36 thoughts on “Future Tamiya RC Releases (Updated 04.08.2011)”

1. GreatDane July 30, 2011 at 8:16 am

   For quite some time now Tamiya has been re releasing many of there great classics.

   Soon they will run out of subjects as they has re released close to all there RC cars from the happy rc hay days. 🙂

   Finally the 58500 has been revealed. And it is not the Egress as suggested in a forum, but simply the Sand Rover…Hmmm.

   As with the Holliday Buggy, I also like the Sand Rover. I am in favour of buggies with some sort of real looking bodies, not just generic ones. Thumbs up, big T 😉

   If I remember the size of the Renault R5 turbo correctly, it will be to wide for the M05 Ra chassis and not looking scale at all….But still a classic, though. 🙂

   Are these to be released soon or are the news in connection with the Tokyo Hobbyshow in october?

   Best Regards

   GreatDane c”,)
2. miramar July 30, 2011 at 3:05 pm

   @ Great Dane: Thanks a lot for your great comments as always!

   As for 58500, at Tamiyablog we of course also knew about the rumours that 58500 was supposed to be the Egress. This information was however at no time available from any source we consider to be reliable or credible. So we refrained from posting it, trying to stay in line with our policy of being early with correct information rather than presenting rumours or fantasies.

   Considering that the Vajra very clearly seems to use some of the parts exclusive to the Egress, Avante 2001 and Vanquish, we feel confident that further Avante-series models will be (re-)released. At this time we have no information whether this will be the Egress, Vanquish or something completely different though.

   I’m also very happy to see the Sand Rover released again, and I think it will actually look better on the DT-02 chassis than the Holiday Buggy body does. When the Holiday Buggy 2010 was announced to be on the DT-02 chassis, I dug out a DT-02 chassis and put a Sand Rover body on it and was surprised to see that it didn’t fit as badly as I had thought. OK, so just like the Holiday Buggy 2010 it won’t be a very authentic scale model, but I’m confident it will look good. It will be interesting to see whether the Sand Rover 2011 gets a lower rear shock tower with mini-size shocks. I don’t think it will get holes in the hood to clear the front shock tower though.

   Renault 5 Turbo: Yes, you are right, the “old” body is too wide. However, I built a Renault 5 Turbo for a Renault-enthusiast friend of mine 12-15 years ago, based on an M02-chassis and original Tamiya R5 Turbo body. To get the correct width, I used Fiat Abarth wheels, widened in the rear with a “ring” from M-chassis Beetle wheels, similar to what I did for the M04 Dune Buggy I built recently (in anticipation of a re-re Sand Rover):

   https://tamiyablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/004.jpg

   I used M-chassis 55D radial tires on the unmodified front wheels and Quick Drive buggy rear tires (55D = QD front tires) for the modified rear wheels. This solved the width-problem.

   As the M05Ra R5 Turbo gets M-rally blocks, my guess is that the chassis will come with longer rear axles and wider hexes (ie. # 50808 + 53345).
3. Kopipait July 30, 2011 at 4:55 pm

   Hope tamiya re-release jaggernaout , opel ascona & supershot.
4. Black Hole Sun July 30, 2011 at 6:52 pm

   Hi all,

   So happy you guies kept with your policy about the 58500.

   @Miramar: do you think a lower rear shock tower would be enought to sit the SR bodyshell on the DT-02? No worries due to the gearcase in itself? What about the wheelbase: might reverting the rear arms help reducing it to better fit the SR’s?

   About the R5 Turbo on M-05Ra, I’m afraid the rally block tires may look odd compared to the original full size car, just like they look odd on the M-05Ra Alpine.
   Using longer rear wheel axles + wider hexes may seriously affect the handling (roll over from the front), don’t you think? Any solution you can think of to fit wider rims and tires at the rear?

