the right amount of character?

[Saito2 6686]

One of the draws of Tamiya models is the vaguely sketched notion of "character" which despite being somewhat nebulous is still a "thing" in most Tamiya fans' minds. Does the boxart have character? Yes. Do the varied chassis types have character? Yes. Still, much of what we consider character comes from actual performance quirks that make driving them entertaining to us in some way. Traxxas, Associated, etc. and even some upper level Tamiyas are considered bland to drive, too clinical, too sterile. The fact is, those cars are probably actually performing quite well which takes a bit of the edge out of the running experience. In this example, "flaws" = fun. 

So what's the right amount of character for you? A Hornet has plenty of character, but for me, I quickly tire of its tramping rear end, hopping about. A TRF201? No character. In this 2wd off road example, the Fox has the right amount of character for me. When pushed, in the right hands it keeps pace with an old RC10 but...you have to work at it. Its not effortless like the RC10. It has "character".  I like the DF01 alright, but a Super Shot is dripping with more character, and thus, my favorite.

The irony of all this is, many of us like to tinker and improve performance, even on these older models. So, in essence, we wind up removing some of this character we like in the name of "increased performance". Granted, it is fun to see what these old designs are capable of .

[Superluminal 3750]

Any of those with a drivers name give it some personality. The TRF cars never needed that as they were for serious racing by serious peopls, not for the rest of us "imagining" Paranoid Perry with sweaty knuckles gripping onto the controls before you accidently plough him into a kerb / bollard

[markbt73 5316]

For me, it's the right balance between complexity and robustness (which makes it sound like I'm talking about a cup of coffee, but let me explain). I like the complicated, even convoluted, suspension and drivetrain designs of the earlier cars. I like high parts counts, and lots of screws holding assemblies together. If you have to attach mounting brackets to a gearbox before bolting it to to the chassis, that's a good thing. (Bonus points if either the bracket or the chassis is something other than plastic.) 4WD is good; 4WD with more than two gear housings is even better.

But all that complexity has to add up to a stout assembly. I briefly had a Nichimo Exceed 443 (4WD, 4WS, 3 diffs) which was nice and complicated - and it had a mono-shock in front; always a nice touch. But it was so frail that one steering bellcrank was already broken from being banged around in a box. I didn't dare fix it up to try to run it. I don't mind a few "weak spots," but several of the Japanese model-makers who tried to follow Tamiya into the RC world never really understood the need to over-engineer plastic pieces the way Tamiya does, and the result is beautiful, fascinating, flimsy models.

Based on this, I think the two Tamiya models I would most enjoy building that I have not yet are the Avante and the Bruiser. Both, sadly, are laughably out-of-reach financially for me (even more so since the one-price-to-rule-them-all debacle). Which is why I'm so thankful for the Kyosho re-issues; complex, intricate models that are built like tanks and don't cost an arm and a leg.

[Juggular 4964]

I was just thinking about this.  @Saito2 could be a psychic the way he's always one step ahead of me. 

I'd say a lot of the character we feel is the "IKEA Effect."  

First, we have to build Tamiya kits.  Second, while doing so, we find "things to improve."  And they are either simple or 3rd party companies supply a solution.  We are emotionally invested in it.  Since we are attached, we don't even call it a "flaw."  We call it a "character."  

That's the "IKEA effect."  You love what you build.  I think this is why Tamiya stays with kits, instead of going for RTRs like many American and Chinese stuff. (That, and lower price). 

On a similar note, this is why I like 2WD.  It feels more like I'm the one who's driving.  I'm fighting the buggy and the terrain, for control.  4WD just says, "yes, you are the boss."  Of course, there is no question that 4WD is more capable off-road.  I'm just saying as far as having fun is concerned, I don't mind wrestling with a 2WD buggy.  I'd be lying if I said I didn't think about 4WD version of Wild Willy2.  But WW2 was fun enough (hence no GF01 for me).    

Tamiya always leaves something to be desired.  You can't go too fast on Wild Willy2.  Konghead is 6x6, but stubby arms don't make it a truly excellent off-roader.  XR311 is not at all capable.  It's basically a static kit with a motor, but it has the most authentic suspension movements to it.  3 speeds are awesome but have no suspension to speak of.  CC01's lends itself well to realistic bodies, but the front is rather limited as a crawler.  The list of "This-but-not-that" goes on.  The real question is; Is Tamiya doing this intentionally?  Or was it just how it happened through 40+ years of Tamiya RC, and turned into a culture of a sort?  

