Mssing Something...

[chinaman SS 0]

If we define 'soul' as something being unique then i guess the newer kits do not have any 'soul'! I mean what can compare to a SRB or Wild One or ... (fill in the blanks)

Or are our minds already saturated with shapes and designs and so it will take something exceptional to be different and that will be a risk on it own as it may turn out looking **** ... It is more functional that anything else these days ...

eg: look at the cars on the road these days ... they are all the same ... we have to spend a lot to get some thing with 'soul' ... they all have the same shape ... and look at a 66' Mustang or a Volkswagen type 2 ... heavenly ...

[Singapore_959 18]

If we define 'soul' as something being unique then i guess the newer kits do not have any 'soul'! I mean what can compare to a SRB or Wild One or ... (fill in the blanks)

Or are our minds already saturated with shapes and designs and so it will take something exceptional to be different and that will be a risk on it own as it may turn out looking **** ... It is more functional that anything else these days ...

eg: look at the cars on the road these days ... they are all the same ... we have to spend a lot to get some thing with 'soul' ... they all have the same shape ... and look at a 66' Mustang or a Volkswagen type 2 ... heavenly ...

Lotus Exige S1, baby!!!

Old is gold?

[442xcar 2]

The thing that I'll always associate with soul is Round Headlights and Chrome bumpers. Back in the day all cars had these two things, and are rarely seen today.......

[gba888 0]

Great thread! Yes, almost all new cars IMO lack soul and character. They are all cookie cutter designs mounted on original chassis. The only thing that got me back into RC some 20 years later was the tamiya tamtech buggies. They had the vintage "look"...none of the streamlined color splashed blacked out windows junk. I then moved onto some of the 1/10 re-re kits and also RC10s.

I remember sitting in school looking through rc car action for what probably amounted to numerous hours dreaming of how cool it would be if I (or my parents) could afford such and such car (all I ever had were a few nikko rtrs and a grasshopper).

You leaf through a towerhobbies catalog these days and it's the same "truggies", trucks, and streamlined junk and it all looks the same. I think another large factor is the wheels....all I see anymore with newer cars are the flat dish wheels.... just no character or "personality". Nothing new to really get excited about. One recent kyosho car though stands out to me.... kyosho ultima db I was going to get one of these, but never did.

[markbt73 5316]

I think it's not the vehicles but the companies that have lost their soul, as tends to happen when companies get big and the bean counters and marketing execs become more important than the engineers. They want whatever will sell to the greatest number of customers for the highest profit. RC cars might as well be toothpaste or designer clothes. It's just a product to them.

The other problem is that the period of experimentation is over, and designs that "work" have been standardized. You'd never see monoshocks or complicated gearboxes in a modern design, because there are better ways of doing it. But that pioneer spirit, having 30 companies all trying something unique, looking for an edge, created a wonderful period of creativity and innovation during the 80s. Now, you have 5 companies all trying to copy one another's tried-and-true setups, all playing "me too" as soon as one of them has a sales hit, and one company rehashing its "glory days." It's just not as fun of a marketplace anymore.

But it's a mistake to equate competent performance with a lack of soul, and it's also a mistake to celebrate poor design and call shortcomings "character." A superb design, well-executed, is a thing of beauty, and frankly, most RC cars are more interesting to me with the bodies off. Form is always second to function. I'm a chassis guy. And while I can appreciate the pioneering creativity of the early designs, I would never call modern designs "soulless." The Traxxas T-Maxx is an engineering masterpiece. Same with the Associated RC10B4. Purposeful, elegant, well-made, and precise. I can't say the same for a Sand Scorcher. Fascinating piece of functional scale modeling, yes. Finely engineered, not so much. (That said, I love my Lunchbox with all my heart.)

My big problem is not with modern vehicles, but with the way they're presented. Engineering departments create these wonders of mechanization, and then the marketing guys ruin them by offering them only as RTR, with garish ugly paint jobs and cheap electronics, reducing what should be a fascinating mechanical marvel to nothing more than a junky toy, waiting on a shelf for any idiot with a credit card to come along and abuse them for half an hour, then lose interest. The entry fee into the world of RC used to be the rite of passage of building your car from a kit. Now that's gone, and it cheapens the whole hobby.

I don't pine for the vehicles of the past. I pine for the attitudes of the past, when this was still a hobby. I don't want to reminisce about old things anymore. I want to be excited about something new again.