   Cheers,
   Black Hole Sun
5. miramar July 31, 2011 at 8:02 am

   @BHS:

   From trying with an original SR-body on a DT-02 chassis, it seems to me that all that’s needed is a lower rear shock tower, shorter damper and possibly that the “arch” (that made space for the motor on the original SR) is widened to full width in the same way as was often done to make the SR-body fit the SRB-chassis.

   As for the wheelbase, the difference between the DPB- and DT-02 chassis is only 4mm, and with wheel arches not very clearly defined on the SR-body, I think it looks perfectly OK with the unmodified wheelbase of the DT-02.

   With regards to the R5 Turbo, I fully agree that the M-Rally Block tires will look a bit odd on it, but I reckon that’s the compromise we have to accept to make it work well on the loose surfaces the Japanese typically run their M-chassis rally cars on.

   As for longer rear wheel axles, I’m not at all worried that it will affect the handling in any significant way. After all several M04 cars came with long rear wheel axles or rear wheels with more offset than front, and it worked well there. Also, I have modified several M03’s and M04’s with longer axles (#50808) and widened wheels, sometimes just in the rear (ie. R5, M Roadster) and both front and rear (ie. Golf Mk. I) and it worked perfectly OK.

   I think the obvious solution for wider wheels and tires in the rear on the R5 is as described in my comment to Great Dane. It both looks great on the M02 R5 I built for a friend and it calms down the tailhappy tendency of the combination of short wheelbase and RWD.

   On the M02 R5 I built, I used Fiat Abarth wheels (which were the M-wheels closest to Gottis at the time), widened them in the rear with one ring from M-ch Beetle wheels. More or less any M-wheel will do, but I wanted a chrome ring to resemble the (mostly) polished outer wheel of the R5 Turbo Gotti wheels. Tires were Tamiya # 43018 for the QD-series, where the front tires are identical to M-chassis 55D radials and rear tires similar, but wider.

   If using the M05Ra chassis, I reckon it might be a better idea just to add offset in the rear rather than wider tires though.
6. Black Hole Sun July 31, 2011 at 11:59 am

   Thanks for the reply Miramar.

   DPB chassis? Typo for SRB or a chassis name that I don’t know?
   For the wheelbase, my reference is BiggusDitchus’ on TC http://www.tamiyaclub.com/showroom_model.asp?cid=109612&id=280: seems the front wheels would benefit from behind a step behind. Same as on the HB2010 I guess, even if you’re right saying the SR leaves more possibilities due to unclearly defined wheel arches.
   I will consider your QD tip for M wheels since I like the idea of wide rear wheel for the R5. Glad it doesn’t impact of the chassis handling.
7. miramar July 31, 2011 at 12:59 pm

   @BHS:

   DPB = Dual Purpose Buggy, and both Tamiya’s official designation for the original HB/SR-chassis and used as a “subname” for the 1:1 car the Holiday Buggy was inspired by, the Corsair Cars “Stripper”, because of the possibility to run it with body (street) and without body (off-road).

   The DPB-chassis has a 256mm wheelbase, which of course is slightly reduced when the front trailing arm suspension is compressed. As for most cars with trailing arm suspension, the wheel axle axis is below the pivot point of the trailing arm at normal ride-height on the DPB. (If the axis had been above the pivot point, wheelbase would have increased when the suspension was compressed.)

   The DT-02 chassis has a 260mm wheelbase, which is also slightly reduced when the front suspension is compressed, but in this case because of the chassis kick-up.

   The slight bumpsteer on both chassises causes increased toe-in though, so measured from front wheel to rear wheel centre and visually, it will appear as if wheelbases for both chassis types are pretty constant. And the 4mm difference will hardly be noticeable except for when both are compared side by side.

   Accordingly, I am very confident that Tamiya keep the original wheelbase of the DT-02 for the SR2011 too. We will know for sure as soon as first full specs or pics get available.
8. Black Hole Sun August 1, 2011 at 1:53 pm

   @Miramar:

   Thanks again for the clear answers.
   For the DPB name, I can see it on the original HB boxart but not on the SR’s: never thought it could be an “official” chassis name for Tamiya (even if confirmed by the 1:1 HB).
   As for the wheelbase question, 4mm shouldn’t be too much: let’s wait for the pics to see how they made it.

