What the heck is that?!?! i.e. current bodies

[Saito2]

Being sheltered in the world of Tamiya and vintage RC in general means I don't typically even glance at modern stuff (unless it's scaler-type stuff). Unfortunately, I did poke around some other manufacturers offerings this weekend. Now I know it's probably not the newest thing around, but these new "cab forward" bodies are absolutely awful. The RC10B5 (and the stadium truck version), Ultima RB6 plus what ever Losi's selling these days don't look like anything remotely akin to a buggy or a vehicle period. I know cab forward has it's benefits but there comes a point where enough is enough. I remember when folks complained about the loss of driver figures or the influx of "spaceship" buggies (i.e. Avante, Thundershot, etc.) but those are works of art compared to what's currently available. Good cab forward to me is the Vanquish or Terra Scorcher. Current body offerings look like they got stepped on or run over. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh. It's just my opinion. I just hope body design gets reigned in a little.

[Nitomor]

I agree totally, but even modern Tamiya's are (to a far lesser extent) guilty of looking less plausible. Dark impact for example, don't think the driver would get a very good view of the track ahead!!

 

[Wooders28]

Is the reason for the change , the motor lay out? 

I got the schumacher K1 a while back and motor is really far forward and the batteries sit behind it, you need the height near the front to clear the spur.

[Theibault]

The reason for cab forward bodies, and now front wings is simply for more downforce on the front of buggies.

[Wooders28]

Front wings?!?! 😮

[Dangerseeker]

those 'modern' cab fwd bodies aren't beauties, i fully agree. i do not understand how this would change airodynamics in a way the front gets more downforce. on the opposite for me it looks the bodies with their bulky cubic sized cabins have more air resistance, however, i'm no engineer, just thinking.

[MadInventor]

It's just been a long downhill slope since the Supershot

 

[Hibernaculum]

Beyond a certain point, performance becomes detrimental to the visual design of any model car (imho). I see it as being like a spectrum ("realism" at one end, and "speed" at the other). Whether it's slot cars, tether cars, or R/C, the result is always the same. The more "performance", the less "appearance". Once upon a time, every model car was scale, because that was the whole point of making them. Today, the fastest toy car designs on earth hardly look like "cars" at all. More like physics experiments.

These are extreme examples, but the same tug-of-war applies to every "working toy car" on the spectrum, and I always think it's at the heart of any ugly new design.

The more speed you want, the more realism you lose. We all know how R/C buggy and truck designs changed through the 80s, and how by the mid-90s a lot of realism had been lost entirely from the off-road market. Some has returned in the past decade or so (not to buggies, but at least to trucks, 4x4s etc) but the conflict continues... and things can quickly swing toward ugly. Modern buggies feel pretty much embedded in ugly aesthetics to me now, and unlikely to escape.

I also look at all the R/C drones today, and how almost none of them reflect any real vehicle. Where once it was about scale model R/C helicopters, now it's about "entertainment devices". Many cars could probably be described the same way.

In the end, your tolerance for it boils down to: "How much realism am I willing to forego?". For me, the answer is "not much". I'd rather drive a Nikko Suzuki Jimny 4WD from 1982, at 2km/h along a little dirt track, than practically any new off-roader found in a hobby shop today 

H.

[kontemax]

7 hours ago, Saito2 said:

Being sheltered in the world of Tamiya and vintage RC in general means I don't typically even glance at modern stuff (unless it's scaler-type stuff). Unfortunately, I did poke around some other manufacturers offerings this weekend. Now I know it's probably not the newest thing around, but these new "cab forward" bodies are absolutely awful. The RC10B5 (and the stadium truck version), Ultima RB6 plus what ever Losi's selling these days don't look like anything remotely akin to a buggy or a vehicle period. I know cab forward has it's benefits but there comes a point where enough is enough. I remember when folks complained about the loss of driver figures or the influx of "spaceship" buggies (i.e. Avante, Thundershot, etc.) but those are works of art compared to what's currently available. Good cab forward to me is the Vanquish or Terra Scorcher. Current body offerings look like they got stepped on or run over. Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh. It's just my opinion. I just hope body design gets reigned in a little.

I agree with you on everything but try to think in another way.

These ugly bodies make Tamiya models more beautiful.

Max

[kontemax]

6 hours ago, Wooders28 said:

Front wings?!?! 😮

Too much speed, too much power, too much grip.

The off road concept is gone years ago.

