Wake up body manufacturers!

[AngelowDoom]

Have you ever seen a real truck? Or are you all stuck in rc world?
You all claim you make scale bodies, but hardly any of you manage to make the bodies wide enough to fit the intended track width.
Proline is one of the worst. There scale bodies are suppose to fit the scx10s and Ascenders, who have a track width of about 240mm. But almost all bodies is under 190mm, a few is about 195mm. When proline, can you manage to make a body that actually tucks the tires?

The same applies to about all major manufacturers. The all so popular Mojave hilux from rc4wd as popular as it is. Have it not occurred for you rc4wd that a narrower axle that actually fits the body could make its way into production? I had to get a friend to 3d print narrower yotas just to make the body fit properly.

So form now on I expect better from you. Eater a narrow axle option, or better yet, start make the bodies to fit the intend axle!

[excabswap]

Because in real life most people don't want to build a truggy with narrow axles. Nobody wants their tires to tuck into the body

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

[TacoCrawler]

I'll agree that scale body width is not often true to scale for many chassis produced.

But many prefer that their tires extend beyond the body so that the tires do not interfere with the body during suspension compression.

Not me... I prefer that a body be truer to scale of the chassis it's placed on.
But often width and length is more befitting to their chassis then true scale.

Alternative to changing axle lengths...

Often the wheel offset plays a critical role in how far the wheels/tires protrude past the body.

Using IDF or SLW hub mounted wheels allows for different wheel offsets to be obtained/used.

So changing the axle and it's width is not always what one need do to fit a body.

[AngelowDoom]

Originally Posted by excabswap

Because in real life most people don't want to build a truggy with narrow axles. Nobody wants their tires to tuck into the body

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

Most people don't build truggies. And if they want it a bit wider there is the option of xr10 width or AR60.

Was a bit exited about the new proline 1966 C10. But again they did a SCX10 /Ascender body that is just 190mm. It's not even gonna fit a narrow Ascender.
Do they even know these trucks usually have a track width of 240mm?

[AngelowDoom]

Got the Hilux a bit more realistic with the MSA axles from MST.
Considering converting my other trucks to these axles as well. Tired of the wide funky look on every truck.

[War Pig]

I'd say this body fits quite nicely on an SCX10 2 chassis.

[1tuff40]

Not all bodies are out of proportion. This one is on a TF2 chassis.

[tjohanne]

I think it's a valid point. As I have my background from the plastic model kit hobby, I'm astonished by the lame selection of rc bodies in the crawler segment. Both lexan and hard plastic. There should be way more to choose from. How hard can it be to produce these? And why can't someone like Proline sell lexan bodies pre-cut (and pre-masked)? The plastic model industry is years ahead of the RC body manufacturers..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[AngelowDoom]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I'd say this body fits quite nicely on an SCX10 2 chassis.

Yes it does, but that is not made by the major fabricators. Not sure if it is made for rc at all. Just like the kina 2 doors jeep that is really for a cheap toy grade rc. But is now one of the most detailed and popular hardbodies out there.

Another example is rc4wd Blazer. Almost wide enough. But horrible interior fitment. The toy grade rc's get nice interiors that fit perfect. Is it really so much harder to do for hobby grade?

So body manufacturers take a lesson and step it up

[Disco Stu III]

Variety is the thing for me. All you see is hilux, jeep, rovers, oldsko0l yank tanks. That's it. Paying us$200 for a decent hardbody is horsepoo too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AngelowDoom]

Originally Posted by Disco Stu III

Variety is the thing for me. All you see is hilux, jeep, rovers, oldsko0l yank tanks. That's it. Paying us$200 for a decent hardbody is horsepoo too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes variety is really good. That's why I can't understand why proline think the bodies should be around 190-195mm when the trucks they make them for is 240mm. That's 4,5 - 5cm to much. That's not removable with offset wheels or small hexes.
The last proline body I bought was the 1966 f-100 cab, and due to the idiotic width I had to cut mutch of the front of the fenders away, if not the tires would rub like crazy when turning. If it covered the tires that would not be a issue. And to clear it on the outside the axle width would have to be at least xr10 width, if not ar60.
And its like that on so many bodies, make something that covers the tires for once!
Axial did it right on the scx10 2 Cherokee, and Vaterra seems to do it. Why does proline and the others struggle with this?
This is also why so many put the ugly dingo flares on proline bodies. They have kind of always been to narrow.

