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

kink wrote:The golden era decade of rc was mid 80s to mid 90s.

Agreed.

I consider the original RC10 to be a vintage classic. I'm having a hard time coming to grip with how to go about this, and mean nothing by it, only asking your thoughts. Lets take a part, #6338 ant. mount for example. A 1985 mount would look and be the same as a 1993 mount, same color, made pretty much from the same molds, but the new re-re mount looks to be the exact same part, only made in another country with probably new molds, so that being said, I would have no problem putting a "late" vintage part on an early car ( as they're vintage parts ), but cant come to terms with myself putting a re-re mount ( even though it might look the same) on a vintage car. Would we consider re-re parts to be vintage ( made today ) but look the same as the originals. Am I making any sense

I think what your getting at is the same thing that plagues the full size auto industry. Repop parts look the same but are not true to the car. Some builders don't care as it looks the same, while others know the piece is wrong. You can only control the way you feel about it, everyone has different views.

Now, should that antenna holder find its way onto a build, and that build is later sold as an early Edinger, then that is wrong. If it's being used on a vintage car to fit vintage racing guidelines, shouldn't be a problem. The look, feel, weight, and colors are all true to the original. The rear arms, the shock ends, etc are not- so should they be allowed?

gomachv wrote:I think what your getting at is the same thing that plagues the full size auto industry. Repop parts look the same but are not true to the car. Some builders don't care as it looks the same, while others know the piece is wrong. You can only control the way you feel about it, everyone has different views.

Now, should that antenna holder find its way onto a build, and that build is later sold as an early Edinger, then that is wrong. If it's being used on a vintage car to fit vintage racing guidelines, shouldn't be a problem. The look, feel, weight, and colors are all true to the original. The rear arms, the shock ends, etc are not- so should they be allowed?

Good point gomachv. I've restored a few cars in the past, and even though the body panel is an officially licensed part, that does not mean that the company in question makes its.

re-re parts in my mind are not reproduction parts but continuation parts, to be reproduction they would need to be made by a completely different aftermarket company with no ties to the original company hoping to make a buck on hard to find parts. Continuation parts being made by the original company continuing production of a previously discontinued part.

An original car should theoretically not need any replacements, as soon as you start re-anodizing, taking parts from several different cars, and getting any replacement parts all together that car is no longer the original car but more of a 'bitsa' bits a this bits a that.

The new associated parts I feel are good for repairing a car, it's no longer original and I want to replace the parts with suitable replacement parts from the original manufacturer. There are times when you might get a bit more picky where parts have physically changed shapes like ballcups; no hex, half hex, and full hex for example. On the rere parts for the most part you will probably need to start looking at where the mold eject pins pressed on it now.

It all boils down to.. in the full size car world you generally don't go look for consumables only from when the car was built... Imagine how nasty those tires would be

On my Edinger project I will likely be using some rere parts, servo mount blocks battery cups etc out of convenience, it will be fine for me.

I agree clm, I have no false illusions on my builds. All original parts, all new, but in reality only clones of NIB kits. I have had many thoughts on this myself In my Gallery, I only label NIB built if I was the one who opened the kit, all others say new built. I'd like to think that they are (and they are! ) true cars, all box's, and paper work are there for each car, you would never know the difference, more time, and opinions are needed to......well I'm not sure

Imo it has to be a set amount if time, it's a relative term, it cannot be defined by a single era. If I wrote the rule book I would say 15-30 years is vintage. Older than 30 is an antique, newer than 15 is more or less just a used car.

To me, the "vintage" term would include alloy tub chassis schumachers at the very least. I'd even consider the cougar 2k vintage. Basically, the cars I wanted as a kid are vintage now.
From a race perspective, sooner or later, what is made today will be considered vintage. You could try to make up for this by having the rules state engine specofications and you could also state minimum weights for every model (whenever a new car arrives it is tested against a few approved cars and weight added until they are fairly equal). I also support the idea of having classes where updates are allowed so you can run a topcat with big-bore shocks and whatever other upgrade you can come up with as long as you share the information on how to do it with your fellow racers.

We don't want to end up having one class for each entrant five years from now, do we?

If it is older than me, it is vintage

I was thinking more about this subject the other day and have another thought about it.

This doesn't really pertain to the discussion of what can be considered vintage but it's related. I've always said that I'm into vintage R/C but is it really the correct term to use? The reason being is that eventually all R/Cs are going to become "vintage" so it's kind of a vague statement. I'm not really interested in modern R/C which means when enough time passes where current models are considered vintage, I still won't be. The point I'm trying to make is as time goes by the term vintage is going to encompass more and more eras. Instead of saying I'm into vintage R/C, maybe I should start saying I'm into the golden age of R/C instead. I consider that time period to be up until the turn of the century.

I wouldn't be so sure about that my friend. I think vintage and nostalgia are close mates and when you see an ad from today 20 years from now it will warm your heart and bring back some fond memories of some "vintage" R/C. Just food for thought.

Vintage is a term derived from winemaking refering to a specific harvest. It usually denotes timeless quality and excellence when refering to other refrences. It is synonymus with classic. in our case it refers to the products of a certain time period or a collection of things from a past time. so basically if it was made in the past and of lasting quality then its vintage. I would say that as cars are discontinued from production they could be considered vintage eg. I have a vintage 2005 traxxas bandit without a slipper and a black chassis and i have a modern 2011 rustler. both are basically same car with minor differences one being production dates. so a kyosho dash is just as vintage as your tyco made in the 90s. simply put its a broad and subjective adjective that relies on context and refrence to a period of time: eg. vintage 80s clothing as compared to vintage 90s clothing.

I wonder who actually looked up the word to even see what it meant? every word in the dictionary has a specific meaning and use. It may mean something different to an individual in the sense that the individual is either mislead or mistaken due to misinformation or lack of knowledge. you know the wiki effect. "If its on the internet or tv its true" mentality. Thing called a dictionary helps in these cases.

Your point is certainly not unfounded, but in this case it's the intention of the original poster to initiate conversation regarding simply what is to be considered old. It's kinda like spell check. I really don't care if someone spells something correctly. I'm much more interested in what they have to say.

but vintage doesn't refer to age but rather era. Age has nothing to do with it. how can you convey information accurately if you dont use the proper words in relation to their meaning. The improper usage of a word can change the meaning considerably. this being a forum, grammar and spelling are not as critical as say a term paper or professional piece of literature, I bet you want your doctor to spell that perscription right though. Remember there is a whole proffesion dedicated to arguing what words mean in certain arrangements and and a wrong word can cost money or freedom, they are called lawyers. In essence it is impossible to deduce the age or oldness of something based upon the descriptor "vintage" as it only means something tied to a past date. I could care less if someone is a literary genius, but dont spout statistics or argue the meaning of something based on feelings is all im getting at. look it up and back it up, otherwise its just wiki washy.