Toy Review - Hot Rod (Studio Series 1986)

[Butcher31]

I've been keeping records of parts counts and weights of my figures, then running regression analysis to see how strong the correlation is with price. It's pretty strong. And this figure has a lot more parts than your standard deluxe and actually more than your standard voyager. So on paper it's better "value for money" than a lot of other voyager figures.
Although this is just one way to describe "value". I know it's very subjective.

[Tetsuwan Convoy]

I've been keeping records of parts counts and weights of my figures, then running regression analysis to see how strong the correlation is with price. It's pretty strong. And this figure has a lot more parts than your standard deluxe and actually more than your standard voyager. So on paper it's better "value for money" than a lot of other voyager figures.
Although this is just one way to describe "value". I know it's very subjective.

Get yer logic and reasoning outta here mate.

Yeah, I can feel the quality and its plain to see its obviously more than a deluxe size could handle.

[Skyfire]

Get yer logic and reasoning outta here mate.

But I want MORE independent variables - number of metal pins, number of different colours, number of tampos... Then we can go full blown multiple regression !

Or maybe just Pearson correlation since it's the moulds that cost 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars i.e. part count (mould count) vs price.

And so ends the lesson in becoming a Hasbro accountant .

[Butcher31]

Get yer logic and reasoning outta here mate.

Yeah, I can feel the quality and its plain to see its obviously more than a deluxe size could handle.

Sorry. You're right. I'll see myself out.

I included screws and pins but they don't make a difference to the price. Yeah, including paint and tampos would be interesting.

[Dimi194]

So I initially had 0 interest in this figure because I already owned the TR version (as with Kup and Blurr) - but when I was in Kmart and looking closely at him I realised just how nice he looked...

And wow I'm so glad I got this guy! The robot mode is excellent, and all the accessories are really nice (wish the Matrix blast effect used the 5mm hole on the back to connect so it could be used on more figures though). The articulation is just next level, and even the touches like the opening hands and flip down glasses really show why this guy is at the voyager price point.
He's also one of the first figures I've bought in a while (non-movie SS at least) that I needed to look at the instructions to transform - I was shocked that things like the hands flipping was done purely for robot mode and had nothing to do with the transformation!

Car mode is nice - slight shame about the knees sticking out the back, and mushroom wheels SUCK but the rest looks great (including the lovely spoiler) and the yellow hinge doesn't bother me too much.

A fine piece of engineering - if I didn't have such an attachment to the TR Blurr (even with his bland colours) I'd certianly think about biting on the SS86 version of him too!

[KELPIE]

Was given another copy of this guy for Christmas, which was ripe for an opening.

Yet another great example of why fake parts inherently make transformer toys better. Apart from a dogged purist mentality, I can't fathom why people are against it.

It would have been nice if the shoulders could "pop out" so the bot mode was less straight when his arms were by his side.

Overall a pretty special figure that's hard to see another Hot Rod topping for some time.

[SharkyMcShark]

Yet another great example of why fake parts inherently make transformer toys better.

I don't think that word means what you think it does?

Apart from a dogged purist mentality, I can't fathom why people are against it.

Because it depends what you want from a figure.

If you want source accuracy at times it's the only way literally, or practically, to achieve that.

If you don't care for source accuracy and your interest is in the engineering/transformation process it's a real turn off.

[KELPIE]

I don't think that word means what you think it does?

"in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way."
Seems to work for me, however sure, I could be wrong.

Because it depends what you want from a figure.

If you want source accuracy at times it's the only way literally, or practically, to achieve that.

If you don't care for source accuracy and your interest is in the engineering/transformation process it's a real turn off.

You don't think this figure has a good engineering/transformation process? I would almost say it's even more interesting in trying to hide/duplicate aesthetics to make sure both modes look good over just shifting something from one spot to the other.