RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

I have to second the thoughts on the AYK Hunter. Cool box art. That's about it. Rear diff was a stunning bit of engineering.

Jirka wrote:Never owned this car, but I have seen several and raced against them. Schumacher CAT - CAT XLS. What I have heard and seen is that quality of parts were poor and You really have to BUILD them not just assemble. Have to use silicone all around lexan covers and other places too. There were belt pulleys that have tilted teeth, one XL car came with lower chassis that was longer than SWB but shorter then LWB what it should have been.

Jirka

A bit of a misguided opinion here I'd have to say. The CAT was definately a BIG part of the evolutionary chain. The materials weren't in any way cheap for that time and the car was a huge sucess the world over. It was (and still is) a great vintage performer. Sure some of the parts may have needed a little tidy up with a blade or a hole needed to be reemed on occassion with a drill bit but all the Cats were great cars.
Ive built, driven and owned all the different Schuey models and they are far from 'cheap' or 'rubbish' builds.

Brandon G wrote:I have to second the thoughts on the AYK Hunter. Cool box art. That's about it. Rear diff was a stunning bit of engineering.

I too loved the box art of the 'MARUI' Hunter. It made the car look like the coolest off roader back in the day. Sadly the design didnt quite get it over the line.

J.M. wrote:

Jirka wrote:Never owned this car, but I have seen several and raced against them. Schumacher CAT - CAT XLS. What I have heard and seen is that quality of parts were poor and You really have to BUILD them not just assemble. Have to use silicone all around lexan covers and other places too. There were belt pulleys that have tilted teeth, one XL car came with lower chassis that was longer than SWB but shorter then LWB what it should have been.

Jirka

A bit of a misguided opinion here I'd have to say. The CAT was definately a BIG part of the evolutionary chain. The materials weren't in any way cheap for that time and the car was a huge sucess the world over. It was (and still is) a great vintage performer. Sure some of the parts may have needed a little tidy up with a blade or a hole needed to be reemed on occassion with a drill bit but all the Cats were great cars.
Ive built, driven and owned all the different Schuey models and they are far from 'cheap' or 'rubbish' builds.

OK, I have to say that my choice was a little provocative. CAT and especially LWB CATs were definitely fast cars and some design that these cars (and other Cecil's creations from ball diff to active caster front end etc.) are somehow engineering masterpieces. My opinion comes more from quality side, those cars needed too many tips and tricks and hotup parts to stay together. In my point of view car should be more "ready" before they are sold to public. For team/factory and technically oriented drivers these tuning tricks were more accepted in most cases but for regular kids in clubs must have felt somehow sad to see their cars not so easy as some other cars already were at that time. This is probably a little similar thing as kaiser commented about BP Mini Mustang, definitely a fast car (Mini Mustang won Finnish national championship in 80's) but both of these cars were full of tricks that made it stay together.

I hated, if that can be said, Schumacher cars from that era. Nowadays I would really really like to own one, struggle building it from the box, feel front crashback thing (if the rubberbands were not dried) or turn front wheels to a angle where not other 4wd (or even not most 2wd cars) could be turned (thanks to universals in both ends of driveshafts). Also suspension travel (thanks to universals in both ends of driveshafts again) was so much more than other cars did or have now.

An other car, that I have personally owned, was very disappointment: Hirobo Invander. That thing was far from alien intelligence, where its predecessor, almost identical car Alien Mid came from according to its ads. Invander did have fine pitch belt, but gears were even fewer tooth then 32DB gears were. There were also not any tensioners to belt. Shocks mounting in top and bottom were crap. Bottoms was handled with something like 2mm thick screw that did twist to easily. Shock's top mounting towers were in front and rear too weak aluminum pieces. Also stocks springs were far too hard. Ball bearings did not have proper seals, dust did get in just too easily and fast. Steering servo should be raised from its pad something like 1cm. Complain list could be continued to wheels&tires, steering and so on.