   About the R5 Turbo, any idea of the livery? As per kit 58026? I have doubts due to the “bonus Matte-finished gold-plated wheels” and I’m afraid we might get a re-re body like the Datsun 280zx without stickers.
9. ken August 1, 2011 at 5:26 pm

   For the new Sand Rover, I hope there will not be two holes carved in the front part of the body to cater for the front shocks of the DT-02 chassis (as in the case of the new Holiday Buggy)
10. miramar August 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    @BHS: I can’t recall from the top of my head if the phrase “Dual Purpose Buggy” was ever used in any written information from Tamiya for the Sand Rover. The phrase was however used to describe the chassis (and intended use) rather than the body of the Holiday Buggy, and would then be equally valid for the Sand Rover chassis. Also, as no other official abbreviation than DPB exists for the Holiday Buggy/Sand Rover chassis, “DPB” is generally accepted for the Sand Rover as much as it is for the Holiday Buggy.

    As for the R5’s livery, it would only be guesses from my side. I hope it will be the same as the original, but with decals for headlights, front turning lights and taillights included, possibly also window surrounds and a couple of other details that weren’t included on the decal sheet of 58026.

    I don’t think the fact that bonus matt gold wheels are included can be used as an argument why the R5 may possibly not get the same livery as 58026. After all, gold Minilites are included as bonus parts with 58483 (RMC Mini) too, even if they aren’t authentic for the livery.
11. miramar August 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    @Ken: I’m not too worried. From test fitting an original Sand Rover body on a DT-02, I personally think the body will be sitting low enough without making holes for the front shock tower. It remains to see what Tamiya actually does though.
12. Black Hole Sun August 2, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Thanks again for the reply Miramar.
13. Black Hole Sun August 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Well, from the chassis photo seen there http://www.tamiyausa.com/images/product/250/58497/gallery_58497.jpg , I guess the Vajra is a Super Levant on a fragile longer Avante chassis. Correct?
    What can be expected from that?
    What a disappointment, not only for the perverted use of the Avante chassis but as a kit in general!
14. miramar August 4, 2011 at 9:42 am

    @BHS:

    I can only agree. From the moment we got the first information about an “Avante Truck” in May *, we have discussed at Tamiyablog how difficult it was to ímagine that a truck on Avante-chassis basis could be good, both in terms of technical design and visual impact.

    * https://tamiyablog.com/2011/05/very-interesting-future-tamiya-rc-releases/

    We hoped that it would get a (futuristic) truck body inspired by the Avante, or a completely new chassis design in some way inspired by the Avante chassis, or that it somehow would pay tribute to the Avante design.

    Once the first pic got available roughly a week ago, I think it’s fair to say that we were all disappointed at Tamiyblog. “Just” an extended Avante, obviously with some parts from other AV-series models and the “recycled” Super Levant body on top. Not at all close to what we had hoped for. At the moment, none of us plan to get it, and I can’t imagine that we will ever change our opinions about that. 20+ years ago, the Vajra would have been an exciting release. Now? Not at all!

    As we all know, Tamiya is often criticised for “bad” decisions, but once an item is out in the market, the decisions almost without exceptions turn out to be good after all. They certainly know very well at Tamiya what they are doing, and I hope this will be the case for the Vajra too, but it’s very difficult to imagine how.
15. Black Hole Sun August 4, 2011 at 11:06 am

    I agree with you Miramar.

    Something I learnt with years is that Tamiya is focused on their domestic Japanese market only (or mostly at least).
    The fact is we almost ignore everything about this market, probably due to the language barrier and different ways of living. So what may look as a complete fail (proven or expected) on western markets may reveal to be a tremendous success in Japan.

