobbed by the "ohmoighod girls" (as she calls them) wanting to know if it was a new product and where they could get one. After recovering from her shock, she told them it was a special item for associates of the designer only, but her uncle could get them because he had done some promotional work for the line. She had taken orders for several at $75 each before somebody wised up to the scam. -- D


----------



## valongi (Dec 23, 2007)

> She had taken orders for several at $75 each before somebody wised up to the scam.


That's freaking brilliant! Add me to the list of crust old grumps, Dslot. The only team memorabilia I wear is if it's gifted to me on a birthday or Christmas. I won't fork out any money of my own on that stuff. I do wear college t-shirts and sweatshirts. They're different since the investment you make in your college or university pays life-long dividends. I proudly "advertise" for them since the sheepskin has done me well.


----------



## Ligier Runner (Nov 29, 2004)

Alas, I guess I'm a crusty old grump as well. I haven't purchased anything like that in several years. I can't bring myself to buy a $20 hat or $25 shirt knowing what the basic item cost initially before adding the "brand X".

The last thing I bought with anything on it was a Valvoline hat from Dollar General....$5. I needed a new hat.  

The way I see it, the big corporations and the stars/celebrities/athletes have enough money of their own already. They don't need mine. I need mine.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*Hey Doba, see ya in the lobby.*

Wanna swap a few of my redvines for a coupla handfulls of popcorn?


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Dslot said:


> Bless you, Joe. I thought I was the only crusty old grump who felt that way. -- D


 When you can combine being a crusty old grump with being a grandcheapskate, you turn yourself into one super babe magnet.

Yeah...I got it all workin' for me now.

Joe


----------



## Ligier Runner (Nov 29, 2004)

Grandcheapskate said:


> When you can combine being a crusty old grump with being a grandcheapskate, you turn yourself into one super babe magnet.
> 
> Yeah...I got it all workin' for me now.


Do I see a book in the future?

"Attract Women Cheaply - Confessions of a Crusty Old Grump"


----------



## sethndaddy (Dec 4, 2004)

I am guilty of wearing band shirts "Korn", "Deadstar Assembly", "Type-o-Negative" are among my favorites. But I look at it like this.........check out what I like.

I also have an AFX RACING TEAM shirt I got at a show a few years back, still proudly wear that.


----------



## christos_s (Jan 16, 2008)

I am very confused. I see all the MM stuff on their online stor NOW.
This includes Willys, Mustangs, Plymouths -- that's it, no GTO s or Chevy's.
Are these the lines of cars that were cut back?


----------



## christos_s (Jan 16, 2008)

*Confused...*

I am very confused. I see all the MM stuff on their online stor NOW.
This includes Willys, Mustangs, Plymouths -- that's it, no GTO s or Chevy's.
Are these the lines of cars that were cut back?


----------



## bigun624 (May 11, 2005)

I guess I better bury all my bootleg movies, music, and resin ho chevy bodies in the back yard before the Feds find me.


----------



## vaBcHRog (Feb 19, 2003)

christos_s said:


> I am very confused. I see all the MM stuff on their online stor NOW.
> This includes Willys, Mustangs, Plymouths -- that's it, no GTO s or Chevy's.
> Are these the lines of cars that were cut back?


All GM Cars Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, Cadillac etc.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Funny that.

Ya'd think they'd be more worried about clubbing their competition both locally and especially abroad where they are getting drilled right in the nads. 

Beating down slot-tards and t-shirt goons seems like the least of their worries. Hire more qualified designers and fewer lawyers! Start building quality, reliability, and aesthetics back into the product.

Then they might be too busy counting money to hassle with the small fry who never did them any harm.

Excluding the Corvette, Can ya really name a wildly popular to die for car they have produced lately that appeals to the mainstream and is relatively affordable? Didnt think so! Neither could I. LOL (let the stoning begin...snicker)

It's an age of CAD drawn, over thought and engineered cut, paste and print cars. Machine drawn, built by machines, for what they think are automotons...and yet they wonder! The big car companies are like the neighborhood dweebus, they dont even know we're laughing at them...and they cant figure out why their pockets are turned inside out! 

