Jump to content

Mokei Kagaku

Members
  • Content Count

    2136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2743 Excellent

4 Followers

About Mokei Kagaku

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Recent Profile Visitors

16090 profile views
  1. There exist at least two different versions of the front post for the original Sand Scorcher too. Early version, where the body clip snaps around a narrow portion of the tip of the post (similar to the RR post seen in the photo) and a later version where the tip has a hole where the straight part of the body clip passes through (similar to the SS post seen in the photo together with FR post).
  2. I've dug a little deeper for information, and found something that people with even just basic knowledge about the race's history know (and I didn't): The stickers included in 50222 (with Pierlant logos) are for the 1984 LM winner, whereas the stickers included in 58052 are for the 1985 LM winner, making the reason for the difference pretty obvious and not by far as enigmatic as I've thought for decades (while not caring enough to check). In fact, the stickers deliver the evidence themselves: 50222 has the classification-stickers (Group C1) indicating 1984, whereas the same type of stickers in 58052 indicate 1985. Similarly, the "driver" stickers for 50222 are for Henri Pescarolo and Klaus Ludwig (1984 winners), whereas they are for Klaus Ludwig, Paolo Barilla and John Winter (1985 winners) on the 58052 stickers. The boxarts for 24049 and 58052 reflect these differences too. As the races were arranged in mid June both years and considering Tamiya's significant leadtime for new items, it may have been more or less a coincidence that Tamiya decided to include the winning car's livery in 50222. After all, 50222 was released in September, so design freeze for 50222 was most likely before the race. As 58052 was also released in September (one year later), Tamiya probably decided to release 58052 before that year's race, not knowing that the 1985 version of the car would win that year. If so, changing the stickers from 1984- to 1985-spec and modifying the boxart of 24049 to reflect the change, might have been a last second decision.
  3. The version of the sticker set with Pierlant stickers was released as part of the 50222 Porsche 956 Racing Sticker Set in 1984, before the existence of 58052. 58052 was released in 1985 and got the sticker set without Pierlant logos. Interestingly, Tamiya released a 1/24 scale static model kit with Pierlant decals in 1984 (#24049). This kit used the same basic box art as 58052, but with Pierlant logos. 24049 was re-released in 2012 with the original box art. The same year, Tamiya released 58521 (RM-01) Newman Joest Porsche 956 without the Pierlant logos. In other words, licensing doesn't seem to have any relevance for the existence of the two versions of stickers. In theory, two versions of 58052 may have existed to be sold in different countries (just like the "Rothmans" and "Racing" versions of the 959), but it doesn't seem likely. Restored and "New Built" models of 58052 are often seen with Pierlant logos, but considering that the original stickers and body parts set for 58052 weren't available as regular 5-digit items, they were difficult to source. 50222 Porsche 956 Racing Sticker Set, being a regular 5-digit item, is still relatively easy to find, 40 years after release! I haven't compared the sticker set for 58521 with 58052, but it's pretty likely that a few sponsor logos have been omitted from 58521 for the usual licensing reasons, so, for the correct restoration of a 58052, the sticker set from 58521 probably has to be combined with 50222. That is, unless able to source an original sticker set for 58052.
  4. 2024: 47499 Opel Kadett GT/E (Pre-Painted Body) (MB-01 chassis) 47503 Motul Autech Z (Pre-Painted Body) (TT-02 chassis)
  5. I have never been much fond of RC vehicles in smaller scales than 1/12, except for some special models like the Mammoth Dump Truck. I was into Tamtech for a couple of years in the late 80's and Mini-Z models impress me with the great authenticity and quality of the bodies, but running small scale models is something I don't enjoy at all. I appreciate that people who live in areas where space is very limited can see small scale models as an attractive alternative, but I still don't understand the small scale RC craze of recent years. During the last 20 years, the only small scale RC models I've bought, are the TTG buggies, but just as shelf queens.
