Tamiya got it wrong?

[Juggular]

I was looking at NSU Prinz TT Jagermeister (not because I'm easily influenced, I was independently curious, honest!).  

But Prinz TT had the engine in the rear deck.  It drives the rear wheels. 

But M05 chassis drives the front wheels!   M05 was perfect for Citroen 2CV, but not for Prinz TT.  

The engine is on the wrong end, and wrong wheels get the power.  

Why do this when there are plenty of RWD chassis?  

 

Why not give it MF-01x chassis like VW Beetle Rally?  With the motor in the back!  Just remove the front gears to make it RWD.  The same 210mm wheelbase of MF01x chassis could have been a good fit for NSU Prinz TT.   

 

Better yet, the new M06 chassis also comes in 210mm wheelbase. 

With the motor mounted in the back, and RWD.  That's perfect for NSU Prinz TT.   

 

But instead, Tamiya gave M06 chassis to Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint, which is also wrong. 

Giulia is indeed RWD, but it has the engine in front.  

 

Am I the only one who thinks Tamiya should pay more attention to what the real cars were like?  

Does Tamiya have a RWD chassis with the motor in front?  There are so many cars with that configuration, it's surprising Tamiya didn't come up with front-engine, RWD configuration.  I understand that the driving wheel would just spin like crazy if the weight of the motor isn't pressing them down, but it'd be fun.  Especially with drift cars, maybe.  They can have the motor in front, but the gearbox could be at the rear.  

Something like this shouldn't be too hard for Tamiya.  For weight balance, the center shaft doesn't have to be right in the center.  Servo, ESC and Receiver takes less room (and lighter than the battery) so the shaft could be slightly on that side.  They can probably use a lot of existing gears too.  Maybe even use MF01X chassis to make it a front motor, RWD chassis.   

What am I doing... note to self... I'm not into on-road cars...!!

 

[Blista]

It does seem odd they didn't put it on the M06.  I guess that the M05 is simply the most popular m-chassis.  I keep waiting for an M08 (or at least another M06 Pro release).  Engine position doesn't bother me, although it's a nice when it does match, but not driving the correct wheels bugs me.

Tamico have a new LED light bucket kit for the TT for a touch of extra realism.

https://tamico.de/Tamico-Light-Buckets-Kit-front-and-rear-for-Tamiya-NSU-TT-Body

https://tamiyablog.com/2018/09/tamiya-nsu-tt-the-little-rocket-from-neckarsulm/

[Badcrumble]

15 minutes ago, Juggular said:

Am I the only one who thinks Tamiya should pay more attention to what the real cars were like?

Judging by previous comments on these fora...no 

I think the main issue is one you have already noted - handling. These aren’t scale models so Tamiya does feel constrained by the 1:1 underpinnings - these are RC race cars with scale bodies. So we get an M-05 NSU to go up against other M chassis racers.

I managed to get myself an M04 Giulia..but the motor is in the wrong place.

The closest I have seen that could be used as a base for something more real world is the TB-05 Pro (take note @VagabondStarJXF - been meaning to email you with crazy ideas) with the motor behind the front axle, shaft driving the front wheels. You could omit the front shaft for a RWD configuration.

Not M chassis scale though.

As @Blista noted, we can hope for the M08. Given the construction of the M07, I hope we see some of the TB05 elements - rear gearbox (transaxle?). Fitting a battery will be tight though.

[njmlondon]

You are not the only one! It puts me off a load of cars.

I can understand why they would use a 4WD chassis because the reality is that RC cars do handle differently to their bigger brothers and 4WD makes most cars easier to drive. I remember having a nightmare with my old M04 which I never got to grips with. And for the purist, you can obviously make it a 2WD whenever you want.

But in the case you quoted re the Alfa in particular, having a FWD Alfa is wrong on so many levels!

[TwistedxSlayer]

Tamiya get it wrong often. I've yet to see a 4wd Ferrari 360, F430, FF12 or Enzo in real life yet they insist that the 4wd chassis is perfectly acceptable. No. No it isn't. Front motor RWD tamiya are needed.

[VagabondStarJXF]

4 hours ago, Badcrumble said:

(take note @VagabondStarJXF - been meaning to email you with crazy ideas)

How crazy? Crazy "Oh My..." or crazy "Uh Oh..."?   But yeah, pm me or throw suggestions in my 3D Stuff thread, either's good. Just to warn you, I have no experience with any of the TB chassis' so redesigns might be a bit tricky.

 

Back on topic... I agree with @Juggular about chassis & bodies not matching drive type. It's been bugging me for some time as well. It's one of the reasons I'd redesigned the M04 last year to accommodate a 210mm Stratos shell. When I've got the time I'm hoping I'll be able to figure out a nicely balanced FR M-Chassis setup for my BMW M Roadster and a front motor mounted 4WD ORV for my Brat shell.

[Juls1]

There is very few front motor reae drive chassis on road cars full stop, Tamiya don’t really make one, the XV01 is probably the only valid candidate for a conversion but typically getting enough weight out back to have usable grip is always a problem. Most likely you’d need to add weight near the rear of the chassis to an already heavy car. 

The nsu TT isn’t the only rwd chassis sitting on M05. 

Mazda mx5 rwd car on M05

Honda S800 rwd car on M05

As far as I can see I think the m06 is basically discontinued. Also when they sell a M chassis many of them will likely be raced, and few people want to race the rear drive chassis’s because the FWD runs rings around them. Not so much cause the FWD is better, it’s because the front drive m chassis are simply much easier to get around a track. 

The mf01x is really a rwd chassis made 4wd. I bought the jimny thinking I could crawl it, but I soon realised it’ll never be a viable crawler/trail rig. The biggest reason is the weight distribution, it does wheelies with a silver can, it’s not really any better for that than a GF01 for that application. 