    From what it looks, the Levant/Super Levant don’t seem to be best sellers both in US and Europe (if you had any info about these models sales, it would help). But what about Japan? They might be the Slash-craze counterpart and we could be unaware of it.

    So the Vajra looks like an expected complete fail… on western markets. I sure don’t want it for the same reasons you said. Question is: how about Japan? What do Japanese resellers think about the (Super) Levant/Vajra?
16. miramar August 4, 2011 at 11:53 am

    @BHS:

    The often major differences between Tamiya’s domestic market and export market, is something we have frequently discussed at Tamiyablog, sometimes resulting in blogposts about it, as you surely have recognised from past posts.

    Customers in the export market quite often have difficulties understanding why Tamiya releases certain products, whereas domestic customers vote the same releases to the top of Tamiya’s surveys. Considering how important the domestic market is to Tamiya and the continued success of Tamiya, there are very strong indications that they know exactly what they are doing. There have been a few dead ends in Tamiya’s history (ie. items or series that have been quickly discontinued), but even those may have been profitable for all I know.

    The above was what I had in mind when writing my previous post too; it’s impossible for us to conclude whether the Vajra will be a successful release or not. And it would be extremely naive of us to believe that Tamiya hasn’t carefully judged the market before going ahead with the Vajra. Even as basically a “parts-bin” kit, substantial investments are required, and obviously, Tamiya has come to the conclusion that these investments will pay off, either directly in the sales of the model, the attention to the brand the kit causes (image/goodwill) or in other ways we can’t recognise from outside. Or all combined!

    One very appropriate and enjoyable comment that you make is about “complete fail (proven or expected)”. As I think you indicate between the lines, enthusiasts in Tamiya’s export markets regularly claim that a certain new release will be a “complete fail” (HB10 is a harsh example). Obviously, this is their “expectation”, mostly based on very limited knowledge, but still presented as an “absolute truth”. Then, when the new release turns out to be a great success (did I mention the HB10 😉 ), the earlier “absolute truth” predictions are quickly forgotten, and the same verdict repeated for the next release they personally don’t approve of.

    But what about proven “complete fails”. Yes, I think it’s fair to say that the Juggernaut (1) was technically a proven complete fail, and the same goes for a very few other products from Tamiya. But in my about 35 years of literally fanatical Tamiya-enthusiam, I have never seen a single proof that any release from Tamiya has ever been a complete fail as a commercial product.

    The beancounters at Tamiya will surely have the figures to present proofs of “complete fails” (or not), but for anyone outside, claiming a release to be a complete fail, especially in advance of the release itself, is actually pretty ignorant.

    Personally, I trust Tamiya’s decisions, even when I sometimes don’t understand them at all. Also, I want Tamiya to prosper and grow, and happily take into account that this sometimes results in products I don’t appreciate or approve of.
17. Black Hole Sun August 4, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    I know what you mean about the expected complete fail for the HB2010 😀 Better than “absolute truth”, I consider (and wrote) the “statement” as a personal opinion (and did publish both “fail” and “success” entries ;)).

    I maintain the HB2010 is a complete fail for many (western) Tamiya enthusiasts (among which I am). But I also maintain it is a complete success for many other (western) Tamiya enthusiasts (possibly more numerous but definitely more silent). Both groups are “right” for different reasons.

    As for Tamiya’s success or fail point of view, we only know they produce by batches. The 1st batch may already cover the model’s costs so any additional sales may be profit. Or not. Moreover, Tamiya sells to distributors: as long as they buy, Tamiya’s job is done, whether customers buy the model or not. I guess we will never know how things really work anyway.
    But you are right saying that Tamiya probably also considers ” the attention to the brand the kit causes (image/goodwill)”.

    All in all, Tamiya works in mysterious ways… from this side of the planet 😀
18. miramar August 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    @BHS:

    My comment about the HB10 was in no way meant as a slap to you. Instead, it was meant as a ironic comment to those that stated before the release of the HB10 that it would be a flop. Some people still don’t like it, which is of course fully legitimate, whereas others have changed their minds. And then again, many liked it from the very start. And I think we will be very hard pushed to find someone who tuned from positive to negative about it.