Back to the lobby...Doba's waitin' on me with fresh popcorn.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

Bill Hall said:


> Funny that.
> 
> Ya'd think they'd be more worried about clubbing their competition both locally and especially abroad where they are getting drilled right in the nads.
> 
> ...


Hey Bill -- How do ya really feel? :lol:


----------



## sethndaddy (Dec 4, 2004)

Bill,
and I saw awhile back that they were planning a re-release NOMAD, which I almost sh....myself over, till I saw the drawing for it.
can you say bboooorrrriiinnngggg.
You would think in this day and age of the "Retro" cars selling like mad that Chevy would do an awesome Nomad and cash in, nope.........idiots. the new Camaro's not bad, but they really could do much better.

I think they need slotcar dudes designing cars for them.


----------



## Ligier Runner (Nov 29, 2004)

Anyone remember when they brought back the Nova? I think the Edsel sold better.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Ligier Runner said:


> Do I see a book in the future?
> 
> "Attract Women Cheaply - Confessions of a Crusty Old Grump"


 And give away all my secrets?

But, just for the HT crowd, I'll give away this little nugget - in addition to being cheap and grumpy, tell women you play with toy cars. They'll be all over you.

Joe


----------



## slotrod (May 21, 2007)

Excluding the Corvette, Can ya really name a wildly popular to die for car they have produced lately that appeals to the mainstream and is relatively affordable? Hey how about the great Chevy Equinox sport???????


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

The Chevy Cobalt and identical Pontiac G5 is very popular in its market segment. Is it a to-die-for car? Probably not, but at least it addresses the affordability issue and when equipped with a supercharger, is relatively quick and handles pretty good. Other than the harsh riding Mustang GT there aren't a lot of cars that fit the price/performance profile of the late '60s muscle cars. Sure the new Challenger promises to deliver the muscle, but the price tells you it's aimed at those fifty-somethings who want to relive a bit of their past and don't mind paying a price that's going to be in the fifty-something stratosphere. 

If you are done throwing all your stones at Bill I feel safe saying that the only cars that I feel are currently catering to the cash strapped driving enthusiasts are ones coming from the far east that fall into the "tuner" category. If I was an under-30 year old looking for an affordable, fun, perky set of wheels I'd be looking at Scion, Honda, Mazda, and Suburu. At least they are trying to sell into a market that echoes what the American Musclecar tried to sell into instead of only catering to the big wallet midlife crisis crowd. The Mustang and Cobalt and perhaps the Caliber SRT (if it's ever released) are the only US branded cars that come close to targeting the same market as the tuner ready brands.


----------



## Rawafx (Jul 20, 1999)

Speaking of Korn.......anybody remember when Courtney Love was in the band "Hole"??? A concert tour promoter actually got the basic ground work layed for those two bands to tour together. That's right, it was going to be the Korn/Hole tour............I kid you not!!!
"Chevy Cobalt".......I had the pleasure??? of checking out a rental one(with only a few hundred miles on it) a girlfriend of mine had for a few days. The fit and finish of the body panels and the interior trim left ALOT to be desired. Thankfully, she had it for only two days before she rear-ended someone while driving it.{two wrecks in one week!} And yes, she is one of the few people I've let drive my Mustang!!! 
"Tuner cars"-there are three Hondas(not mine) here at my house, so I know a little about those, too. 
My pictures seem to be too big to post on here.......I'll have to work on that.