 

I think over the years Tamiya perfected the art of incremental of improvements to sell for their next kit.  Like Dynahead.  It has portal gears.  Yay!  Let's sell it.  Next one might be "Superhead."  It would still have portal gears, but with taller gear ratio for faster speed.  The next one would be "Terrahead" : portal gears, taller gear ratio, also with longer arms, taller shocks and Monster Beetle tires.  The next one would be "Aquahead" with all of the above, with a propeller at the back for amphibious operations.  With small improvements, we always stay at 3rd base, always wanting more.  That's Tamiya we love. (metaphorically speaking only. I don't mean Mr. Tamiya... the metaphor becomes kinda awkward, you know.)  

 

[speedy_w_beans 4272]

I think my only peeve is when Tamiya does something halfway and it tarnishes what they stand for in their double-star logo -- "precision" and "passion."  I think you see examples of this when gearboxes strip, dog bones fall out, suspension parts or tubs crack, etc. in certain models.  Sometimes the re-releases are a little too faithful to the originals and carry over some of those faults.  You also see this when people groan about yet another TT01 or TT02 release; where's the passion in throwing a new body in the same box of chassis parts over and over?

I've been buying some static model kits lately; some AMT/MPC from Round2 Corporation, and some from Tamiya.  If you're looking for precision and passion, definitely look at Tamiya's static models.  The parts are nearly perfect and have such fine details; the chrome is so uniform and mirror-like.  Being static models of real subjects, they all have proper sponsor logos and correctly-proportioned wheels and tires.  After going through some of their kits and marveling at the injection moldings, the RC models look so crude in comparison.

The other thing I think about when the topic of character and scale details comes up is the question about scale driving.  If you're trying to drive a CC01 over a tree root that is half the height of the model, is that what you'd do in real life in a 1:1?  I doubt it; more likely, you'd find a different way around the obstacle.  In some respects the quest for more articulation in the suspension and more steering angle is inaccurate to what the 1:1 does anyhow.  So I think the challenge is to take a 1/10 model and try driving it on 1/10 terrain and obstacles, and appreciate how it fails to perform when trying to make it handle 1/3 scale terrain.  I'm not sure I'm communicating this properly except to say some of the character we talk about comes from using the model in ways the designers may never have considered.  I'm suggesting "scale driving" is possibly a weakly-explored facet of "scale RC" overall.

The character I'm seeking is that precision and passion; anything done halfway won't convince me to buy.  I know they are doing it in their static models; I want to see more of it in their RC lineup.

 

[Busdriver 6209]

I too make static models and apart from a few exceptions Tamiya are top of the heap. I love driving my models but I also like playing around with bodies and frankly Tamiya bodies are toys, even the so called scale ones, thats why Ive just spent the best part of £120 on a Loops Unimog 406 body to rebuild my Dynamog. If I could afford a decent soft top Defender hardboy at the moment that would be on my CC01 rather than the out of scale lexan one. I dont have a problem with buggies etc that arent "real" but if its supposed to be a scale model sutable for RC thats what it should be?

17 hours ago, speedy_w_beans said:

The other thing I think about when the topic of character and scale details comes up is the question about scale driving.  If you're trying to drive a CC01 over a tree root that is half the height of the model, is that what you'd do in real life in a 1:1?  I doubt it; more likely, you'd find a different way around the obstacle.  In some respects the quest for more articulation in the suspension and more steering angle is inaccurate to what the 1:1 does anyhow.  So I think the challenge is to take a 1/10 model and try driving it on 1/10 terrain and obstacles, and appreciate how it fails to perform when trying to make it handle 1/3 scale terrain.  I'm not sure I'm communicating this properly except to say some of the character we talk about comes from using the model in ways the designers may never have considered.  I'm suggesting "scale driving" is possibly a weakly-explored facet of "scale RC" overall.

I used to a bit of boat modelling and this subject was always being discussed. Scale wind, waves etc etc etc. Sometimes are expectations are unrealistic as I found out when my Dynamog rolled about 30feet down a 60 degree slope that an Icelandic 4x4 hill climber would struggle up. As it happens the Dynahead chassis got up the hill it just didnt like traversing it!!!

[SuperChamp82 743]

Another absolutely cracking thread @Saito2

And what a great word - ‘character’ !

So many subtleties and personal interpretations ?

I won’t go down the obvious route of rekindling separate threads on box art - although that’s where the experience first starts for most of us, so is (rightfully) where character begins.