    Only Tamiya can tell whether the HB10 has been a success or not, but there are strong indications that those that claimed it would fail were utterly wrong. Thus, the HB10 serves as a brilliant example for a release sentenced to death (by some very loud voices), but which is still safe and sound and just got a red sibling.

    Whether Tamiya really produces in batches or not, I don’t know, and would also depend on the definition. I wouldn’t be able to define what “batch” would mean in Tamiya’s case. I work for a high-volume Japanese manufacturer with an enormous diversity of products. For traceability, they are all manufactured in what we refer to as “batches”, but in most cases, the manufacturing is still continuous. As such from the customers’ point of view, not in batches with regard to availability.

    I just know that Tamiya’s manufacturing and logistics are highly sophisticated and hardly anything left to chance. Demand, stock levels, market potential, production volumes, quality assurance and multiple other criteria are necessarily carefully judged and monitored with systems in which a crystal ball is not a part. Or in other words; we don’t need to worry, as they know very well what they are doing.

    I principally agree that Tamiya’s job is done when the distributors have ordered appropriate volumes of new products, regardless whether these products are actually sold to the end-users or not. That’s unfortunately the unpleasant way modern economy works. However, many of Tamiya’s country distributors have been the same for decades, partially a result of Tamiya’s long term strategies. This is something that can’t be achieved with focus solely on short term profit. The same goes for Japanese domestic distributors of course. In the long run, the vast majority of products must appeal to the end-users.
19. GreatDane August 4, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Great discussion, guys 🙂

    According to an article in the Tamiya Modelmagazine in the early 1990, 75 % of Tamiya production was sold in Japan – if my memory serves me correctly. 😉

    Earlier this year I did contact the author and ask him what he thinks the ratio is today. He believe that the ratio is roughly 50:50.

    So we, the rest of the world, play a significant part in what Tamiya releases.

    I keep thinking about the vast amount of re-releases we have seen from Tamiya lately.

    Is Tamiya doing this because they can or is Tamiya, pure and simple, up against a high demand from old farts, like myself, who wants to relive there youths? (lol)

    And by the way, I am in for the 4×4 Toyota Hilux – GREAT TRUCK!

    Best Regards

    GreatDane c”,)
20. Black Hole Sun August 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Don’t worry, I didn’t take your comments on the HB2010 as a slap 😉

    As far as I know, Tamiya works in batches, batch meaning “one mold production limited in time and quantities”. For high volume parts (think TT-01 trees), production may be constant (I don’t know). But for “specific” production (think re-releases), they produce a certain amount of parts, then stop, change mold and produce a batch of something else.

    Taking the example of the Madbull (this would also apply to the F-150 “baja truck” and not counting with their re-release announce): these are very long selling kits (were both still on sale in German stores a few months ago). All or part of the parts are produced in batches (the stop/change manner, ie no dedicated continuous production line). When the distributors have sold what they bought, Tamiya and the distributors agree on a new production batch and quantities. Or agree not to.

    At least, as reported by a distributor, especially about the re-released items. This enforces what you said about the important role of long-term relations with distributors. Tamiya’s job may be done once they sold to the distributors but as you state, they do have a concern for the sales to end-users since it influences production, either continuous dedicated lines or on-demand lines.

    Like it or not, distributors seem to be quite close to “integrated” into Tamiya’s strategy. The distributors strategies towards stores and end-users is another question 😀
21. miramar August 4, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @ GreatDane:

    thanks a lot for your contribution! The 75% figure for the domestic market is something that correlate well with earlier official statements from Tamiya themselves. 80% was stated for many years through the seventies and eighties.