Bob Weichbrodt
"Rawafx"
W-S, NC


----------



## bumpercar88 (Feb 6, 2005)

Hate to tell you all but big brother, I mean GM has been reading these posts. 55 Chevy Nut you're about to be served w/ court documents for not licensing your Hobbytalk name. I can understand a business protecting it's interests, otherwise there will be nothing left but a carcass being picked by the vultures. Business is a dog eat dog world. My question is where does it end? If I take a picture of a Chevy or draw one do I have to get licensing? Aren't these bodies works of art? Aren't some vehicles so associated with a time in American history, in the American experience, that they've become part of the public domain? Let's face it on the modest profit that is being made on plastic slot car bodies GM probably couldn't keep a vending machine filled at one of it's plants. The punishment should fit the crime.
I believe the auto makers realize that their best days are behind them. They see the popularity of the old models in car shows, movies and hobbies. That is why we're seeing retro Mustangs, Challengers, and C*****s (didn't license it's use) being produced. If I was GM I would probably only charge $1.00 to license a toy, this would protect my property as well as keep my company in everybody's face. I would probably be more concerned about taking back market share from my competition.
I wish Harrison luck. I won't admit to owning any of his fantastic pieces fearing the Gestopo Minded ;-) In fact I think I'll park my GMs in protest. Now where did I put those AMC bodies?


----------



## bumpercar88 (Feb 6, 2005)

Hey do singers have to get licensing to sing about a car?

I got a 69 car with an engine, heads and a gear shifter on the floor. It's waiting tonight down in the parking lot outside the convenience store. ??????

Reminds me of when a certain television station blurred the sponsors on the side of Nascar cars unless they paid the network for advertising. 

It's like dejavu all over again!

Doh! Now I owe Nascar and Yogi money.

I owe Matt Groening money for the use of Doh!

Where will it end? I'm getting off this thread before I'm broke!


----------



## tomhocars (Oct 19, 2005)

When I was a kid,born in1952,there I confess,we used to get excited when all the new cars used to debut together.I'm referring to the 1960'S TO 1970'S every sept and oct.Any new car looked great,no matter what.I loved Chevy's .Pontiacs were ok but I hated everything else.Now I'm sorry to say besides the Corvette and the Tahoe/Suburban they have nothing that is even interesting.Even when the Camaro comes out it's to late.It's years behind the Mustang.My son has a GT AND ITS GREAT.If you took the badges off the 30 top selling cars i probably wouldn't know half of them Do you think in 25 years we'll be staying up to watch Barrett Jackson auction off Camry's ,Honda's and Subaru's.I'll probably still be driving around with Bob Beers and Danny Esposito.I bought a suburban because Beers said we needed it.Next he'll tell me to get and ambulance because it will hav e all the supplies we need because we're getting older.We went from Plum crazy Hemi Cuda's to HO purple Chargers to purple prunes.Life is not fair.Tom Stumpf


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

*Legally speaking...*

You can copy anything you want for personal use. It's when you start selling something with an unlicensed logo and making a profit that the legal departments will serve you with a "Cease and Desist" order to stop selling/advertising that product immediately. They can also ask for all the profits you have made from anything using their name/logo/trademark. Same goes for patent infringement.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

:woohoo: .......


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

I'm still blinking my eyes to make sure I read that right. Do you truly believe that this issue is GM's "first order of business"? 

IMHO, Sloan was right in a sense. First and foremost, business is about making money, regardless of what products or services you provide. For example, I recall in my freshman year of high school, I was asked by my Social Studies teacher whether or not Ford Motor Company could produce refrigerators. Being the naive dummy I was at the time, I replied "no". He then asked why not? I said, "Because they are a car manufacturer." His next question was, "and who is to say that they cannot manufacture refigerators if they chose to?" 

Point is, GM as a whole is not just an automobile manufacturer. As to whether or not they could be better at building cars, yeah, they certainly could. But that's another topic altogether. 

PS Scott, thanks for putting this in it's proper perspective.


----------



## coach61 (Sep 6, 2004)

Good point Ruddy.. anyone ever look to see what Gm actually owns? I know they own Sunlife as they administer my Gm pension and its says right on my paytub a subsidary of General Motors.. lol...They also own a large portion of Met life.. guess Car manufactors can make fridges glad they do not make slot cars though.. we'd get the same old stuff with a new bend in a fnder every year or two lol..


Dave




rudykizuty said:


> I'm still blinking my eyes to make sure I read that right. Do you truly believe that this issue is GM's "first order of business"?
> 
> IMHO, Sloan was right in a sense. First and foremost, business is about making money, regardless of what products or services you provide. For example, I recall in my freshman year of high school, I was asked by my Social Studies teacher whether or not Ford Motor Company could produce refrigerators. Being the naive dummy I was at the time, I replied "no". He then asked why not? I said, "Because they are a car manufacturer." His next question was, "and who is to say that they cannot manufacture refigerators if they chose to?"
> 
> ...