*wipes a wistful grin from his face remembering when he first saw a 959 box ...

Instead, it’s maybe fun to offer a few examples of ‘character’ in the early years:

1. Putting a 540 motor hop up in 1976 934 when the chassis bent like a banana under 360 power - good luck with that;

2. Not releasing a pop circuit breaker until you’d sold 5 years worth of motor / MSC upgrades and fuses ... seriously, I’ll defy anyone to offer a more lucrative necessity for $4 a pop for 5;

3. SRB suspension / steering - just bonkers ... but unbelievable fun;

4. Charging $199 in 1981 for 3 speed beauty - with suspension that bounced so hard it was impossible to drive in a straight line;

5. Using the Force to steer a SWB Wild Willy - because nothing else worked;

And with that it’s over to you guys 😂

[junkmunki 846]

I think the Opal Ascona and the Audi Quattro had character in the way they were designed with outlandishly out of propotion wheels and suspension... can you imagine driving something like that on the road?

SuperChamp is spot on when he says that character is when you modify your model with motors that were not designed for it etc... in short, the character of your model was what you made it and it reflected something of your own character and the way you had fun..

J

[Busdriver 6209]

dare I say it but the Quattro and Ascona are for me the examples of what I dont like. Having said that if we like all the same things we'd all be married to my wife (brownie point) if we were men and maybe Pierce Bronson if ladies?????? or even the other way round

[ThunderDragonCy 7881]

I have to say a lot of the character for me is in the bodies, which is why i think Tamiya is in a massive bind right now on the off road side because the buggy bodies are bland and just a bit crap.

I have bought 'character' models since i got into it to fulfill childhood dreams, and to a car i sold them because for me, rubbish handling is just rubbish handling. The first i did when i bought my DT03 upon re-entering the hobby was to sell the Racing Fighter body NIP and graft an old Grasshopper2 body on, complete with driver. Might not be everyone's first choice, but i love that shell. My Thunder Dragon has modern suspension grafted on, but you would have to pry that crazy, wedgy shell out of cold dead hands. Even the Baldre and Durga looked respectively purposeful and completely brilliantly mental. The Sand Viper looks like a proper buggy. Plasma Edge? Neo Fighter? Neo Scorcher? Dull blobs. No character. No thanks. 

[nowinaminute 2815]

I guess everyone has different limits when it comes to how bad an RC can be before it isn't enjoyable.

But I think it can also be circumstantial, some vehicles i don't enjoy in some situations but i do in others.

My worst handling Tamiya by far is the Grasshopper. It's not bad on smooth tarmac and loose dirt but on anything bigger than gravel it kind of just leaves the ground randomly and usually comes back down facing a different direction. BUT I absoloutey love that thing at the beach. On road even a 27t 540 is pretty much overkill for the chassis but at the beach you can run a brushless in it and have an awesome time!

The Lunchbox is a poor handling vehicle too in the conventional sense, especially in stock form but I find it very enjoyable. It's a little more tolerant of large gravel etc too because the tyres soak up a lot of the bumps. I actually find it more versatile than the Hopper in a lot of ways and yes, it's awesome at the beach too!

Then some vehicles I find have just enough talent to be versatile and decent all rounders without being too mechanical and boring.

The mk1 Hotshot is famous for being the worst handling of the family with it's bump steer, under steer and god knows what else but it's still a way better off road chass than those solid axle RWD buggies. It might not be the sharpest tool but it can handle a 3-4000kv on 2s pretty well which I think is very impressive for an 80s design that always prioritised looks over function. I don't feel like I have to slow down for corners as much as I do a Grasshopper or ORV which makes the experience more enjoyable if you just want to have a quick blast. It has enough handling prowess to stay upright but not so much that it's boring and clinical.

I like the DT02 and DT03 for their versatility too. Depending on your perspective, they either handle very well or very poorly but I think they strike a good balance. They have pretty good road holding and follow the terrain well, they are quite easy to drive at speed and are quite predictable but they don't have that clinical, finely honed feel a true racing buggy has. With enough power they will still get a little unruly if you're not careful which makes things more fun.

I guess I like vehicles that have a good compromise between fun and composure. I'm not that choosy in the scheme of things. I like vehicles that can take a corner without flipping and that soak up terrain well but I'm not bothered about how efficiently they go about achieving it.

And even vehicles that don't do those things well are usually fun if you use them in an environment that suits them like the aforementioned grasshopper/beach combination.