 

Max

[MadInventor]

To my mind, with the advent of brushless motors and LiPo batteries, there is no excuse for putting jelly moulds on R/C cars. There is more than enough power and duration to be able to pretty much ignore aerodynamics. Sure, if you're producing a full on race car then perhaps there is reasoning behind it, but for cars intended for bashing, there is no reason not to put a bit more effort into the aesthetic of the model. I've just recently bought a GF-01 dump truck, and I think it highly unlikely that it would handle any better or go any faster with an aerodynamic jelly mould shell than the standard one, especially if I'm running it on LiPo. I'm still thinking about how good the likes of the original Ultima, and the hotshot looked

 

 

[kontemax]

6 minutes ago, MadInventor said:

There is more than enough power and duration to be able to pretty much ignore aerodynamics.

... there is no reason not to put a bit more effort into the aesthetic of the model.

This is the point. Companies like Kyosho, Asso, Losi, the very bad Traxxas (and other ones) never spent a cent on the effort to make a model with a decent look. The trend is always the same.

Tamiya has a different philosopy and the Tamiya customer is a different breed.

Proud to be a Tamiya customer.

Max

[Hibernaculum]

1 hour ago, MadInventor said:

To my mind, with the advent of brushless motors and LiPo batteries, there is no excuse for putting jelly moulds on R/C cars. There is more than enough power and duration to be able to pretty much ignore aerodynamics. Sure, if you're producing a full on race car then perhaps there is reasoning behind it, but for cars intended for bashing, there is no reason not to put a bit more effort into the aesthetic of the model. 

Good point actually. 

But brushless speeds will always offset the level of detail anyway, due to risk of impact damage and loss of bodywork. The level of "realism" a manufacturer can realistically put in a buggy designed for insane speeds, can never be the level of realism I would like. 

1 hour ago, kontemax said:

Companies like Kyosho, Asso, Losi, the very bad Traxxas (and other ones) never spent a cent on the effort to make a model with a decent look. The trend is always the same. Tamiya has a different philosopy and the Tamiya customer is a different breed.

Proud to be a Tamiya customer.

Broadly, I agree with regard to most modern kits. Tamiya has continued to produce more "scale" models than other brands.

But if you meant "all time", then I would disagree in relation to 1980s kits. Circa 1988 or earlier, there were many good looking cars from every single brand. I really think that Tamiya got the jump on most other companies in the 70s by being first into electric, and by having great marketing, catchy names, and wide distribution. I bet that if cars like the Marui Hunter, AYK 566B Super Trail Baja Bison, and Kyosho Tomahawk had actually been released by Tamiya, they'd be just as famous and remembered as any other Tamiya kit. Instead, they were barely available in most places and/or a little more expensive. As a kid, you were lucky to afford any kit - so it made sense to buy something prominent, easy, and well supported. And this alone played a big part in leading us to where we are today - chatting on "tamiya" club.com

[kontemax]

If you compare Kyosho models, Associated models, Losi's models and Tamiya models of the same era there's no arguments, Tamiya always has been 100 meters ahead to the other brands regarding the aestetic factor. I leave to the other brands the leadership on the absolute performances of their models without soul and the trend, as I said, remained the same but only more extreme. Non Tamiya models are faster and uglier than ever.

 

Max

[Hibernaculum]

1 hour ago, kontemax said:

If you compare Kyosho models, Associated models, Losi's models and Tamiya models of the same era there's no arguments, Tamiya always has been 100 meters ahead to the other brands regarding the aestetic factor.

Quick comparison...

Original Kyosho Tomahawk

• Released in 1983
• Metal chassis/gearbox/suspension
• Real fabric window netting
• Driver
• Headlights
• "Goodyear" tyres (later "Sand Super")
• 15+ Real sponsor decals
• Other body details: side mirror.

Original Tamiya Frog

• Released in 1983
• Plastic chassis + plastic/metal gearbox/suspension
• Decals for window netting
• Driver
• Headlights
• "Super Gripper" tyres
• 15+ Real sponsor decals
• Other body details: Rear wing, antenna flags.

Love them both equally. Can't see 100 metres between them  And there are plenty of similar examples.

I'd agree that some Tamiya models (mainly the SRBs and 3-speeds) had no peer for their time. But even the early Tamiya on-roaders had some worthy rivals in the late 1970s, aesthetically speaking. I once read the rumour somewhere that Tamiya never released an R/C Lancia Stratos (strange given the popularity of this car) because Nichimo's R/C kit of that model had come out first, and they felt it had been done to such a high standard already.

[berman]

Yeah but Rob, 99% of Kyosho bodies were polycarbonate, which has always been deemed (and especially in the likes of their 80's stuff) less realistic than any styrene equivalent, from any brand.

(I will give Kyosho a nod for doing the more abstract stuff though.)

Also note, I love them both equally too.

[Hibernaculum]

True of Kyosho - mostly polycarbonate  But you know, comparing like for like... many polycarbonate Kyoshos of the 80s were close in general aesthetic beauty terms, to the polycarbonate Tamiyas.