----------



## dhamby123 (Jan 6, 2007)

heck thats about all we do get well at least from lifelike cars same old chassis differnt body.. thank god fow aw and racemasters if it werent for these companies we would have the same old chassis to run year after year .


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

Lose sight of your core business - and you too might lose 50% of your market share too LOL! And end up caring as much about putting somebody out of business that doesn't compete with you, than doing better than the companies you do compete with!

Remember, reading is fundamental.......

Too too funny


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Still rubbing my eyes in disbelief, but I'll take that as a yes to my original question. BTW, where is it that you specifically read that GM cares as much about MM as they do auto manufacturing operations? I'm curious and would really like to see that, cause you know, reading is fundamental. 

Look, I agree with you on the aspect of whether or not GM could make better automobiles. But the auto industry experiences downturns based on the economy as well. So, it's not all that unusual for ANY major corporation to diversify its interests. The examples are a dime a dozen. And the reasons to do it are no different than the reasons you diversify your retirement nest egg.


----------



## SplitPoster (May 16, 2006)

sorry to have struck a nerve, Rudy. As a car enthusiast first, I have been reading about GM specificly and the U.S. auto industry in general for a long time, wondering how they lost the pinnacle of success, over 90% of sales that they had when I was young. Diversification is not the core issue here - you invest with people and companies who do things well. It's attention to core business first, and what the consumer wants is important to anybody selling to the "retail" market, not trying to buy profitable but unfamiliar businesses to prop up the rest. Reminds me of what happened when AMF bought Harley-Davidson, or Quaker Oats bought the Snapple company. 

Think about paying a corporate lawyer a fat six figure salary, expenses, admin fees, plus whatever court costs to stomp out a model maker, over a deal that might have made the parent company $1000, and that is if MM had a banner year! MM had excellent looking GM models! It didn't bother Ford or Daimler-Chrysler (now under new ownership) that their cars were on the shelf - I'd be proud of that representation of my stuff too! 

If somebody is trying to pay you a compliment by modeling what is in effect a tribute to your best work, for gosh sake MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO KEEP DOING IT! Get your license fees and go with it - your core business is not selling license fees!

My perspective is also shaped by what GM did a few years ago in the aftermarket restoration business, filing suit against companies making long out-of-production parts for decades old GM cars. If the automotive specialty press (I read about it in Autoweek) hadn't raised a stink and someone hadn't backed off (or some executive wasn't told about it), it might have ended the same way, cease and desist directed at somebody who likes the brand and is doing the company good! 

I doubt anyone outside of whatever legal department at GM ever knew or would ever know about model motoring. If they treated MM well it wouldn't cost them a dime, and would bring in more good will than the darn mailers I get every week from my shady local Pontiac dealer. Maybe posting about it won't do any good either, but if the current CEO (who just said U.S. auto industry will have a crummy year) was asked about why they are fooling around with this kind of junk wonder what he would say? 

Last post for me on this.


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Nah, you owe me no apologies. I just see it as an interesting discussion and I enjoy hearing what others think too, so it's all good. But while we are at it, sorry if I seemed oversensitive. 

Your points are well taken. And believe me, I share many of the same sentiments where our hobby is concerned. Hopefully they'll be able to come to some sort of agreement.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

I found this web link:


http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-miedce/case_no-2:2007cv11408/case_id-219835/

It looks to me that, for .08c a page, the public can download documents relative to this case. I may read up on this PACER thing more tonight. Maybe if we found the GM parties involved, we could write a letter in support of MM, and who knows - maybe have a positive impact on the case for our hobby.

Thoughts?


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

Scaf I don't think us writing a letter will have any effect, what needs to be done is to get a mainstream media outlet involved, PR is everything to big business. Supposedly this was done with some success in a model RR case (not the infamous UP case), around Christmas the WSJ did an article labeling the real RR a modern-day scrooge, the RR backed off and granted free license to the defendent.