  6. I guess I am, but it's a sign of stupidity and/or ignorance too. After all, nobody lives forever and considering all the friends and family members who have passed since I got the CR-V kit and that I'm not getting any younger either, waiting this long for a more suitable (imho) chassis, could easily have been in vain.
  7. That's why I fitted TL01- instead of the original CB-suspension arms to make the chassis narrow enough for the CR-V body. I haven't checked the resulting width with TL01 suspension arms in combination with portals though. If it should be too wide (for the humvee body), there's always the possibility to use the M03/M04 suspension arms, but with arms that short, suspension performance will surely suffer. So maybe TL01 or CB arms with M05Ra uprights and hubs is the best compromise of (added) ground clearance and suspension performance rather than the combination of portals and M03/M04 arms?
  8. I bought one GF-02 first, but have the intention of mounting the Tamiya Humvee body on a GF-02 with portals too. Needless to say, the rear suspension arms would have to be flipped for a suitable wheelbase. However, when checking for feasibility, it turned out that the Humvee body will sit too high on the chassis when using Humvee wheels and tires, even without portals. Without portals, it should be possible to get it low enough by shaving off the front body post mounts. Probably still not enough to allow for portals to be fitted without the body sitting too high too.
  9. When Tamiya released the Honda CR-V model in 1996, it immeditately bothered me a bit that it came on the CC-01 chassis with its live rear axle instead of a full independent suspension front and rear like the real car. So when I bought the kit, I put aside a body with the intention of mounting it on a chassis with a more authentic suspension. Though it would have been easy enough to use a TL-01 or TA01/TA02 with the wheelbase extended to the appropriate 267mm, it didn't feel quite right and there were enough other models to deal with all these years that have passed since the release. So, when Tamiya released the GF-02 chassis, I considered it to be a suitable chassis for the CR-V and went ahead with the few modifications required to make it fit. It still remains to find suitable body mounts and fit proper shocks, but you get an idea. Finally a suitable chassis, almost 30 years later.
  10. Unlike the 58005 Countach, the 58008 Countach CS didn't come with authentic "telephone dial" wheels, but with generic wheels for sponge tires. So did the 58009 Celica CS. Mongoose's car is either a Celica CS or Countach CS, but with a 50085 F1-bumper fitted. From the photos, I can't see whether it's a Countach CS or Celica CS, but if you (Mongoose) look at the rear wheels, a (molded) bolt pattern indicates it's a Celica (50057 Rear-B type), whereas a completely smooth surface indicates it's a Countach CS (50076 Rear-D type). If I recall correctly, the rear wheels are the only thing that distinguishes a Countach CS chassis from a Celica CS chassis.
  11. 2024: 47500 Toyota Celica GT-Four RC White Painted Body (TT-02 chassis) 47505 Toyota Supra (JZA80) Metallic Blue Painted Body (BT-01 chassis)
  12. 2024: 57939 XB Motul Autech Z (TT-02 chassis)
  13. Tamiya RC-models often are not the actual scale as "printed on the box" and that's nothing new at all, but at least the proportions tend to be very good. Apart from the "Comical" models, which of course and thankfully are deliberately out of proportions, I can't recall any other bodies than the 58036 Audi quattro and 58037 Opel Ascona with as poor proportions as the new Citroen DS. That's what bothers me and I don't at all have a problem with it not actully being 1/10 scale. One roughly consistent scale would have been nice though!
  14. I'm sorry, but I simply can't stop whining about the new Tamiya Citroen DS. Meanwhile I've found the significant dimensions of the model and the scale varies a lot. Length: 1/11.5 scale Widtn: 1/9.0 scale Height: 1/10.7 scale Wheelbase: 1/13.1 This indicates deviations in proportions roughly as below. Because the length scale is quite different from the wheelbase scale, the body obviously varies in scale along the longitudinal axis. Not knowing exactly how it varies, I didn't take this variation into account. However, the "Tamiya" version in the drawing below has a wheelbase of about 270mm (correct for the 419mm length), whereas the actual model has a 239mm wheelbase, so the proportions are in reality even more distorted. That said, the model will, like the real car, have a narrower track rear than front, and with an overall width (front) like a pretty wide touring car, my guess is that the DS comes with MB-01 rear suspension and BT-01 front suspension.
×
×
  • Create New...