    Tamiya Model Magazine International (TMMI) and the editor Marcus Nicholls are probably among the closest in the world to Tamiya Japan in terms of information exchange and by far closer than most distributors. However, TMMI doesn’t belong to Tamiya and thus most likely doesn’t have a similar free access to information as Tamiya inhouse people. I don’t question Marcus Nicholls’ credibility at all, but if he stated “roughly 50:50”, I tend to believe that it was his qualified estimation rather than a confirmed figure. If it should be correct, or if even the bias would be stronger in favour of export, Japan would still remain the by far largest single market. Of course Tamiya still keeps an eye on the export market and caters specifically for it, but I’m not so confident that the export market really has a great overall influence on Tamiya’s decisions.
22. GreatDane August 4, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    @ miramar:

    It was Alan Harmann who did the article and it was also him I asked about the current ratio, not Marcus Nicolls 🙂

    Best Regards

    GreatDane c”,)
23. miramar August 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    @BHS:

    I don’t know where you have you information about Tamiya’s supposed batch production from (with “batches” defined as “one mold production limited in time and quantities”). I have never at any time seen any information indicating this or indicating the opposite. As I also don’t have any single idea about the production volumes for the different products, there is no way I could estimate whether certain products would be continuously manufactured or not. I simply can’t have any opinion about your statements as I totally lack any information to base my opinions on.

    If I understand you correctly, you refer to someting reported by a distributor. From working for a Tamiya distributor myself for 17 years and from observing several other distributors, I have learned not to blindly trust information from the distributors. The amount of inside information from Tamiya to the distributors was very limited and still seems to be. When you consider that one of the larger distributors presented certain models in their own brand of products at the same time as Tamiya presented models with the same bodies (ie. Paris-Dakar Touareg and Gallardo), it’s pretty obvious that Tamiya hadn’t shared information about their upcoming products soon enough for the distributor to cancel the development and production of their own similar products, and avoid unnecessary cost.

    Also, some distributor employees are known for being very eager at leaking information, but with few or even no exceptions, this has been information that has been officially available from Tamiya shortly after anyway.

    It can’t be applied as a general rule, but one single interesting example; at the 1996 European Tamiya Cup Finals in Switzerland, the present distributor representatives were presented to the idea of a Wild Willy 2 and asked for their opinions. After that, nothing was heard about it again before shortly before the release in 1999. Close cooperation? Not really. And not be cause the people at Tamiya are silly, but because there was no rational reason to reveal any information about their decision to make the Wild Willy 2 before right in advance of the release.

    Based on this and many other observations for many years, I have never seen any indication that Tamiya Japan shares information with the distributors before they need to, and when, only as much as necessary. Tamiya clearly seems to value long term relationships to the distributors, but Tamiya runs the game.
24. cornel4web August 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Why not a word about the new Lunchbox Gold Edition II in the re-release list? It’s on the tamiyaUSA website coming soon page…
25. miramar August 5, 2011 at 8:53 am

    @cornel4web:

    The re-release of the Lunchbox Gold Edition has been known on Asian websites for weeks and long before it was posted on the Tamiya USA website, so we don’t consider it to really be news anymore. As a general rule, we avoid posting information about items that are already widely known or which we have presented in posts in the past. This typically means that we omit certain “new” items. But by all means, the re-release of the Lunchbox Gold Edition is welcomed and appreciated at Tamiyablog too! 🙂
26. ken August 8, 2011 at 6:24 am

    Is the 58499 Pajero/Montero Wheelie body essentially the same as the 58044 Pajero? Or any modifications as the Lunch Box chassis is used?
27. miramar August 8, 2011 at 6:39 am

    @Ken:

