What is the definition of scratch built?

What is the accepted definition of scratch built? I assume that people don't bother building their own tyres, seats, etc. etc. I still consider this scratch built, but am I the only one?

EDIT by Moderator: Post split from: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=691758

I assume that people don't bother building their own tyres, seats, etc. etc. I still consider this scratch built, but am I the only one?

I'm working on two scratch builds. I will be building everything, including tires, seats, wheels, engine, gearbox, etc. It will be truely scratch built according to my definition and possibly a definition of other scratch builders such as Gerald Wingrove.

Now the exact definition of scratch built can be thrown around until pigs fly and there will still be people arguing what is truely scratch built. Personally, I believe using any kit or preformed part deems a build as no longer 100% scratch built. When I build from scratch I build from raw materials, I define raw materials that have no function, purpose, or identity until formed. Styrene sheet, brass sheet, brass rod, aluminum, and even LED's.

Notice, I left out bolts. Under my definition of raw materials, a bolt has a function, purpose and identity. Now you ask, how does and LED fit under that? Well thats a really hard one to define, and I know somebody is going to argue that I didnt build the LED therefore my model is not scratch built. Though my definition could say that it has no function, or purpose until it is wired up. Where as a bolt is a single piece that has a function to bolt together.

Now some purist out there is going to argue that I didnt crush the poly styrene polymer to make the styrene sheet, or refine the iron ore to make steel. I'm pretty pure and neurotic about the definition of scratch building, but thats pushing even my thoughts on it.

Thats what I have to say...for now.

What is the accepted definition of scratch built?




Who knows man,

Just like.... whatever!



I'm gonna scratchbuild me a turkey sandwich

Scratch building, is eaxctly that. You build something from scratch. You start on an empty desk with only materials to your disposition that do not come, completely or partially, in a kit. Sure, you can scratch build parts and add them onto an existing kit as an improvement or to make a change, but then it is not called a scracth build. Adding scratch build parts to an existing kit to improve it, is called a modification. Doing scratch building to an existing kit to give the subject another destination, example: change an MP4/5B into an MP4/6, is a conversion.


Who knows man,

Just like.... whatever!

I'm gonna scratchbuild me a turkey sandwich
so Olli, your sandwich cannot be a scratchbuild, I think you did a turkey conversion on it... :lol:

The term scratch-building is derived from the English idiom "from scratch." This "scratch" refers to the starting line scribed (scratched) on the ground. So the linguistic definition of scratch-building dictates the act of doing something from the beginning.

Some purists might argue that you always have to use only raw materials, but that's not a part of the definition. And like many languages, a word can convey a range of meanings, and always has a certain level of ambiguity.

The term scratch-building is no exception, and the meaning has a range from 100 % (starting from nuts, bolts and tires etc.), to the gray area between scratch building and kit bashing. The difficult part is where to draw the line, and in reality, there's none.

But sometimes such line needs to be defined, like in competitions, so it's set to give a common denominator for fairness, and that's where this "raw material only" notion comes from. But then again, even contest rules permits a certain level of parts-borrowing, according to the subjects, like train, air, auto etc.

It's also an argument between skill and knowledge. Say, if you know that a certain brand and size of tires you want to make for your own project happens to be available in a kit, would you be proud of having done your homework and work more efficiently, or cast your own tires by making from your own pattern and call your model "purely" scratchbuilt?


Also, it's perfectly acceptable to say 90% scratchbuilt, or 70% scratchbuilt, because by adding a modifier, you're clearly defining the level of scratch-building, and there's no ambiguity.

Personally, I've come across a number of scratch-builders, and each is unique in their own right, so I incline to believe that when a modeler says scratchbuilt, it's scratchbuilt. It's kind of stupid to force one's definition to another, when the definition itself can't be clearly defined in the first place.

Who knows man,

Just like.... whatever!



I'm gonna scratchbuild me a turkey sandwich

:rofl: Oli, if you didn't grind your own wheat into flour, bake your own bread and rasie the turkey from a chick (or what ever baby turkey's are called) then you didn't scratchbuild the Turkey Sandwich, you just kit bashed one... :grinyes:

This is just a joke by the way..... hmmmm, now I'm hungry.

:rofl: Oli, if you didn't grind your own wheat into flour, bake your own bread and rasie the turkey from a chick (or what ever baby turkey's are called) then you didn't scratchbuild the Turkey Sandwich, you just kit bashed one... :grinyes:

This is just a joke by the way..... hmmmm, now I'm hungry.

Now that was a good one!

I personally believe that scratch building is to be from raw materials. now if a raw material happens to be a seat back that you are modifying to be a hood scoop, or using a straw to build an exhaust system, one could say that is not "scratch built" but modified. however, if you use a credit card to make a spoiler, or a piece of pvc pipe to build a rim, would that not be modifying an existing object, or would that be building from raw materials?

my point is, scratch building is using existing materials, weather it be from a model kit, or from the plumbing isle at westlake hardware, to build something other than what it was initially intended for.

someone will think the seat back thing is kind of a stretch, but keep in mind, that seat back will be sanded cut and shaped just like if you were to use putty, sheet stock, or anything else. therefor it becomes raw material, it just so happens to be close to the shape of what you are going to use it for.

some people get scratch building confused with modifying parts and something known to most modelers as kit bashing.

An example of modifying a part: I have a good looking seat from a Ferrari, but it doesn't fit into my Lotus Esprit. I will change the original design to my specifications to fit the model it is going into.

