Jump to content

Mokei Kagaku

Members
  • Content Count

    1715
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1784 Excellent

2 Followers

About Mokei Kagaku

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/mokeikagaku

Recent Profile Visitors

11281 profile views
  1. I have a CC-02, so I know, and I contemplated before posting the list whether I should do a little censorship , but decided against it.
  2. Sure. It was first announced on April 26th, so it's been on my shopping list for a month.
  3. Most important; all you need to mount the Blackfoot body on the Monster Beetle chassis, are the three body mounts (front body mounts have different lengths despite looking identical at first glance.) As for differences between the kits, it depends on whether we're talking about original releases or re-releases. Originals (in addition to different body mounts): Blackfoot: black friction shocks / Monster Beetle: yellow CVA shocks. Blackfoot: soft version of the Bruiser tires / Monster Beetle: new tires in relatively similar design, but with additional spikes. Blackfoot: yellow wheels / Monster Beetle: gold coloured chrome plated wheels. Additions to the Monster Beetle: Steel brace for the servo saver, which necessitated longer upper screw pins for the upper front suspension arms Rear skid plate and antenna mount, which necessitated the two bottom screws of the gear box to be a bit longer (30mm vs. 27mm, if I recall correctly) That's all I can recall from the top of my head. Re-releases (in addition to different body mounts): Blackfoot: black CVA II shocks / Monster Beetle: yellow CVA II shocks. Blackfoot: tires same as original release / Monster Beetle: tires same as original release Blackfoot: yellow wheels / Monster Beetle: gold coloured chrome plated wheels. The Monster Beetle's servo saver brace isn't included in any of the re-releases. The Monster Beetle's rear skid plate is included in both re-releases, but on the Blackfoot, only the lower part without antenna mount is used. That's all I can recall from the top of my head. (Note: There are quite a lot of differences between each of the original releases and a their re-release siblings, which are not mentioned above. I just tried to cover the differences between the two originals and the differences between the two re-releases.)
  4. I would believe that Tamiya has the IP to the kit itself and possibly also the name. However, the mold used for the body was used by Parma after the production of the Street Devil and was sold by Parma as a loose body and was also included in the Parma Good Times '37 Pro Chevy kit. Unlike the Street Devil, which included stickers and injection molded headlights made by Tamiya, the Parma kit included stickers and vacuum molded lexan headlights made by Parma. The Parma kit also included a lexan wing, parachute and "tray", which was mounted on the Good Times chassis as a base for the battery, radio gear and injection molded engine. A nice kit that I immensely enjoyed building and painting, by the way. Parma doesn't seem to offer the body anymore, but I think it's fair to assume that the mold was (and is) Parma property. Also because it's not up to Tamiya quality. (Btw, despite the similar looks, the wheels of the two kits are not the same)
  5. Licensing is hardly an issue in this case. Tamiya doesn't seem to ever had any problems with licensing from Japanese OEM's. The Street Devil body was manufactured by Parma, just like the Daytona Thunder body. Parma PSE doesn't seem to do so well anymore, but as far as I know, they are still in business, and I can't imagine that they would decline an order from Tamiya.
  6. I see no reason why the chassis can't be re-released, but a re-release of the body on any chassis is imho rather unlikely. Unlike the Monster Hilux body, it was blowmolded, and blowmolding of lexan bodies was a process that Tamiya never really managed properly. Not anyone else either, as far as I know. Obviously a lot of scrap in the production and the bodies that passed the QC and found their way into the hands of customers, were often slightly flawed too. And even when not, they were so fragile that they didn't last long anyway.
  7. Officially in August, but time will vary somewhat from country to country.