As I said before, chances are good that if it made it to the SC the modelers and small companies would _win_. Trademark infringement relies heavily on proof of confusion in the market as well as of proof of damages caused by that confusion. Recent case in point relative to us: Aurora Plastics. They were turned down in their trademark application _not_ because someone else "owns" the name, they were turned down because _another modeling company_ owns the name. In short, trademark is market-specific.


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

SwamperGene said:


> Scaf I don't think us writing a letter will have any effect, what needs to be done is to get a mainstream media outlet involved, PR is everything to big business.


Good point. So, anyone have media ties?

I think that the reporter who did the popular youtube segment on KSR is now a local reporter here in so cal - not sure. I will try and get his name. Maybe he was touched by his KSR experience, and be able to help.

Other ideas?

I know we can do this - just have to try.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

"I took my automobile down to the track
Hitched to the back of my other automobile,
Everyone was there just waitin' for me,
There were plenty of zooty plastic cars, and sleek Brit cars.

Spring, Spring, little automobile, get ready to strike..."

Somehow the '60s wouldn't have been quite the same with today's interpretation of intellectual property.

"I got a little deuce coupe with a flathead mill,
But she'll walk an American pseudo-sportscar like he's standing still..."

Yeah, glad I was young then and not now.


----------



## rudykizuty (Aug 16, 2007)

Scafremon said:


> Good point. So, anyone have media ties?
> 
> I think that the reporter who did the popular youtube segment on KSR is now a local reporter here in so cal - not sure. I will try and get his name. Maybe he was touched by his KSR experience, and be able to help.
> 
> ...


I could be wrong, but I think how far this goes may depend on MM's willingness to participate, i.e. telling their side of the story. The media might not latch on without their support. 

If someone were in a position to arrange putting the two in communication with one another, it would be a huge leap.


----------



## A/FX Nut (May 28, 2004)

tomhocars said:


> I'll probably still be driving around with Bob Beers and Danny Esposito.I bought a suburban because Beers said we needed it.Next he'll tell me to get and ambulance because it will hav e all the supplies we need because we're getting older.Tom Stumpf


I'm only 42, but I'm the youngest employee at the Goshen Street Department in Indiana. The oldest is 65. The funny thing is we have a Defibulator hanging on the wall in the break area.

I remember Union Pacific wanting not only the profits made but any unsold inventory and the molds and tooling also. But the lawsuit was settled and to get a license is the cost is minumim. 

I hope the best for Harrison. His cars are some of the best on the market. Randy.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Lets all keep in mind that things are often an accumulation of things.

Although I know nuthin 'bout nuthin, and after re-reading Tom's post; My feel for this is that the real blow to the head was the darn "blunderplus" chassis. 

I believe Mr. Woodrow was well aware that NOS chassis were a finite resource and he was looking ahead of the curve. 

While the topic of choice in this thread, the GM thing was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. The licensing carp is "pencilpushingpapershuffling". Delete a logo, change some wording, pay yer lawyer, yada yada.... GM gets their pound of flesh and MM rolls on. Pretty normal and routine in todays society of litigation.

What cannot be negotiated, deflected or re-couped was the brutal hit they took on the thunder plus chassis. An instant "cash-ectomey" if you will. If a decent facsimilie of the t-jet powerplant was easy to re-produce they'd already be done! Personally I gotta admire a guy who has the stones to roll them bones. Unfortunately the ole snake eyes came up. Couple the costly chassis venture with licensing issues and sadly MM2 is down the road motors.

Merely idle speculation from a 20/20 hindsight perspective, but there's always more layers to the onion.

They really werent THAT bad once you got over the whole spontaneous combustion thing!


----------



## win43 (Aug 28, 2006)

From what I 've heard, it's not the legal thing that is closing Model Motoring. I was informed that failing health was the determining factor to sell off Model Motoring inventory. It was a decision made by Mr. Woodrow and his family. My thoughts go out to Mr. Woodrow and his family.