[GTodd 1350]

Do not get me wrong, I am very proud that Tamiya's name can be spoken in the same sentence with Associated etc when speaking of top of the line racing RC cars. Why couldnt Tamiya include a sexy body on the 511X or 201X? If I buy a 201x im either painting it Astute REd with Astute decals or DS blue with DS decals to add some style back.

[GTodd 1350]

Do not get me wrong, I am very proud that Tamiya's name can be spoken in the same sentence with Associated etc when speaking of top of the line racing RC cars. Why couldnt Tamiya include a sexy body on the 511X or 201X? If I buy a 201x im either painting it Astute REd with Astute decals or DS blue with DS decals to add some style back.

PS

I just bought an Audi A5, that car is pure sex on wheels!!!!!!

[Hibernaculum 933]

The other problem is that the period of experimentation is over, and designs that "work" have been standardized. You'd never see monoshocks or complicated gearboxes in a modern design, because there are better ways of doing it. But that pioneer spirit, having 30 companies all trying something unique, looking for an edge, created a wonderful period of creativity and innovation during the 80s. Now, you have 5 companies all trying to copy one another's tried-and-true setups, all playing "me too" as soon as one of them has a sales hit, and one company rehashing its "glory days." It's just not as fun of a marketplace anymore.

I think this pretty much sums it up 100%. Well done markbt73.

The days of truly unique, realism-inspired buggy design are over. We are lucky it ever happened. Technology and efficiency has erased the natural character and soul that older, less perfect buggies had.

A lot of the reason why we love the old cars is their quirky and flawed designs. But quirks and flaws are no longer permissible in the modern marketplace - everything has reached a level of standardised, boring perfection. The cheapest, crappest buggy of today smokes the best buggy of 1985 in terms of performance. And this entertains kids for a few minutes. Then they go back to computer games.

The re-releases are a nice exception - here are some old designs and old tech, selling in the modern marketplace. But Tamiya seem to only believe that this works when it has the "nostalgia" factor to back it up, and the cars are already familiar to people. It is a re-release of cars, but sadly not a re-release of ideas or spirit. I wish it were the latter, and Tamiya invented some "new vintage" models that actually use old tech and ideas from the 80s. But there appears to be no market for this. Tamiya refuses to even use proper vintage decals and brand names - which is a joke.

It's a sad irony of the RC world that companies have always strived for perfection and better performance, yet ultimately the destination was not as much fun as the journey itself.

H.

[Origineelreclamebord 45]

Achem,... I think you mean a Dyna Storm shell on a 201

Did you know that these fit together quite well actually? Only the piece in front and maybe also at the back need cutting out in a few more places, but other than that it's a match! (throw a complete undercowl or part of a Nimrod one on the shell and it will fly nicely, too )

Anyway, I think Markbt73 pointed out various important things which I agree with completely, and what's caused these problems.

There's one brand at the moment that really catches my imagination, and I'm sorry to tell you... It's not Tamiya

Have you had a good look at the cars from Team Durango? These cars really push the competition into innovating. Ok, it will probably end up in copying each others designs again... But what if Durango would keep their spirit of making (as compared to the 80's) small but very clever solutions in their cars? I'm talking here about the quick release spur gear+slipper clutches, the easy to remove gearboxes, the rubber boots for the dampers and driveshafts, the reversible gearbox for mid or rear motored driving on their 2WD Buggy prototype... They are clever solutions, and it isn't just some posh and expensive car with some gadgets on it, because they work, and the car keeps up with the competition handling wise. They are really different, even in their body designs they are more different than any other brand (even though their bodies are also blobs in essence). Maybe it's because they aimed to improve certain aspects, and tried to make every single part to fit their requirements to improve them on those aspects? I don't know it, but I like them

This small message above is by the way also proof that the industry itself isn't soulless, and not every car is... But it must not become more soulless than some things already are...

[Tamiya1/10 382]

There are 2 or more groups within the RC family. Those like scale and details and those like performances and durability. If I want performance, there is no way I want say a model like Wild One over any of the current new buggies. And if I want scale and detail, why would I want something from TRF which doesn't look like any chassis on the road, you want the old 3 spd.

One can never blame company wanting to make money and usually making money is caterrig to the masses not to the few. Once you are a owner or in managment position where you have to make payroll, settle invoices, bankers etc... than you will understand why company has to make money. No company can make product that will be liked by everyone. Some model you will take fancy to, while others won't touch it and vice versa. In the end only buy the models you like else your house will not be big enough to house the RC.....for substantially all of us.