    At this time, we don’t have any firm information about the body, but there are good reasons to assume that the front body mount(s) will be different from 58044. The Lunchbox chassis doesn’t incorporate the extension that the 58044 chassis has that works as a front body mount, so the body of 58499 is most likely mounted in a similar way as the Midnight Pumpkin body. Apart from that and the omission of a few of the sponsor decals (ie. Cibie), it appears that the body will be as for 58044. Whether it will be useable for the 58044 and if the small tabs under the front bumper will be included, remains to see.
28. AJ August 8, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Ok so what is Tamiya’s problem been towards their U.S., European, market in terms of INNOVATION & Imagination.This is getting real old when ‘ I’ as a Tamiya Loyalist (We’ll see how long that last’s for.) go to check what’s new in the furtures release list and for the past4 years or so keep seeing that most all the the releases are RE RE’s. Come on Tamiya, Get Real. I love each and every one of their r/c models individualy and there are obviously some that are more appealing to me than other’s. This makes it special for that item to only be released once and for it to let us look back either through literature or long lost kit’s and to appreciate what that kit had to offer for the year it was realeased. This means the whole R/C technical deisign as well as the car/truck’s appeal through aesthetics. (the wasy it appeals to the eye.)
    It disapoint’s me that Tamiya seem’s to be stuck in time with these atrocious ReRe’s as well as the pathetic innovation and sillyness of recent models that haven’t surprisingly been a RERe.
    To be truthful i’m not much into the kiddy kit’s anymore, as i like the performance based vehicles such as my “DB-01R, DF-03, & TRF501x. The reason i’m bitching is mainly cause of the fact that all the performance/track vehicles are being crowded out by the above mentioned kit’s. I like to be different and if it means for me to run a Tamiya on the track, while the others are driving Associated, Losi, HPI, Schumacher, Durango, Hot Bodies, Kyosho, Yokomo etc….Than i will, but with the garbage that Tamiya’s been spewing for the past 4 years, it’s making me an ashamed Tamiya Guy.
    How about a 1/8th Electric Buggy or Truggy Tamiya. Do you not have the R&D Money or did you get rid of the brainsthat make up the design team?
    That was a good point that was made in the above post’s concerning Tamiya being more involved in their domestic products concerns and the fact that the kits that us other consumers laugh at may get eaten up by the Jap market. Good bye for now and thanks for the site. A.J. Boston,Mass. P.S. I hope Tamiya is listening because i know i’m not the only one with these feeling’s. Other’s have expressed similar views with me.
29. Fabio August 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    To AJ: just my thoughts. thank you!
30. Davis August 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    @AJ

    I kind of agree with you in that there don’t seem to be any new models that have the same appeal as many of the early models had. On the other hand, it’s natural to look back with rose-tinted glasses at those cars, especially if you happened to be a kid at the time they were released as I was. Personally, I am very happy with the re-re program because it has given me the chance to own some of the cars I could only dream about back then, such as the Avante.

    To be fair though, there was a fair amount of rubbish even among the first 100 kits; anything with “dragon” in it’s name for a start! Any market is at it’s most exciting and innovative during it’s early stages, think about home computers, or video games consoles for example. Once a market matures, things tend to standardize on the best solutions which is why all of the new RC buggys/trucks tend to look more or less the same. There would be little sense in Tamiya coming up with a radical new chassis just for the sake of it if it didn’t perform to today’s standards. The one area that they can still differentiate their products is in body-shells and I think they are doing that with the on road and scale off road models.

    The most exciting segments of the market today are probably crawlers and short course. This is where most of the innovation is happening right now and I guess you could say that Tamiya’s offerings in these areas are weak or non-existent. I would like to see a CR-02 and and short course truck from Tamiya soon.
31. Black Hole Sun August 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    @ AJ

    I kind of disagree with you.
    First, Tamiya’s chassis line-up never was that large, covering most of on-road, off-road and nostalgic segments.
    Second, go TRF for racing: here too, their chassis line-up covers every true racing category. ie TRF201 and TRF502/511 for off-road, TF417 for on-road. You can even add TamiyaUSA’s 801 for 1/8 GP.
    Third, as far as I know, MTs and SCs are not true world racing categories: they are Traxxas’ own categories where other manufacturers make clones. As far as I know, Crawlers are no official world “racing” category either.
    Fourth, please don’t take offense: “world” is not USA, not even USA+Europe, especially for a Japan-based company. From Japan, “world” is pretty much the opposite: it’s Japan+whatever.