----------



## tomhocars (Oct 19, 2005)

rudykizuty said:


> I could be wrong, but I think how far this goes may depend on MM's willingness to participate, i.e. telling their side of the story. The media might not latch on without their support.
> 
> If someone were in a position to arrange putting the two in communication with one another, it would be a huge leap.


 Yogi Berra said'It ain't over till it's over".Well the fat lady has just sang her last song.We all like good rumors to come true.Rumors of Model Motoring coming back with new chassis and cars are just not true.I wish they were.I just got off the phone with Harrison and he said it's over.NO cars,NO chassis,he took Gm cars off the web site and that's it.He gave it a great shot and did alot for the hobby.He said he is just going to sell what's left and drive his 55 (GM) Chevy.I knew that man had taste.Good Luck Mr.H.I'll talk to you soon. Tom Stumpf


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

So GM has, or will be, dismissing their lawsuit?


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

win43 said:


> From what I 've heard, it's not the legal thing that is closing Model Motoring. I was informed that failing health was the determining factor to sell off Model Motoring inventory. It was a decision made by Mr. Woodrow and his family. My thoughts go out to Mr. Woodrow and his family.


Wow I didn't know they were closing up. I thought this was just about GM cars missing from their retail sales. If this is true it is very sad. Thoughts and prayers go out to them.


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

Makes you almost wonder about the magizine "Car Craft",by the time line spread,it looks like MM problems started shortly after Car Craft ran an article about the classic Chevy's that they were producing as slotcars,and i know GM's bigwigs read the automotive mag's,just wonder if the article is what lit up their radar


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

At the bottom of the article there's a link to discussion forums:

http://www.carcraft.com/featuredvehicles/77559_slot_cars/index.html


----------



## Scafremon (Dec 11, 2006)

SwamperGene said:


> At the bottom of the article there's a link to discussion forums:
> 
> http://www.carcraft.com/featuredvehicles/77559_slot_cars/index.html


I looked briefly, but didn't see a discussion on this topic.


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

There is now. :dude:


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

Hell'va board to get registered on
I think Doug Glad is editor of Car Craft these days Gene,not Matt King anymore,at least as far as i know


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

I dunno Rick, but I figure it's at least some form of mainstream media. Who know's, maybe someone there will see it.


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

I agree,good thinking Gene.
You never know,they just might pick it up,i think Freiburger (sp) is still some sort of managing editor,and him and Matt King are both into toys :wave:

Edit
Looks like Freiburger has left,i was reading a few posts,and they talk about him leaving,crap don't buy the mag for a coupl'a month's and ya fall outta the loop


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

My friend at Craftsman Tools has cool contacts with Car Craft and Hot Rod if you're looking for someone. He is featured in a couple of articles on 1:1 painting techniques. He's the guy that painted my '67 Camaro.


----------



## Slott V (Feb 3, 2005)

That Trademark issue with Ford and that Mustang group seemed ridiculous, but at the end of the article on that, it states the issue was resolved. The members of the club can't use to Ford logo on the calender but can still use the pictures members took of their cars.

http://www.adrants.com/2008/01/ford-slaps-brand-enthusiasts-returns.php


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Ah yes, I can see it now.....

Judge: So GM, what harm has been done to your company and what damages do you seek?

GM: Because Model Motoring has issued remakes of cars we made 20-30 years ago, when we knew what we were doing, people are reminded of just how far we have fallen. Plus, they are now spending their money on toy cars rather than buying our cars. These toy cars are a direct competition for us. This is why our sales are dropping.


And we are searching for intelligent life on other planets?

Joe


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

Here's the link guys,get over there and post an opinion,Car Craft isn't gonna come here,so we gotta go to them.
BTW:i don't own or run anything by MM,but i hate seeing another one of our hobby guys go down.
Lets get out and support what Gene's already started,and we might even get some more exposure for our hobby as a benefit.
Rick

http://forums.carcraft.com/70/6547389/car-craft-magazine/slots/index.html#6547653


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

Gene,i wonder if it'd be a good thing to start a commentary over on Alan's board (SCI) about this,with a link to your post at Car Craft.
The more guys who get involved the better chance there might be of something happening. :thumbsup:


----------