And I say this as someone who has raved about Tamiya over the years, particularly about things like Tamiya's metaphorical design themes. That was one thing they did better than anyone, even in polycarbonate - designing cars based upon familiar, natural shapes and so forth, and how this tricked the eye into finding those cars appealing. Many other manufacturers copied the idea, but mostly in car names only. I think the only other company that may have come close to having animal-named cars that actually echoed animal shapes, might have been Aristocraft of Korea, with cars like the Dolphin and Koala. Both of which were a bit funny lookin, but you've got to give them credit for trying 

Footnote: not every styrol resin bodied Tamiya was an aesthetically pleasing stunner either 

[berman]

I was more refering to the scale and detail in their polycarbonate bodies, but yes, some Tamiya hard bodies were certainly... butt ugly.

 

[Mokei Kagaku]

This may sound as if I think I'm a "know-it-all", which couldn't be further from my perception of my own knowledge or rather, lack thereof. So, I'm a bit reluctant to write this, but as it's simply true that I 30+ years ago feared that RC-car body design would develop the way it unfortunately has, I still think I should;

 

A friend of mine used to be a very active slot car racer (with the extreme wedge-shaped cars with average speed of 120kmh on Blue King tracks). As his painting skills were extraordinary, he often painted RC-car bodies for his friends too. So, once in the mid 80's when we discussed bodies in a group of friends, I said that if EFRA/ROAR/IFMAR wouldn't do anything to ensure that RC-car bodies stay relatively realistic, they will sooner or later, just like the "professional" slot car bodies, get unrealistic and rather unpleasing to the eye because only function will dictate the look.

 

The "professional" slot car bodies  were (and are) basically just a wedge with lines engraved to indicate the specific cockpit of the car it's supposed to resemble, and in the 80's, it was kind of difficult to imagine that competition RC-bodies would develop in a similar way, but unfortunately, they have, and the sanctioning bodies are to blame. The 1/8 and 1/12 track bodies are now just larger versions of the slot car bodies, whereas the different types of trucks (except short course), buggies and touring cars are mostly highly unrealistic and in my humble opinion, mostly extremely ugly too.

 

I have always thought it's crucial to keep even racing models realistic and resembling real cars to attract new people to the hobby, and though many other factors are involved too, I think the lack of realism and "connection" to real world cars is a significant reason why so (relatively) few people are now attracted to RC-racing.

[kirk13]

1 hour ago, Mokei Kagaku said:

This may sound as if I think I'm a "know-it-all", which couldn't be further from my perception of my own knowledge or rather, lack thereof. So, I'm a bit reluctant to write this, but as it's simply true that I 30+ years ago feared that RC-car body design would develop the way it unfortunately has, I still think I should;

 

A friend of mine used to be a very active slot car racer (with the extreme wedge-shaped cars with average speed of 120kmh on Blue King tracks). As his painting skills were extraordinary, he often painted RC-car bodies for his friends too. So, once in the mid 80's when we discussed bodies in a group of friends, I said that if EFRA/ROAR/IFMAR wouldn't do anything to ensure that RC-car bodies stay relatively realistic, they will sooner or later, just like the "professional" slot car bodies, get unrealistic and rather unpleasing to the eye because only function will dictate the look.

 

The "professional" slot car bodies  were (and are) basically just a wedge with lines engraved to indicate the specific cockpit of the car it's supposed to resemble, and in the 80's, it was kind of difficult to imagine that competition RC-bodies would develop in a similar way, but unfortunately, they have, and the sanctioning bodies are to blame. The 1/8 and 1/12 track bodies are now just larger versions of the slot car bodies, whereas the different types of trucks (except short course), buggies and touring cars are mostly highly unrealistic and in my humble opinion, mostly extremely ugly too.

 

I have always thought it's crucial to keep even racing models realistic and resembling real cars to attract new people to the hobby, and though many other factors are involved too, I think the lack of realism and "connection" to real world cars is a significant reason why so (relatively) few people are now attracted to RC-racing.

Having done a lot of slot racing,your bang on the money there. It's one of the reasons that Scalextric type hard body cars are so wide spread in the UK,and Spain. I've done races with 35 or 40 year old Scalextric Ferrari GP cars,just for the pleasure of seeing the classic car at speed.

 

On a not unrelated note,having played with actual wing sections on slot cars(it ended up looking very Chapperal like) I'd have to query just how much down force such small airfoil sections can actually generate at the speeds involved?

 

 

[Hibernaculum]

It's interesting to note that in the early days of off-road R/C (early 1980s), some events did require a basic level of realism - such as the use of driver figures in the cars. ie. This was an actual requirement for racing at some meets. Unfortunately, this naive early beginning soon went out the window.