    About innovation, the RC market has been mature for quite long now: chassis designs are “frozen” since the late 90’s in almost every segment. Traxxas’ E-maxx and Slash are no innovations: they are new marketing applications of existing designs and technologies. They do create new “markets” though, with new customer profiles and expectations (more modern and similar to our consumerism way of living, may be not the best suited for our RC hobby as we knew it until then).
    Innovation has mainly been focused on electronics for over a decade, not on chassis designs: brushless, LiPo, 2.4GHz. The same occurs in 1:1 scale cars, with the difference that real cars tend to go electric (RC already is for long). May be we can expect some kind of KERS in our RC models, but I don’t think we may expect anything major in chassis designs. Especially in a market that suffers from the economic crisis.

    Best regards,
    BHS
32. miramar August 11, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    @BHS:

    I fully agree with you. Also, as pointed out by several enthusiasts in Japan, are MT, SC and crawling not particularly popular in Japan at all. With the domestic market as Tamiya’s by far largest, it’s only logical and good business to focus on what the Japanese market wants.

    This doesn’t mean that there isn’t any market potential left dormant by Tamiya, but rest assured that the very capable people at Tamiya are carefully considering the different markets to cater for them as they find appropriate.

    Also, as for the bias between re-releases and new releases, I have done a few pivot-calculations in Tamiyblog’s database that contains all RC-models released by Tamiya. Even when I defined “re-use” of existing bodies on new chassises (ie. M01-bodies on M03) as re-releases, the rate of re-releases from 1998 to 2004 was a maximum of 6% (2002) and an average of about 4%. Then in the following years, the rate has admittedly increased:

    2005: 26%
    2006: 7%
    2007: 5%
    2008: 6%
    2009: 14%
    2010: 18%
    2011: 26% (w/all known 2011 releases as per Aug. 11th)

    These rates are a matter of definition, but I did my best to be really pesimistic (defining as many releases as possible as re-releases), but still the amount of genuine new releases is by far larger.
33. LOUIS XVI ROI DE FRANCE August 12, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    I personally would love to see more Lamborghini’s -Yes I know, I have said it before, but if someone is listening…
    Reventon, Murcialago Super Veloce and Aventador.

    On the off road front Avante 2001, Supershot (GT TUNED with fancy sticker) Striker and Wild One.

    Yes I know you are rubbing your eyes…Striker!? -yes with a load of improvements- why not good looking basic car.

    Finally -instead of an Egress, quite boring imho…how about an all new “SUPER-AVANTE” or such like-all beefed up -RZ motor incl in kit-Titanium bits, Carbon -you name it…and the driver for scale realism, none of that egress black stickers for windows cop out.

    A modern day “wow” car, a 2012 version of the the high status cars like Top Force Evo /Egress were in their day.
34. kchx2 August 13, 2011 at 3:54 am

    someone posted this photo at tamiyabase.com

    http://www.tamiyabase.com/media/kunena/attachments/63/tamiya_58500_2011-08-13.jpg

    afterall, have to carve holes on the front body for the front shocks, and also behind the driver for the rear shocks.
35. admin Post authorAugust 13, 2011 at 8:40 am

    I personally find it looks quite ok in total though, almost better then the HB, just the low profile tires and wheels (especially front ones) aren’t my thing, but easy to chance.
    Regards,
    Admin
36. Black Hole Sun August 13, 2011 at 10:56 am

    About the 2011 SR prototype photo shown at TamiyaBase, it unfortunately meets my worst speculations on how Tamiya would fit the bodyshell to the DT-02 chassis.
    They definitely chose the “slaughter” way instead of the “custom fit” way.

    I’m quite worried by the 3-hole sequence in the front bonnet though: looks almost like a pre-cut line for breakage.

Comments are closed.