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

HI!... Wow that body is fugly.

Oh dear. Looks like the future of rc is still hideous. Still, they make vintage cars look even more stunning.

I see what they did there.
AE updates the B4, makes the b4.1. It keeps winning races. People complain that they didn't make an all new car.
AE updates the B4 again, makes the B4.2. It keeps winning races. People complain they didn't make an all new car.
AE updated the B4 a third time, makes the B5. It keeps winning races. Fewer people whine and complain that they didn't make an all new car because the number is changed to 5.
What's wrong with incremental updates to a proven existing platform? It seems like some people want radical change for the sake of radical change.

Orange wrote:I don't think Im a fan of having to get 2 separate cars... This might make a decision easier to buy a Kyosho or TLR... Or Durango for that matter. Will have to wait and see I guess.

Why would you need to get two separate cars? You're allowed to buy just one. They share 90% of their parts.

85Edinger wrote:I see what they did there.
AE updates the B4, makes the b4.1. It keeps winning races. People complain that they didn't make an all new car.
AE updates the B4 again, makes the B4.2. It keeps winning races. People complain they didn't make an all new car.
AE updated the B4 a third time, makes the B5. It keeps winning races. Fewer people whine and complain that they didn't make an all new car because the number is changed to 5.
What's wrong with incremental updates to a proven existing platform? It seems like some people want radical change for the sake of radical change.

I agree, if it's not broke....

Lots of guys at our local track keep trying all the NEW cars that come out, but keep going back to the b4.

Even if the chassis is as good as rc will ever get, why make it so ugly? Put in a little effort and add some lovely lines, a decent body, some character here and there, quality feel of materials (alloy, real carbon fibre, titanium etc). They just look so plastic and ugly. Fast does not have to mean zero character and a dogs dinner to look at.

kink wrote:Even if the chassis is as good as rc will ever get, why make it so ugly? Put in a little effort and add some lovely lines, a decent body, some character here and there, quality feel of materials (alloy, real carbon fibre, titanium etc). They just look so plastic and ugly. Fast does not have to mean zero character and a dogs dinner to look at.

Are you referring to the cab-forward body? I hate those things too.

That's pretty much a business decision. AE's typical M.O. is to release a Team version before the Factory Team. At some point, they are going to make a RTR version of this. RTR's outsell kits now. Many of the plastic parts on this are probably going to be on the RTR. It makes sense to release a team version of this first and get the kits out there and in the hands of club racers who can go out there and put it through the real world stress test that run of the mill racers put it through so they can figure out if there are any weak points that need to be addressed.

Plus, the initial price point of this will be lower than the competitors I think. I realize Tower's initial price listing for this is north of $300. However, they often change the price back down to earth once they get some in the warehouse. Using the MSRP to price ratio on the B4.2 would put the street price of this around $220 to $230, after the usual Tower discounts that would put the price right around $200.

The B4.whatever is fast, and easy...but boring to drive, boring to look at, boring to think that that's as good as AE is capable of creating. Sorry, that's the truth IMO- AE broke the mold with the RC10, then with the RC10T and so forth- AE is re-working the mold (thus far) an going by the "if it ain't broke" mentality, and sorry but that's not hanging your balls out there like AE used to do, and that's what made AE exciting and American

I was (and maybe under that shell is more than I think) hoping to see AE increase the mark, in a big way- because many other companies are trying their butts off to do that, and a few are awfully close to it (TLR 22 2.0, RB6..)

I'm very interested to see body off pictures of the M car, and wonder if it could work on a rougher track? I know the "mid" design is more for the what I call "TC off road tracks" but I just like the idea of an aluminium chassis! I have a feeling that the rear motor B5 will be a plastic chassis!

There are people that are still complaining that the B5 isn't going to be different enough from the B4.2. Some people complain that an MM/RM convertible car is a compromise but when two separate cars come out they complain that there are two separate cars. Some people complain that this will cost too much but would gladly pay twice as much for an RB6. Some people are complaining that they aren't getting a factory team kit with all of the hop ups but are ignoring the fact that they've got an entirely new car. You can't make some people happy no matter what you do.

Your signature is very appropriate.

Ladies and gentleman, here you have the body off pictures I like both cars very well. Both have virtually nothing in common with the old B4.

By the way: they are TEAM KITS. I'm pretty sure Team Associated will release a Factory Team Kit later (with carbon battery strap, alloy hubs, titanium turnbuckles, milled motor plate...)...so I will wait for it

BAM! Way to go Associated!

As much as I like associated I don't know if I like the new car. Too me it looks a little bit like a sheep following the pack. I don't particularly like the specific molded ball cups. I'm sure the cars will be faster than the 4.2's but I'd like to see one in person first.

I hope it accepts normal, saddle or shorty packs as that reedy battery looks odd.

A couple of things that interest me:

- The diff gear looks huge...the top shaft looks larger too. Rough tooth count from the small pic looks like 24t top shaft and 64t diff. That's a lot of rotating mass....especially with the second idler.

- I'm wondering if the rear drive shafts got shorter with those rear hubs. I want to try the hubs on the back of an RC10.



Also I don't think it's fair to claim that the B5 and B5M share 90% of the same parts when the transmission and chassis are what's different. Relatively, the importance of those parts constitute more than 10% of a car.


-EDIT: Was wrong on the transmission gears tooth counts.