As technology advances, there is an inexorable march toward higher speed in every motorized model hobby. Cars, planes, boats, helicopters, slot cars. And it always takes the hobby beyond it's original intended purpose (model building), and makes it more about competition, winning, stunts, setting records, or general "wow" factor. The stunt R/C helicopter class is another one where the technology has exceeded the humanity of the hobby. The speed and ability of those things is amazing. But once you are no longer "wowed" by performance, there's not much left to be interested in.

I always felt that tether cars were a harbinger for what R/C would ultimately become... or try to become. Even by the 1980s, tether cars were topping 200km/h, and were so fast you literally couldn't even see them. While I respect these astounding speeds, not being able to see the toy you are "enjoying" when it runs, seems a little counter productive. I'll never forget the first time I went to a tether car meet, and all you could experience was the gigantic wailing of the car engine as it rocketed around the track, with a bunch of guys standing around not watching it (because it was so fast you couldn't see it).

There's a lot to be said for slow speeds, imperfect handling, and even actual scale speeds. It's actually why I love many of the vintage R/C "toys" that a lot of you guys probably dislike. Many of them are closer to actual scale speed, than a typical hobby style R/C vehicle.

[Mokei Kagaku]

20 minutes ago, kirk13 said:

On a not unrelated note,having played with actual wing sections on slot cars(it ended up looking very Chapperal like) I'd have to query just how much down force such small airfoil sections can actually generate at the speeds involved?

I know next to nothing about serious slot car racing, but the wing car bodies have looked more or less the same (for my untrained eye) for at least 4 decades now, so I reckon (and hope!) the foils and wings really make sense.

As for the "cutting edge" design of RC-bodies, I think the difference it makes is mostly noticable for really good drivers only. For most of us, it's more about the placebo effect.  Having the latest and best gives a good feeling, which is perfectly legitimate. For some however, it's also about not admitting that their skills and knowledge aren't adequate for actually having a benefit in using the "best" bodies.

 

 

[Truck Norris]

Buggies and Touring Cars may have lost the scale looks, but there's one area of the hobby where the cars look more realistic than ever:

[GooneyBird]

Don't forget

Most F1-races I've been to require multi-color bodies, and non-white helmets to promote a bit of scale realism. Still can't hold a candle to what drifting is becoming though. I love the scale realism, and the fact that they actually move in somewhat scale speed.

On the subject of RC cars not benefitting from aerodynamics; not entirely true. My TRF handles noticably different with a slippy Protoform Dodge Dart vs a nice scale Tamiya GT86. It misses downforce, and the higher and heavier body causes more body roll. I'll admit that with most basher-type cars will never notice any difference in handling.

[qatmix]

16 hours ago, MadInventor said:

To my mind, with the advent of brushless motors and LiPo batteries, there is no excuse for putting jelly moulds on R/C cars. There is more than enough power and duration to be able to pretty much ignore aerodynamics. Sure, if you're producing a full on race car then perhaps there is reasoning behind it, but for cars intended for bashing, there is no reason not to put a bit more effort into the aesthetic of the model. I've just recently bought a GF-01 dump truck, and I think it highly unlikely that it would handle any better or go any faster with an aerodynamic jelly mould shell than the standard one, especially if I'm running it on LiPo. I'm still thinking about how good the likes of the original Ultima, and the hotshot looked

 

 

The Jelly moulds affect the performance massively on a race car. Even on a GF01 you would have an advantage if someone had a light lexan shell with some downforce over the truck shell. It might be marginal, but racing is about getting as many marginal gains as possible to give you an advantage. 

Most of the modern buggies listed here are race cars, that's why they have shells that are not scale (At least they still look a bit like a car, not like the slotcars). When you race you want trophies on the shelf, not the car. I slave over my race cars, tweak things, create parts etc, but the car is just the tool to help you win. You have to risk it breaking as you push it and your driving skills to the limit, shells will snap, parts will break.  I actually really like the abstract look and tribal look that many Race shells have. They are your 'colours' essentially like how a race driver will have their own helmet. Also I think the TRF501X shell is probably the prettiest Tamiya buggy followed by the Holiday Buggy, Topforce and the Boomerang.

Scale is there for those that want it, and I also enjoy it on the right cars, such as things to play with on the beach, or rally /  drift around etc.  My Cosworths sit proudly on display as they look great, but I am never going to win a race with them against a car with a lightweight aero shell.

Tamiya still makes loads of scale kits, all of their onroad cars are scale, and stock classes such a the 'Tamiya Truck' class etc allow people to run scale cars. Even then, people will find the best handling shell and you will find that everyone moves to that shell to run in that class, such as the NSX shell in the Tamiya cup etc.