Time to wake up!

[Ditchrat]

Originally Posted by AngelowDoom

Yes variety is really good. That's why I can't understand why proline think the bodies should be around 190-195mm when the trucks they make them for is 240mm. That's 4,5 - 5cm to much. That's not removable with offset wheels or small hexes.
The last proline body I bought was the 1966 f-100 cab, and due to the idiotic width I had to cut mutch of the front of the fenders away, if not the tires would rub like crazy when turning. If it covered the tires that would not be a issue. And to clear it on the outside the axle width would have to be at least xr10 width, if not ar60.
And its like that on so many bodies, make something that covers the tires for once!
Axial did it right on the scx10 2 Cherokee, and Vaterra seems to do it. Why does proline and the others struggle with this?
This is also why so many put the ugly dingo flares on proline bodies. They have kind of always been to narrow.

Time to wake up!

You make some valid points, but really I don't think you have a clue about trucks. Stock tires on a 66 f-100 is 235/75/15, That is a tire height of 30" or a 3 inch tire.

There is no way that you got tire rub with the correct size for scale tires of 3".
What did you try and put in? a 4.45" tire. Of coarse its going to rub like crazy you just tried to jam 45" of tire into a stock truck wheel well.

If you knew about trucks you would understand that you have to cut the wheel wells to accommodate that tire size. It stands to reason that if you take a scale truck body it is going to be modeled after the actual wheel well sizes.

[AngelowDoom]

Originally Posted by Ditchrat

You make some valid points, but really I don't think you have a clue about trucks. Stock tires on a 66 f-100 is 235/75/15, That is a tire height of 30" or a 3 inch tire.

There is no way that you got tire rub with the correct size for scale tires of 3".
What did you try and put in? a 4.45" tire. Of coarse its going to rub like crazy you just tried to jam 45" of tire into a stock truck wheel well.

If you knew about trucks you would understand that you have to cut the wheel wells to accommodate that tire size. It stands to reason that if you take a scale truck body it is going to be modeled after the actual wheel well sizes.

If I put on a 3" tire the width would still be 4-5cm to wide.

[aver3]

Originally Posted by Ditchrat

You make some valid points, but really I don't think you have a clue about trucks. Stock tires on a 66 f-100 is 235/75/15, That is a tire height of 30" or a 3 inch tire.

There is no way that you got tire rub with the correct size for scale tires of 3".
What did you try and put in? a 4.45" tire. Of coarse its going to rub like crazy you just tried to jam 45" of tire into a stock truck wheel well.

If you knew about trucks you would understand that you have to cut the wheel wells to accommodate that tire size. It stands to reason that if you take a scale truck body it is going to be modeled after the actual wheel well sizes.

I don't really understand why 1.9" tires are the standard, either. 1.55" wheels and 3.1"-3.3" tires would be pretty realistic on a Cherokee body. Then again, most "1/10" scales aren't really 1/10. A Silverado and a Cherokee aren't very close in size, but they use the same frame if you are building an SCX10. But still, any serious offroad enthusiast isn't going to be running 19" wheels unless they are running some BIG tires. You need some sidewall for offroad driving.

In the 1:1 world, I bought an old C1500 farm truck, and the first thing I did was swap the 20" rims for 15s. My current '16 Colorado has 16" aluminum wheels, and I think it looks like it has appropriately meaty-looking tires. To me, huge chrome wheels on a truck is like putting Integy parts all over an rc. I saw a guy selling a highly blinged-out Colorado for an insanely high price, and then noticed it had low profile tires on a 2wd chassis with a big lift.

One last thing - to me, the current fullsize trucks have gotten so big that they only look right with a lift and giant tires on them. They're like putting Dwayne Johnson in shoes made for a 5' tall woman. Even worse if they are smallish, low-profile tires.

[durok]

Yeah, at least put Dwayne in a pair of stiletto heels.....