An example of kit bashing: I have a '69 Camaro Z28, but I want to make a COPO Camaro, so I'll use the engine from a '70 Nova SS, wheels from a '69 Chevelle, badges from an Impala, seats from a Pontiac Tempest, tranny from a 73 C15, and tires from a '64 Mustang. all of these parts are being used as they were manufactured and for their intended purpose, only on a different model. (*don't use this as a recipe for a COPO Camaro, I only meant this to be an example. I'm sure none of these parts would be correct for a COPO car)

this is probably the longest post I have ever made! haha

So Guido, Mike and Hiroaky, I agree but:

if I start from a CAD rough, do my prototypes with CAM device, without touch it, and may be (absurd case) without any modelling knowledge, and I have a result like a MFHiro kit, may this be scratchbuilt? Result or craftmanship?

Oki now I gonna to scratchbuilt (not modify) my pasta, starting from eggs, flour, water, meat, pomato ;) stay tuned I'll upload "bigoli al ragù's WIP"

So Guido, Mike and Hiroaky, I agree but:

if I start from a CAD rough, do my prototypes with CAM device, without touch it, and may be (absurd case) without any modelling knowledge, and I have a result like a MFHiro kit, may this be scratchbuilt? Result or craftmanship?

Thats scratch built. It was machined out of resin or whatever material. I have access to a CNC mill and use it from time to time. I still think thats scratch.


Oki now I gonna to scratchbuilt (not modify) my pasta, starting from eggs, flour, water, meat, pomato ;) stay tuned I'll upload "bigoli al ragù's WIP"

Italians...:shakehead

So Guido, Mike and Hiroaky, I agree but:

if I start from a CAD rough, do my prototypes with CAM device, without touch it, and may be (absurd case) without any modelling knowledge, and I have a result like a MFHiro kit, may this be scratchbuilt? Result or craftmanship?

Oki now I gonna to scratchbuilt (not modify) my pasta, starting from eggs, flour, water, meat, pomato ;) stay tuned I'll upload "bigoli al ragù's WIP"
DAMM YOU now i got a taste for spagetti :banghead:

mmmm, spaghetti. my favorite! but we're having grilled beer&brats tonight!!

in my opinion milling and machining is building from scratch, as long as you are the one programming it for your own use, or sale.

The only reason to argue over this is so that the folks who insist that they are scratchbuilding because they are using solely raw materials that are cut, shaped or machined into what they intend to be can say that they are the only real, true scratchbuilders out there. As hirofkd said, there's something to be said for knowing where to get some parts that you can use to make an accurate model. Making one's own tires or wheels or whatever doesn't make you a better modeler. It doesn't. Why insist on doing something the hard way? So that the model is never finished?

This whole bit of semantics is so bizarre to me. It boils down to just a little elitist game. It's fantastic for people to build a model 100% from nothing. That's amazing, to tell the truth. It takes incredible amount of skill and effort. But sit there and deny others credit where due because they have the good sense to rob some tires out of another kit is ridiculous, and only an effort to stroke ego further.

So we could either sit around and play wordgames to make ourselves feel better than other modelers, or just realize that we're all builders. And that if we're building something - be it modifying or kitbashing or scratchbuilding - we're doing something worthwhile. If you're doing so much work to drastically change the look or construction of a model, you're doing scratch work whether it's going to be a wholly scratchbuild model or not. What difference does it really make in the end, then?

The only reason to argue over this is so that the folks who insist that they are scratchbuilding because they are using solely raw materials that are cut, shaped or machined into what they intend to be can say that they are the only real, true scratchbuilders out there. As hirofkd said, there's something to be said for knowing where to get some parts that you can use to make an accurate model. Making one's own tires or wheels or whatever doesn't make you a better modeler. It doesn't. Why insist on doing something the hard way? So that the model is never finished?


Hmm...wonder who this was aimed at.

A lot of people.

Thanks for your views guys. I guess like most topics, the opinions vary quite a bit.

But sometimes such line needs to be defined, like in competitions, so it's set to give a common denominator for fairness, and that's where this "raw material only" notion comes from. But then again, even contest rules permits a certain level of parts-borrowing, according to the subjects, like train, air, auto etc.

^^^What are the rules defining this for competitions? And are they the same for all competitions?

I am wondering what you would call a car you designed and built yourself yourself, from scratch, if not scratch built, even using existing components. For example, if I made a mid engined 2 seat sports car from an idea in my own head, and I used existing parts, surely the car is scratch built, even if all the components aren't? After all, the car didn't exist before I imagined it. I created it, from nothing (scratch). That's my take on a scratch built car, that and building an existing design from raw materials. Is there a better name for the car I designed and built myself?

That's exactly what I would call it. When a car company rolls out a new model or concept, they still use a lot of parts in use already like starters and alternators, wheels, tires, whatever - we don't accuse them of modifying an old car.

I am wondering what you would call a car you designed and built yourself yourself, from scratch, if not scratch built, even using existing components. For example, if I made a mid engined 2 seat sports car from an idea in my own head, and I used existing parts, surely the car is scratch built, even if all the components aren't? After all, the car didn't exist before I imagined it. I created it, from nothing (scratch). That's my take on a scratch built car, that and building an existing design from raw materials. Is there a better name for the car I designed and built myself?

Its a bit different from modeling to the real world.

Who knows man,

Just like.... whatever!



I'm gonna scratchbuild me a turkey sandwich
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I just spit Corona Extra all over my danged monitor!!!:lol:

It's when the scriber you're using to deepen a panel line goes astray and you hurl the model at the wall and you realize that you've just scratched your way into a frustration building hobby...;-)>

Bill

i scratched my last paint job.

To quote Carl Sagan:

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe".

Does that help?

(Thought not.)

My definition of scratch building is making molds and pouring liquids to form a model or taking ordinary plastic, such as styrene, and cutting, sculpting or gluing something out of nothing.

The true meaning of this term came to me whilst watching my dog. I observed : It sat...it scratched....a small pile of fleas built up beside it...hence the fleas were "scratch built".