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

Anyone know *why* all the companies went to those horribly ugly car-forward bodies? There's nothing on the chassis that would make that change necessary, and I think they just look terrible. The only thing I can come up with is clean air for the back wing. Anyone?

My buddy just got a new Kyosho RB6, and wants to put a more classic body on his car, because he also finds the new ones ugly. I suggested seeing if the Jconcepts modern Detonator body fits.

It's all about downforce, & I agree they look terrible!

with all the new guys entering the hobby and creating tons of interest, sales and profit, the companies had to do something to make people NOT want to purchase and enjoy RC cars.

Look up a video called "The story of stuff".

I just can't see myself ever buying anything newer than a B3, unless I know a "traditional" body will fit the car. Kinda hard though with the front shock towers being what they are these days. There has to be more than a few of us who would rather drive a normal looking RC car, but I guess that's why we're all on this forum anyways.

With all the talk I've heard about how easy the B3 is to drive, I wouldn't mind taking one around the track for a few laps. This 1992 RC10T is the newest RC buggy I've ever driven. I have a Traxxas Slash 4x4 Ultimate too, upgraded to the hilt, not much Traxxas left on it, but I guess that's the newest vehicle I own. It's just not as fun around the track as the RC10T. The traxxas is heavy and just crushes anything else on the track, using brutal torque to get around. Where-as the RC10T buggy just kinda floats around like a quiet butterfly. Blows me away that they are still this good after all these years.

It's all good though, I LOVE driving my RC10T buggy conversion at the track

A guy that used to be on here did a really nice job of putting an RC10 body on a b4.1, it looked great.
http://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=35473
I haven't seen one on a b5 yet, but it could probably be done. They talk about it in that thread.

I have an assembled rear motored B5 sitting here on my desk with no body. I refuse to put a body on it until a can find a normal body that fits. I've done some measuring and I think a proteck 1 may work with a raise rear body mount and trimmed down side pods.

I want to see a Parma Eagle body on a B5.

Ugh, No.

I got one on my RC8.2e and to me it looks great! I don't think they look good on everything though, and I still do appreciate the standard classic look as well.

WP_20150425_007 by mrgrimm1, on Flickr

I think the cab forward stemed from 1/8 buggy and truggy. where if you look the whole head of the engine pokes out for cooling, rather than cutting open the front of the buggy and getting the inside dirty. They all seam to be laid out right there. But i think or feel that's where it came from

Maybe it's a generational gap thing. I was a kid when the RC10 was new, and have always watched off road racing. I like my cars to resemble an off road buggy, not a spaceship with wheels. I can't think of any vehicle in the real world that has even a passing resemblance to the current bodies. I'm sure the younger people probably don't mind, because these cab forward eye sores are what they are growing up with.

I have a B4, and the stock bodies for that are just past the limit for me. I'm trying to next fit a B3 body on my B4. The B5 just looks stupid. Things keep getting worse, I'm horrified to think of what the next batch will bring.

And the oddly proportioned truggies, with the fat front and narrow rear, that look like a fish-eye lens picture.......ugh, don't even get me started on those. If you want a buggy, make a buggy, if you want a truck, make sure it looks like a truck. This is one of the reasons short course trucks are so popular, they look like real vehicles.

I've sent a few e-mails suggestions to some of the more popular aftermarket body companies about this disease. I've heard nothing back. I like the idea of the narrow body on the new buggies, but that cockpit needs to go back where it belongs...towards the back.

I like both classic and cab forward. I think that the main reasin for cab forward design is aerodynamics. I think that most vintage builders will have a harder time transitioning to new styles due to nostalgia and a desire to recapture their past through familiar association of memerobilia and are not driven by the latest tech advances in order to shave off race time. Think back to the days of cheesing that rc10 chassis in order to lighten the car. That was ugly as hell to see.

Funny, I just made another post yesterday about drilling cheese holes into our cars in another post. At least that could be hidden under the body, but yeh, that was ugly too.

I'm sure it's for cleaner air over the rear wing, but there has to be another, far less ugly, way to do it.

Now they're running front wings, and I'm sure that really screws up the airflow over the rear wing. Ever watched an F1 race in the rain, and how high the spray gets from the rear wing? It's like 3 times the cars height. So that front wing has to be screwing things up for the back.

I have (sometimes) a front wing on my RC10T buggy, but it's set extremely low at the front, so the rear airflow wouldn't be affected as much. Actually works too, by keeping the front end down. I left it clear so it doesn't detract with the aesthetics of the buggy.