Thoughts:

Pro-Line Slash body - '81 Ford Bronco 11.63" (296mm) wide, 13" (331mm) wheelbase

Pro-Line Crawler body - '81 Ford Bronco 6.5" (165mm) wide, 12.5" (317mm) wheelbase

There ya go!

[WHITE-TRASH]

They don't make "correct" bodies because people buy up what they make as soon as they make it. Just because a few people are upset by the proportions certainly doesn't mean everyone is. Most people do not give a damn about perfect scale. They want something that looks more or less like something they see on the road or in a magazine that they can relate to.

[makya]

yep, it's the same old argument that's been re-hashed over and over again since r/c's first began. Scale or convenience.

If the bodies were wide enough to cover the tires, many would have to be longer than the current wheelbase to stay scale. If they were made disproportionately, to cover the wheels but match the wheelbase, they would look like cartoons.

[Dbx]

Most 1/10 scale crawlers are actually about 1/9 or 1/8.5.
My raffee defender is spot on 1/8.5 - the width is exactly correct too (unlike rc4wd bodies). That makes a 16" rim equal to a 1.9 scale wheel and an 33" tyre equal to a 3.9" scale tyre - which is exactly what is available.

[JatoTheRipper]

Originally Posted by tjohanne

I think it's a valid point. As I have my background from the plastic model kit hobby, I'm astonished by the lame selection of rc bodies in the crawler segment. Both lexan and hard plastic. There should be way more to choose from. How hard can it be to produce these? And why can't someone like Proline sell lexan bodies pre-cut (and pre-masked)? The plastic model industry is years ahead of the RC body manufacturers..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It's not easy to produce plastic 1/10 bodies. Not at all. You have to get a lawyer to license the bodies from the auto manufacturers, then you have to get an engineer to design the mold, most importantly pay for the extremely expensive mold to be made. That's all before you pour any plastic or make a dime.

You can mold half a dozen model bodies in the same amount of space it takes to mold one 1/10 scale body. The investment isn't on the same scale as 1/10 bodies.

If it's so easy, why haven't you started an RC body company?

Originally Posted by aver3

I don't really understand why 1.9" tires are the standard, either. 1.55" wheels and 3.1"-3.3" tires would be pretty realistic on a Cherokee body. Then again, most "1/10" scales aren't really 1/10. A Silverado and a Cherokee aren't very close in size, but they use the same frame if you are building an SCX10. But still, any serious offroad enthusiast isn't going to be running 19" wheels unless they are running some BIG tires. You need some sidewall for offroad driving.

Driving around the woods on a 1.55 tire and wheel limits performance considerably. That reason, alone, is enough of a reason why 1.55 is the least popular size. 1.9 and 2.2 offers so much more performance.

Originally Posted by Disco Stu III

I like seeing people insist on bulk attention to "scale detail" then they put 1.9 tires on that would be the equivalent of having 60" wheels. Seems legit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In what world do you live in? How does a 1/10th scale 1.9" wheel equal a 1/1 scale wheel of 60"?

[tjohanne]

Originally Posted by JatoTheRipper

It's not easy to produce plastic 1/10 bodies. Not at all. You have to get a lawyer to license the bodies from the auto manufacturers, then you have to get an engineer to design the mold, most importantly pay for the extremely expensive mold to be made. That's all before you pour any plastic or make a dime.

You can mold half a dozen model bodies in the same amount of space it takes to mold one 1/10 scale body. The investment isn't on the same scale as 1/10 bodies.

If it's so easy, why haven't you started an RC body company?

Come on.. If they can make the most powerful ESCs, brushless systems, kits, tires etc., I think they can manage to pre-cut a lexan body. I've seen greater bodies made by drunk, lonely guys on a cheap 3d printer on a Saturday night. I've seen fantastically awesome 1/32 plastic model airplanes with the most insane details you can imagine mass produced in a worn-out, poor, sad old workshop in the Czech Republic, by companies with no money or resources other than their own skill. And you're telling me Axial or Proline are not capable of offering more than a few different uncut lexan bodies?

Please..
And why do you bring me into the equation? I don't possess any factory or engineering teams like these RC companies..

Tamiya Blazing Blazer looks amazing.. and they made that in 1982.. 1982.. Strange then, that great American companies should struggle with this more than 30 years later.. unbelievable..

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk