[MOC] Vintage Runabout (Ford Model T)

[CMF-1138]

Hello, all! I built this last year to fit in with my Winter Village. It is inspired by the 1916 Ford Model T Runabout and incorporates some of the design ideas from the official Winter Village vehicles (such as the 10222 mail truck, 10259 bus, and 10263 fire truck). It fits one minifig with a small hat or hair. The doors are non-functional, as they are blocked in by the front wheel arches.

Happy to hear any comments, critiques, or suggestions.

Additional views behind spoiler tag:

Spoiler

Edited March 30, 2021 by CMF-1138
3/29: Moved some photos to spoiler tag to improve readability.

[caiman0637]

Looks good! I'm trying to think of a part that could make the front fenders look better, though- 6005, maybe? 

[CMF-1138]

2 hours ago, caiman0637 said:

Looks good! I'm trying to think of a part that could make the front fenders look better, though- 6005, maybe? 

Thanks! I agree that the front fenders are a little blocky. 6005 is definitely a more elegant shape, although using it adds a bit of weight to car (front fender plus one plate of support under the running boards. It also looks a bit out of balance with the thinner rear fender, at least to my eye. I could try reworking the rear fender using 6005, as well, but part of the design "look" of the prototype is the thin fenders. What do you think?

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by CMF-1138

[caiman0637]

32 minutes ago, CMF-1138 said:

Thanks! I agree that the front fenders are a little blocky. 6005 is definitely a more elegant shape, although using it adds a bit of weight to car (front fender plus one plate of support under the running boards. It also looks a bit out of balance with the thinner rear fender, at least to my eye. I could try reworking the rear fender using 6005, as well, but part of the design "look" of the prototype is the thin fenders. What do you think?

I like it! I don't think the rear fenders could benefit from the use of 6005, but maybe 49097 or 98282?

[CMF-1138]

30 minutes ago, caiman0637 said:

I like it! I don't think the rear fenders could benefit from the use of 6005, but maybe 49097 or 98282?

Thanks -- the front fender is growing on me. I think 49097 and 98282 are probably both too narrow, relative to 28326, which is basically one stud wide. I did a quick rework with 6005 on the rear, as well, and I think it may be more balanced than I was expecting. I'll have to take another look at it in terms of stability. Thanks for the feedback -- happy to hear any additional thoughts.

Here is a side-by-side with (from left to right), the original, the reworked front fender, and the reworked front and rear fenders:

[caiman0637]

1 minute ago, CMF-1138 said:

Thanks -- the front fender is growing on me. I think 49097 and 98282 are probably both too narrow, relative to 28326, which is basically one stud wide. I did a quick rework with 6005 on the rear, as well, and I think it may be more balanced than I was expecting. I'll have to take another look at it in terms of stability. Thanks for the feedback -- happy to hear any additional thoughts.

Here is a side-by-side with (from left to right), the original, the reworked front fender, and the reworked front and rear fenders:

Yeah, they probably would be too narrow. But the third version looks darn near perfect!

[CMF-1138]

5 minutes ago, caiman0637 said:

<snip> But the third version looks darn near perfect!

Thanks, again, for the suggestions. I'm going to let it percolate for a bit and then take another look at it. I have some concerns about the rear tire clearance because I had to pull the axle forward 1/2-stud to build in support for the hinge bricks supporting the rear fenders. 

[CMF-1138]

With thanks again to @caiman0637 for the suggestion, I reworked the front and rear fenders using the 6005 1x3x2 arch. I had to broaden the rear fenders more than I would have liked in order to find a support point that didn't cause tire clearance issues, but I'm pretty happy with the overall fender shape using this approach.

Additional views behind spoiler tag:

Spoiler

Although I like the shape of the fenders, I feel that the model gets weighed down by the excessive thickness of the brick arches and the running boards. So I decided to take a crack a revising it in the opposite direction, using the rear mudguard piece from the original model.

Additional views behind spoiler tag:

Spoiler

This revision just "looks" better, at least to my eye. It also allows the doors to open, as they are no longer blocked in by the wheel arches.

Because the mudguards require less space than the brick-built arches, I next decided to try shortening the front hood, which I think is more consistent with the 1916 Model T that I am using for inspiration. I think I like this final one the most, although pulling the front wheel arches back does block the doors again.

Additional views behind spoiler tag:

Spoiler

This last one has the right overall feel to me, in terms of capturing the general look and feel of the prototype, even though the shape of the wheel arches may not be accurate. Happy to hear any additional thoughts or suggestions that others might have. Thanks for reading!

Edited March 30, 2021 by CMF-1138

[caiman0637]

Hmm... my favorite is your third rendition, but I'm no expert on this car. The final one gives off an older, more buggy-ish feel to me, but I don't know what year you were going for. If 1908, it's perfect! I was thinking of around 1920 in my suggestions, though.

You're now a master of mudguards! 

[CMF-1138]

I probably should have been more specific that I am being ambiguous.  I am by no means a car expert. I am going for the look and feel of an early (1900-1920?) buggy roadster, as opposed to a specific car or model year, although I chose to use the 1916/1917 Model T Runabout as my main reference. Something along the lines of this car (not my photo). Anyway, this has been a very useful exercise for me in terms of refining the design.