 

[Theibault]

I honestly think you guys are being to pedantic. It's not about the chassis, it's about the body. 

[markbt73]

Yeah, it bothers me too. It bothered me back when they put a Golf body on a RWD chassis and a Ford F150 on a Baja Bug chassis as well.

I wish the M-chassis designs had followed in the footsteps of the original M01/M02: modular, symmetrical, and with no overhangs, so you could do FWD or RWD with any kit, and not worry about body/motor clearance (which is why certain bodies won't work with the M06 or MF01X). I'd like to see an M08 design that gets back to that kind of universality.

Or, barring that: start mining the history books for worthy FWD bodies for the M05! Here, I'll start them off: Fiat 128, VW Scirocco Mk1, Lancia Fulvia, Honda Civic CVCC...

[Fabia130vRS]

2 hours ago, Theibault said:

I honestly think you guys are being to pedantic. It's not about the chassis, it's about the body. 

Well I guess sort of it is.

But I am not asking for much imagination.

For example I did rebuild my car, because I am lucky there are options, and went for a M03 FWD and Skoda Fabia Colt body, drives and steers like the real and for me that is enough and pleasant.

On the other hand regarding RWD, I wanted first the Alfa romeo Giulia, then the Mazda MX5, both RWD as my F104gt mini project... but on the end.. both have the motor in front but the F104gt in rear.

So my decision is a Honda S-MX, use my imagination and I could think of a mini van with a built in turbo mid engine design form a home garage. like a 1.8i VTEC RWD  

that is for 225mm wheelbase. perfect for a M05ver2 Brushless van also. 

[MadInventor]

The only front motor, rear driven Tamiya vehicles I know of are the 1/14 tractor trucks. You don't get much wheelspin from them, but they're not renowned for their cornering abilities either

If you're going to have a scale front engine, rwd car, then it really has to be a black '78 "screamin' chicken" Trans Am.

 

[Kevin_Mc]

@Wooders28 will love that comment

queue him telling us his is actually a 1980 car

[Wooders28]

2 hours ago, MadInventor said:

If you're going to have a scale front engine, rwd car, then it really has to be a black '78 "screamin' chicken" Trans Am

👍

1 hour ago, Kevin_Mc said:

Wooders28 will love that comment

Beat me to it! 😀

But would it be on a drift chassis, or a rally chassis? 🤔

 

2 hours ago, Kevin_Mc said:

queue him telling us his is actually a 1980 car 

'81, but close! 👍😂

[Kingfisher]

I have an M06 and an M05 already. I'll just get the body sets and put the drive wheels where they should be.

[Kingfisher]

8 hours ago, MadInventor said:

black '78 "screamin' chicken" Trans Am.

 

You must be referring to the one at rccarkings. 

http://www.rccarkings.net/bodies.htm#topsellers

 

[Wooders28]

8 hours ago, Kingfisher said:

You must be referring to the one at rccarkings. 

http://www.rccarkings.net/bodies.htm#topsellers

 

Hpi body looks better imo, but still yet to see wheels that resemble the snowflakes.

[Yalson]

I don't really care where the motor is, but I do find some of their chassis choices peculiar. The NSU would have been an easy win, as would the original S800 if they'd just put the driving wheels at the right end. If you have a chassis which you could just as easily put it on which has all the bits in the right places, why wouldn't you? I think the idea of having an RWD car with a front-mounted motor is being a bit excessive as that actually makes it more difficult to make and more complicated, but if you have suitable chassis available it seems daft to build an FWD MX-5.

[Yalson]

If they wanted to build an FWD NSU, why didn't they lengthen the chassis and put an Ro80 on it?

[Kingfisher]

1 hour ago, Yalson said:

If they wanted to build an FWD NSU, why didn't they lengthen the chassis and put an Ro80 on it?

 

Wow. A FWD rotary. Never knew something like that existed. 

[MICHAELs TopForce17]

that nsu on tamiyablog looks neat.

[Yalson]

16 hours ago, Kingfisher said:

Wow. A FWD rotary. Never knew something like that existed. 

It didn't exist for very long, sadly. It was revolutionary for the time (late 60s to early 70s), but the engine was not fully sorted and tended to wear the rotor tips away, causing the engine to fail. They also had terrible fuel economy, which was not ideal for the oil crises of the period. But in terms of performance, technology, ergonomics, aerodynamics, space and just about everything else, they were a marvel. There is an article on Jalopnik where the guy who drives one says that other than a few quirks you would hardly know you were driving a car that is almost fifty years old.

[Kingfisher]

8 hours ago, Yalson said:

 tended to wear the rotor tips away, causing the engine to fail. They also had terrible fuel economy,

Apex seals and poor fuel economy is a trademark of rotaries, so that's understandable. It's also what so many people complained about with the Mazda rotaries. Thanks for the info. 

[GregM]

Regarding RWD type bodyshells on FWD type M-chassis:

Have some of you actually tried to mate these bodyshells with the RWD M-06 chassis?
Hint: I wouldn't be surprised if some of them won't fit due to the rear overhang of the motor and bulkyness of the gearbox. While M-02 and M-04 could have been potential candidates if they weren't discontinued by now, they have their own issues and the M-04 only exists in mid and long wheel base, no short wheel base variant.

You won't have this issue on any FWD M-chassis, due to motor and gearbox sitting behind the front wheels instead of hanging over in front of them. So all that is left to clear front and rear for the bodyshell would be the suspension and wheel wells.

[Kingfisher]

11 hours ago, GregM said:

Regarding RWD type bodyshells on FWD type M-chassis:

 

Excellent points. I can confirm that the MX-5 fits the M06.

 

[Blista]

NSU TT fits the M06.  Tamico did an unboxing video and sat the body on an M06 chassis.