[qatmix 794]

Having the two side by side the 201x shell is much nicer than the dynastorm shell.

Modern rc cars are beautiful feats of precise engineering. The cars of today are smart and I would never wish for the olden days. I might look back at some of my old classic cars with nostalgia but the fact they just moved was a plus.

Again as mentioned above there is no element of soul, just innovation to find either a cheaper or better performing solution.

[SteelRat 46]

So you'd prefer these vintage buggy's then (all from the first 100) than a TRF511?

In a word, YUP!

My Falcon is one of my favourite runners. And I shall almost certainly get another one.

The Saint Dragon you've pictured there has a **** site more WOW factor in the looks department than the bland-assed looks of a TRF511.

When it comes down to it, unless you're racing, when does how well a car perform really have any relation whatsoever to how much enjoyment you get out of it when you run it? Let's not forget that one of TC's favourite cars, the LunchBox has legendarily bad handling, but we love it because it's durable and above all fun.

What 1:1 car would you rather have if it was just for a bit of a laugh at the weekend? A Ford Cortina Mk II 1600E or a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Diesel?

Sure, the Mondeo probably handles better, goes better and is more practical, but if it's fun and enjoyment you're talking about, you're going to go for the Cortina every time.

[chinaman SS 0]

... A Ford Cortina Mk II 1600E ...

+1

I remember as a kid, my uncle had one and ... the exhaust smells good ...

[WW-nut 0]

In a word, YUP!

My Falcon is one of my favourite runners. And I shall almost certainly get another one.

The Saint Dragon you've pictured there has a **** site more WOW factor in the looks department than the bland-assed looks of a TRF511.

When it comes down to it, unless you're racing, when does how well a car perform really have any relation whatsoever to how much enjoyment you get out of it when you run it? Let's not forget that one of TC's favourite cars, the LunchBox has legendarily bad handling, but we love it because it's durable and above all fun.

What 1:1 car would you rather have if it was just for a bit of a laugh at the weekend? A Ford Cortina Mk II 1600E or a Ford Mondeo 1.8 Diesel?

Sure, the Mondeo probably handles better, goes better and is more practical, but if it's fun and enjoyment you're talking about, you're going to go for the Cortina every time.

But I haven't mentioned anything about how the car performs, I've got lots of WW1's, WW2's and Willy's Wheelers all which are completely hopeless at going around corners, but I still like them. If the TRF511 was a complete donkey I'd still like to have one just to look at. And if it had a driver figure I guess it would have many more admirers.

Though I do agree with you that the Saint Dragon has a lot more WOW factor in the looks department, "Wow, how Tamiya did they ever make such an ugly thing. It makes the HB2010 look like a stunner"

Each to their own,

[markbt73 5316]

Those Team Durango cars look interesting, but a bit pricey. It's nice to see some fresh blood in the marketplace. It'll be interesting to see where they go.

The company that really has my attention these days is HPI. I've been a fan of theirs for a long time, since I got my first RS4. With that car, especially the Rally variant, they seemed to knock down the barrier between scale looks and good performance, and it had tighter tolerances and higher-quality parts than anything Tamiya had on the shelf at the time. And now, the Cup Racer and the Cyber 10B both look like the sort of kit I want to build, and the sort of car I want to run. I also notice they sell the Blitz as a kit now, too. Now, they just need to come out with a 1/10 2WD buggy along the same lines as the 5B (sort of a neo-Ultima), and offer the Wheelie King as a true kit, and they'll be my new favorite RC company.

[MadInventor 3884]

Just thought I'd add my five cents worth. I agree that the modern buggys lack soul, partly I think due to the vac formed, 1 size fits all jelly mould bodyshells. If you think about, most of the cars people associate with having 'soul', have driver figures, whereas nearly all modern buggies have blanked out windows. Undeniably modern cars are better engineered and perform better, but I don't think it's this that makes them soulless, it's the jelly mould looks. I can remember when the hotshot came out, and nobody then was saying it was soulless because it performed better then previous models, partly I think because it still retained a bit of the baja look. If you compare it with the boomerang, which is slightly better from an engineering point of view and appeared shortly afterwards, it just seems to have a lot more character as the bodyshell does not just look like a dust cover. As someone already said, it's the tradeoff between scale looks and performance. I think good examples of more modern cars that still retain 'soul' are the Jugg2 and txt-1. Ok the txt has a jelly mould bodyshell, but at least tamiya retained solid axles and 4-link suspension, rather than going down the 4 whel independent suspension route, which would give best performance, but would not be as realistic. Also it has a more realistic transmission system than the much older clodbuster, so in the case, I would say the newer car has more character (particularly comparing the jugg2 with the clod).

Consider this ......

If you took a modern 4wd buggy, put a ford ranger shell on it with a realistic driver figure, shorten up the wishbones for a correct wheel width and fit brat wheels with 915s all round, would it then have soul ????? Is it the look of the car that gives it soul, or the performance, or is it just the age ??????

Or is just us ? I've had so many cars now, I just don't get the same buzz from cracking open a new kit that I used to. When I built my rere hotshot, it wasn't half as much fun as when I built my first one back in the 80's (That one was a challenge to me as an 11 year old, and I was anxious not to **** it up, but now nothing seems like much of a challenge). When I build a car now I'm more concerned about making every detail right, rather than just enjoying building it. Having said that, when I bought my second hand Jugg2 a couple of months ago, I had great fun dismantling and re-assembling it to fit roller bearings, as it was a kit I'd been thinking about getting for a long time, so there was a degree of anticipation. Perhaps as well, as adults, when a kit comes out we don't have to save the pocket money for a year to buy one, there is not that sense of anticipation when the kit arrives.

Thoughts ladies and gents .........

[Mouton 1]

Generally speaking yes, but there are exceptions!

I think part of why most tend to say the older cars had more soul is because we worked more on them. We were younger and sort of had to made do with what we had in another way than we do today. Getting a Reedy Modified or Kyosho LeMans meant you were almost as cool as the big guns that raced SPING motors... Today, everybody its brushless power to all - great but less magic.

I really think the TRF511 has soul. Very much so to boot. Over the years I have owned and worked on many of the "magical" Tamiyas; Sand Scorcher, Hilux, Wild Willy, Audi Quattro, Frog, Grasshopper, Wild One among others. The TRF511 is just as magical to build and work on. To drive it is simply pure pleasure - while it is a different beast comparisons are not easily made, but it is most definitely as much fun. It is my first choice for any outing now and I would say I like it and appreciate it as much as I did with the Frog on the early 80s.

I was therefore a bit disappointed when I discovered that the TRF201 lacks in soul. It is an excellent build and an truly great racing car, but when compared to its 4WD sibling its is clear that it lacks soul, something the TRF511 has. The 4WD may not look magic, but the more you work on it, the more its design grows on you. And once you start driving it - you see the magic!

[94eg! 834]

This is a can of worms that no two people will ever 100% agree upon..........................so here's my opinion (if anyone cares):

When it comes to style and function, these two things simply do not go hand in hand. In a racing aspect, form is ALWAYS second to function. Race cars look the way they do because they must work. Aerodynamics play a large roll in performance, so racers will always choose the body that gets the car around the track the quickest and most consistent. What it looks like is simply unimportant. This is why in any given class, all cars will look nearly identical. This is also why they each have outrageous paint jobs as this is the only way they can stand out...

As for comment about the Honda Civic, that was just ridiculous. My 94 Honda Civic has more soul and racing heritage than almost any other car on the road. Name any other brand that has formula-one tuner aftermarket support (Mugen of course). There is a reason the Integra Type R dominates showroom stock solo-II classes since it's US release in 97. It's one of the best street cars ever made. It also hasn't been duplicated since. When it comes to 1:1 cars, they are slaves to government regulation. This is the reason for them becoming fat expensive pigs.

[MadInventor 3884]

Ok guys, I guess the next question that follows on in this topic is...

What are the future classic cars from the last 10 years. The SRBs for the future .... (PS: Including re-re's is cheating )

I'd put forward the TXT-1 as the all time clasic monster truck, with the Jugg2 close behind because of the scale look, leaf springs & detailed body.

Full option King Tiger for the tanks

Don't know enough about modern buggies and road cars to make informed suggestion

Toyota Tundra - nice scale model

CR-01 as a fun off roader.

Would put in the Mad bull for a buggy but it's more than 10 years old....

What are other peoples thoughts ?

[SteelRat 46]

But I haven't mentioned anything about how the car performs, I've got lots of WW1's, WW2's and Willy's Wheelers all which are completely hopeless at going around corners, but I still like them. If the TRF511 was a complete donkey I'd still like to have one just to look at. And if it had a driver figure I guess it would have many more admirers.

Though I do agree with you that the Saint Dragon has a lot more WOW factor in the looks department, "Wow, how Tamiya did they ever make such an ugly thing. It makes the HB2010 look like a stunner"

Each to their own,

Heh I never said I LIKED the Saint Dragon, I'm just saying it's a lot more visually striking than a wedge shaped dust cover

[pikachoo-75 3]

wow..that is a kinda tough one...what will be a future classic?

Tamiya seem to do limited releases/exclusive parts models, so for a collector there will always be "collectable" models....

as for models with soul/character/desireability?

not alot shouts out at the moment does it?

i guess not my bag but CR01 (because its a first of its type)

most likely the TXT-1 because the ClodBuster seems to sell forever!

probably due to region..but i cant see the drift type chassis/cars being more than a trend/fad.

Short course trucks seem to be flavour of the month in alot of parts of the world but as yet no Tamiya version.

The re-re's dont count,so not alot of buggies to carry over..TRF 4 and 2wd seem indestinguishable from any other make of comp but that has always been the case (if it works..lets all do it)

I guess that's how it goes...if it's cutting edge today (and its style is comprimised for performance)it may not fair well in a few years time when its tech is old hat.

Ive always liked the cars that the M-chassis range has covered...the cars themselves,not so much whats underneath tho,so i guess more FWD M05 chassised RWD cars may slip the list too.

It would be massively cool if Tamiya tried to do a new take on the 959/celica.i mean a road/rally car that has a cool chassis.as "real" as is possible type layout and visual appeal.

then add a trademark masterpeice of a shell!

Perhaps the F201 is a similar effort but designed around F1 (four wheel drive F1?!) so that could be looked upon as a good scale type model.

as scale goes i guess the CC01 is along the lines of a re-re? perhaps a CC02 is required for future classic status?

intrested to see what others think too,its a good topic

[HunterZero 76]

My 2c... How good a car looks, how technical it is, how well it performs and desirability or preference of one model over another have nothing to do with its soul.

Some people here are confusing desirability for soul.

Yes, the TRF 511X is a technically fantastic car, I'd love to have one... But it's soulless (and while the chassis is pretty, the body shell is not). The Falcon and the Hornet have far more character and soul. Would I prefer a TRF 511X over a Hornet if someone offered me both cars? Absolutely. Does the TRF 511X have more soul than the Hornet? Absolutely not.

And on the Dyna Storm vs 201X: I'm sorry, but the 201X and the Dyna Storm really don't look that different side by side. If you showed both models to a casual observer, they'd have no idea that those cars are separated by more than 15 years in age. Neither has much soul to be honest. To me, the Dyna Storm is a great car technically, but it doesn't have much soul. It has more than a 201X, due to its sentimental value, quirks and the fact it was one of the earlier cars with that blank jellymould look, but that's about it.

The older cars have soul because they came from an era where there were no real rules or conventions of how an RC car should be constructed. Most older cars have some truly unique features, and each one looks like its designer put a lot of thought into the details of that car. They have features that were borrowed from real offroad buggies of the time. They were still experimenting with what could be done.

But once an 'ideal' template was found for these cars, all cars since have been based on the same basic formula with little innovation.

- James

[kaiser 8]

i'm a firm believer that "soul" comes from the relationship the owner/driver has with his or her car.

if you put your passion into a car you give it soul. if it's just an appliance then it has no soul.

if some regular person read this thread they'd think we were all insane. lol

[30cms 7]

i'm a firm believer that "soul" comes from the relationship the owner/driver has with his or her car.

which i guess means that what is "missing", is the fact that we are no longer 13 years old and building our first RC car, thus the feeling is not always the same/as good.

i think in 15 years time, a kid of today will be posting a thread saying 'these modern cars are soulless compared to the Rising Storm "Mk1" I built back in 2010.'

[SteelRat 46]

which i guess means that what is "missing", is the fact that we are no longer 13 years old and building our first RC car, thus the feeling is not always the same/as good.

i think in 15 years time, a kid of today will be posting a thread saying 'these modern cars are soulless compared to the Rising Storm "Mk1" I built back in 2010.'

I think it's more than that subjective feeling that one has for a particular model, and I also think it's a phenomenon that extends further than just model cars. If there is a personal human factor involved, I think it's one that comes from the designer of that model rather than the end user. These days the manufacture and development of things like model cars, and full sized ones has all sorts of rules and regulations, financial aims, and all the rest of it that restricts the passion of a truly talented designer.

Sure you will get something that not only is a technical marvel but also ticks those heart string pulling boxes as well, but because of that they're much fewer and farther between in my opinion.