  8. I don't think you really mean this and that's it's just a matter of choice of words, but just in case somebody should think it's literally as described, I feel obliged to comment. In batteries with the cells connected in series and in storage, no current can flow from one cell to another. That's only possible for cells connected in parallel, and in that case, current will flow from the cell(s) with the highest voltage to cell(s) with a lower voltage and until cell voltages are the same. That will almost without exceptions be from the best cell(s) to the cell(s) in a poorer condition and/or lower state of charge. In batteries with the cells connected in parallel and with cells in different states of deterioration, the resulting different rates of self discharging and different actual capacities will contribute to (further) imbalance within the battery. However, self-discharging is not causing currents to flow between cells in a battery with the cells connected in series. The loss of energy happens within each single cell, and is lost in a chemical process that produces heat and increases pressure. For any current to flow in a battery with the cells connected in series, the battery must be connected to a load (or short circuited). In an open circuit (battery disconnected) no current can flow, neither out of the battery, nor within the battery itself.
  9. I'm not too fond of the proportions of this body, but it struck me that it could possibly be suitable for a baja racer. Despite being quite fascinated by all the types of cars that have been turned into baja racers, I've never thought about a US van before. Google came up with very few photos. James Garner's Olds Cutlass "Banshee" at the bottom of the photo has fascinated me for a long time though, and now that Kyosho has a Chevelle, replicating James Garner's successor to the Banshee wouldn't be too hard.
  10. It's the XB-version of the Hummer (factory-built), which was released after the kit version. The kit was released in 1995, the first version of the XB in 2002 and second XB-version in 2007. The chassis in the photos is the 2007 XB-version. As pointed out above, chassis tub length is the same as TA01/DF01, so TA01/DF01 prop shaft fits. The suspension arms are however unique for this chassis (officially dubbed Dirt 4WD by Tamiya). However, they use TA01 wheelshafts and TA02 (front) driveshafts and TA01/DF01 uprights, so just the suspension arms themselves can be a little difficult to source. If you convert to TA01 or DF01, the suspension arms must be replaced with readily available TA01/TA02/DF01 suspension arms anyway.
  11. I made RTV-molds for the XR311/Cheetah driver, Rough Rider/Super Champ driver, Porsche 959 heads, Sand Scorcher nose cone and several others before Tamiya started with re-releases. Molding copies in resin from RTV-molds is relatively easy, but the problem is cost. Even when buying RTV-silicone and resin in larger than normal hobby-quantities, the resulting cost of each copy isn't that much lower than the original parts. And the RTV-molds don't last forever. So, in theory, making copies can quite often seem to be a way of saving money, but in reality very little, if anything, can be saved. So, now that many of the old parts have again become available, I only make resin copies of parts that can't be bought new. It's a quite fun activity though!
  12. I would just like to point out that the calculated values (W / Watt) are the theoretical maximum values the different batteries can deliver. The actual current is limited to the actual current draw of the motor at a given voltage. So, if the motor doesn't draw more than 10A at 9.6V, the 9.6V NiMH will deliver 96W, whereas the 7.4V Lipo will deliver approximately (10A x 7.4V / 9.6V ) x 7.4V = 57W (but the lower weight of the Lipo will of course have a positive impact on the model's performance). So, a higher C-rate of the battery doesn't necessarily mean that the actual power is higher too. Furthermore, the voltage values are just nominal voltages. Actual voltage under load will always be lower than the resting voltage at the same state of charge. However, if the stated C-rate of a battery is honest and correct, the drop in voltage under load will normally be lower the higher the C-rate. Also, the C-rate isn't constant during the whole discharge cycle. Also, the load profile (varying current draw during discharge) will have an impact on the voltage curve during discharge, thus having an impact on the resulting power (W) and voltage (V, which roughly relates to rpm). As a rule of thumb: Maximum available power: Voltage of fully charged battery right after complete the charge X C-rate Minimum available power: Voltage at the point of cut-off X Value lower than C-rate Actual power consumed by motor: Voltage "seen"* by motor X maximum current draw of the motor at that voltage (but limited to the battery's C-rate at the actual state of charge) Actual power delivered by motor: Actual power consumed by motor minus losses** *(battery voltage at any time minus voltage drop of cables, connectors and ESC) **(Losses vary with temperature, rpm, voltage and current, and generally, the losses will increase exponentially with increasing voltage and current)
×
×
  • Create New...