Jirka

J.M. wrote:

Brandon G wrote:I have to second the thoughts on the AYK Hunter. Cool box art. That's about it. Rear diff was a stunning bit of engineering.

I too loved the box art of the 'MARUI' Hunter. It made the car look like the coolest off roader back in the day. Sadly the design didnt quite get it over the line.

True, and I wouldn't say the rear diff design was stunning. It was the minimum that was required to get the job done, and it didn't take much to get the gears grinding. (Same design was shared by the Galaxy.) Still, it was a better car overall than the more expensive Frog, IMHO.

worst vintage car ive ever owned

2 words...




nitro hawk

I must agree that both The Frog and the Varicom Big Grizzly are good candidates - I had one of each as a kid... both crap.

I would like to nominate the Mugen Bulldog, let me start by saying I have three or four of them now (3 blue cage and 1 BD-2)...

But, as a kid trying to go racing in the mid-80's, this was the biggest headache I ever had... the plastic parts were very delicate, the differentials were a joke (no spring to tension the thrust assembly), and that doesn't even begin to describe the ridiculous handling with the stock 4ws setup, the bouncy air shocks, and the huge, non-adjustable POSITIVE camber setting at all four corners... Uggghh!!!

I never owned one of these, but I'd say the Cox Bandido is a good candidate. That thing just looked cheap and fragile.

trkneller wrote:I never owned one of these, but I'd say the Cox Bandido is a good candidate. That thing just looked cheap and fragile.

I also own one of these as does my mate Chris. I would have to agree they do look a little on the cheap side but no more than a Tamiya Hornet (atleast it has IRS rather than a swing axle anyways). Kitted out with 13t brushless, full bearings and lipo batteries these make brilliant beach cars!

Check out the footage-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC6c9ROIdjs

Jirka wrote:I hated, if that can be said, Schumacher cars from that era. Nowadays I would really really like to own one, struggle building it from the box, feel front crashback thing (if the rubberbands were not dried) or turn front wheels to a angle where not other 4wd (or even not most 2wd cars) could be turned (thanks to universals in both ends of driveshafts). Also suspension travel (thanks to universals in both ends of driveshafts again) was so much more than other cars did or have now.

The Cats were definitely fiddly to set up right. Once you got them dialed there was nothing as rewarding to drive out there. A well setup Cat will destroy a XX4 through a tight twisty infield.

I think the most overated car to drive that I have ever owned was a Tamiya Bruiser. A tamiya Hornet handles better and is way more fun to drive.

Tamiya grasshopper. Cheap looking, slow and handled like garbage. But was a inexpensive way for kid to get into rc.

I would have to say the Royal Crusher. The gear box was very unreliable. And plastic was very brittle. But on the brite side the 4ws worked great!

.

Mr. ED wrote:Tamiya Striker: the uggliest body ever, terrible brittle chassis, total overgeared gearbox with only 2 pinion choices, disastrous front suspension geometry with friction shocks, plastic rear dogbones that won't stay in , drive cups you'd be scared of wearing out just looking at them. Need I go on?
The worst is so much better was out by the same time so the state of art wasn't an excuse.

OOh, vintage resale value : none ,in fact most people would charge you to take it off their hands

Tell me, what's the problem with the gearbox? I've bought a very cheap one, fixed all of the other issues, and fitted a CAM 27T stock motor. Will I burn out my motor?

Coelacanth wrote:

J.M. wrote:

Brandon G wrote:I have to second the thoughts on the AYK Hunter. Cool box art. That's about it. Rear diff was a stunning bit of engineering.

I too loved the box art of the 'MARUI' Hunter. It made the car look like the coolest off roader back in the day. Sadly the design didnt quite get it over the line.

True, and I wouldn't say the rear diff design was stunning. It was the minimum that was required to get the job done, and it didn't take much to get the gears grinding. (Same design was shared by the Galaxy.) Still, it was a better car overall than the more expensive Frog, IMHO.

I was being facetious about the diff.