Bel Ray Bullet Build

[Blissard 359]

Thanks!

OSR; I was thinking something like that, my brother suggested me to scan it and print with a 3d printer, and I thought about covering it with a metal sheet. Best option is to vacuum form with styrene but I don't know who does that.

[OldSchoolRunner 116]

There is a guy here in Ontario Canda that does it. He sell a lot on ebay. YOU should contact him. I will get his username for you.

OSR

[OldSchoolRunner 116]

teambluegrove is his ebay username. Contact him and see what he says. A well known and reputable ebay seller.

OSR

[wildwillhappy 15]

Ok i know this is an old thread but have you finished it yet

wild

[wildwillhappy 15]

hi Tam tom 

Love your wheels and tyres what are they and from where, so cool man

wild

[Blissard 359]

On 4/18/2014 at 1:01 AM, OldSchoolRunner said:

teambluegrove is his ebay username. Contact him and see what he says. A well known and reputable ebay seller.

OSR

Thank you! I decided to build my own vacuum table, when this body is finished I am planning to vacuum form one from thin abs so I can still work on it. 

[Blissard 359]

On 3/27/2017 at 9:10 PM, wildwillhappy said:

Ok i know this is an old thread but have you finished it yet

wild

I was in Africa so I haven't done any work since last time I posted. I started working on this now and I will post again soon. 

[wildwillhappy 15]

hi scale

so your going to make your own body's now, wow. any way good to here from you mate. 

wild

[Blissard 359]

Back to this build after a long break. I've been working on this the last week and I finally bonded the side pods, built a nose piece and finished the curved part in front of the driver. Also replaced front suspension and rear wishbones with MK1 ones, and narrowed the rear track by 6mm each side by eliminating the outer bushings.

Coming next is rear shock mounts, new rollbar and few other smol details. Also thinking about shortening the front shock towers to accommodate shorter rear shocks but I feel bad cutting MK1 parts already.

Enjoy my terrible photos.

 

Reference for nose:

Why is this in vintage discussion now ?

Cheers.

[Blissard 359]

Anyway, I'll keep posting for documentation. Rear shock mounts and the part I shaved from rear wishbones...

I could narrow the track more but the tires rub the shocks.

 

[zappto 192]

What an interesting build you got here, i always thought Rough rider exist real. This is cool build, keep up!

[Blissard 359]

10 hours ago, zappto said:

What an interesting build you got here, i always thought Rough rider exist real. This is cool build, keep up!

Thank you! Unfortunately there are so many differences between Tamiya and the real buggy so I have to modify almost everything. 

 

Started working on partial roll cage, roof and gas caps:

[mongoose1983 3335]

Glad to see your project buggy coming along, Bert. It looks absolutely fantastic!

[Blissard 359]

5 hours ago, mongoose1983 said:

Glad to see your project buggy coming along, Bert. It looks absolutely fantastic!

Thank you very much Erich! I am planning to finish and sell it before the new year, it's been 6 years already

[Juggular 4961]

On 8/15/2020 at 12:52 PM, Blissard said:

Anyway, I'll keep posting for documentation. Rear shock mounts and the part I shaved from rear wishbones...

I could narrow the track more but the tires rub the shocks.

 

Awesome project!  I always wished the body looked more sleek like the 1:1 version. (I understand that it had to contain the battery, etc. But with shorty LiPo packs it can be narrowed!)

Did narrowing the tracks mean giving up the bearings?  

 

[Blissard 359]

2 hours ago, Juggular said:

Awesome project!  I always wished the body looked more sleek like the 1:1 version. (I understand that it had to contain the battery, etc. But with shorty LiPo packs it can be narrowed!)

Did narrowing the tracks mean giving up the bearings?  

 

Thank you! I have a Sand Scorcher 2010 battery and it fits perfectly the original way, I think the original hump packs would fit too since they're just a little bit longer.

I still have the inner bearings since they're MK1 wishbones. But if I want to run it I would have to upgrade the UJ's to Super Champ version since brass ones are loose and cause vibration.

[Mokei Kagaku 2706]

2 hours ago, Juggular said:

Did narrowing the tracks mean giving up the bearings?  

I don't intend to answer for Blissard as he of course can do that himself, but from the photo, I can see that he uses early rear arms with bearing on the inside, which surely is adequate for a model that won't be run hard.

I chose a different approach for the SRB-chassis I'm currently putting rebuilding to use the Esci/Italeri/Testors/Revell 1/9 VW Type 82 Kubelwagen body. When I first built it in the late 80's, I made the rear suitably narrow for the body by placing the hubs on the outside of the wheels. It seemed OK back then, but when I started rebuilding it a couple of months ago, I wanted a better solution. I ended up buying the rear arms from RC Channel's "full IRS" suspension. They are quite a lot narrower, but the hole is 18mm, so I need to have tubes turned with 18mm diameter and 11mm hole for double flanged 1150 ball bearings. The photo below is from RC Channel. I used just the arms without the hubs, resulting in a shorter version of the original arms.

[Blissard 359]

2 minutes ago, Mokei Kagaku said:

I don't intend to answer for Blissard as he of course can do that himself, but from the photo, I can see that he uses early rear arms with bearing on the inside, which surely is adequate for a model that won't be run hard.

I chose a different approach for the SRB-chassis I'm currently putting rebuilding to use the Esci/Italeri/Testors/Revell 1/9 VW Type 82 Kubelwagen body. When I first built it in the late 80's, I made the rear suitably narrow for the body by placing the hubs on the outside of the wheels. It seemed OK back then, but when I started rebuilding it a couple of months ago, I wanted a better solution. I ended up buying the rear arms from RC Channel's "full IRS" suspension. They are quite a lot narrower, but the hole is 18mm, so I need to have tubes turned with 18mm diameter and 11mm hole for double flanged 1150 ball bearings. The photo below is from RC Channel. I used just the arms without the hubs, resulting in a shorter version of the original arms.

 

Great information! How much narrower did your rear track get ? Mine got 6mm narrower from each side but if I change lower shock locations I can narrow them more until the first bearing minus 1mm to hold the bearing in place.

[Nugget 412]

Looking good. The first images of the Rough Rider were a lot more accurate to the Bel Ray Bullet. Quite a few differences to the later box art. 

[Blissard 359]

15 minutes ago, Nugget said:

Looking good. The first images of the Rough Rider were a lot more accurate to the Bel Ray Bullet. Quite a few differences to the later box art. 

 

Thanks! I've never seen that poster before, it really looks like the real thing with the roll cage, side pods and rear curves. Also good reminder for me to make a front bumper.

[Nugget 412]

It’s an early poster, Tamiya didn’t use this image much. 

[Mokei Kagaku 2706]

12 hours ago, Blissard said:

Thanks! I've never seen that poster before, it really looks like the real thing with the roll cage, side pods and rear curves. 

The kit was originally released with this boxart and a NIB kit with this is obviously a lot more collectible than kits with the later simplified boxart.  As you all probably know, Tamiya often had boxarts with the statement "artist's impression" to avoid customer complaints when the actual model turned out to be quite different. Like for instance the IRS trailing arm suspension on the Grasshopper boxart and powered solid front axle on the Lunch Box boxart. My guess is that Tamiya took it a bit too far with the Rough Rider boxart and had to change it to more closely represent the model. Apart from the obvious differences like nerf bars, double rear shocks, more complex roll bar, window nets, shape of the rear end and the scale bumper, there are multiple other differences to be found in a direct comparison;

the early box art has authentic VW swing axle rear suspension, more realistic front suspension, more realistic dampers, brake drums (visible on the front right side, and yes, class 1 and 2 buggies used drum brakes back then!), more authentic rear cage and surely a lot more. Also, on the early boxart, it's just black behind the driver, and you can't see through, indicating that the space above the gearbox is cluttered with details.

As a sidenote, the rules for the class 1 / 2 buggies required the use of the original VW Type 1 swing axle rear suspension. The later double jointed trailing arms (found on the VW 1302/1303 (Super Beetle) and on all VW Beetles with semi-AT transmission from MY1960 onwards in USA, from MY1968 ROW) was not allowed. So the constant camber changes are a must for an authentic class 1 / 2 RC-model, even if the design of the SRB rear suspension isn't realistic at all.

Btw, I have always wondered why Tamiya didn't replicate the swing axle rear suspension correctly. Kyosho had a true swing axle rear suspension on the Cactus Buggy (and other cars in the same series) and it worked well, being an evolution of the very simplistic swing axle rear suspension found on the early Kyosho Peanut series buggies. 

 

 

[Mokei Kagaku 2706]

13 hours ago, Blissard said:

Great information! How much narrower did your rear track get ? Mine got 6mm narrower from each side but if I change lower shock locations I can narrow them more until the first bearing minus 1mm to hold the bearing in place.

About 10mm on each side, but I'll measure and make some comparison photos later.

12 hours ago, Blissard said:

Also good reminder for me to make a front bumper.

I'm sure you are capable of making a scale bumper on your own, but I was lazy and got two from Lightningrapid. They make it in two different versions, just like the Bel Ray Bullet had. Narrow, as seen on the early Tamiya RR boxart and a wider one, as seen on the restored 1:1 Bel Ray Bullet. 

[Blissard 359]

32 minutes ago, Mokei Kagaku said:

About 10mm on each side, but I'll measure and make some comparison photos later.

I'm sure you are capable of making a scale bumper on your own, but I was lazy and got two from Lightningrapid. They make it in two different versions, just like the Bel Ray Bullet had. Narrow, as seen on the early Tamiya RR boxart and a wider one, as seen on the restored 1:1 Bel Ray Bullet. 

They both look great! I had Sand Scorcher front and rear cages from him, very well made.

I am going with the very early version with white roll cage and this type of front bumper. But since I can't work with metal mine will be plastic.

[Blissard 359]

51 minutes ago, Mokei Kagaku said:

The kit was originally released with this boxart and a NIB kit with this is obviously a lot more collectible than kits with the later simplified boxart.  As you all probably know, Tamiya often had boxarts with the statement "artist's impression" to avoid customer complaints when the actual model turned out to be quite different. Like for instance the IRS trailing arm suspension on the Grasshopper boxart and powered solid front axle on the Lunch Box boxart. My guess is that Tamiya took it a bit too far with the Rough Rider boxart and had to change it to more closely represent the model. Apart from the obvious differences like nerf bars, double rear shocks, more complex roll bar, window nets, shape of the rear end and the scale bumper, there are multiple other differences to be found in a direct comparison;

the early box art has authentic VW swing axle rear suspension, more realistic front suspension, more realistic dampers, brake drums (visible on the front right side, and yes, class 1 and 2 buggies used drum brakes back then!), more authentic rear cage and surely a lot more. Also, on the early boxart, it's just black behind the driver, and you can't see through, indicating that the space above the gearbox is cluttered with details.

As a sidenote, the rules for the class 1 / 2 buggies required the use of the original VW Type 1 swing axle rear suspension. The later double jointed trailing arms (found on the VW 1302/1303 (Super Beetle) and on all VW Beetles with semi-AT transmission from MY1960 onwards in USA, from MY1968 ROW) was not allowed. So the constant camber changes are a must for an authentic class 1 / 2 RC-model, even if the design of the SRB rear suspension isn't realistic at all.

Btw, I have always wondered why Tamiya didn't replicate the swing axle rear suspension correctly. Kyosho had a true swing axle rear suspension on the Cactus Buggy (and other cars in the same series) and it worked well, being an evolution of the very simplistic swing axle rear suspension found on the early Kyosho Peanut series buggies. 

 

 

Thank you for the information. I was planning to make swing axle rear suspension for mine but decided to keep it stock since it turned out to be too much work. Still thinking about shortening the front shock towers though.