TOPIC:

Jonny wrote:

I think the main thing when buying is to read up on what you're interested in, so as not to get sucked into what's sold as "rare", and not to get suckered into re-release passed off as vintage - for instance, is that "rare, original black bumper version" Rough Rider as stated, or does it have re-release front tyres, re-release bumper & radio box? Is a Super Champ made up from a mix of parts, some earlier? Dies a Sand Scorcher have a re-release body? The more you pay, the more a car ought to be "correct" - or at lease plausible.

Reminds me of a certain Vintage re-re Frog i have the pleasure of owning , tho that has been rectified now

Great debate, going on
Just to be clear, I'm not refusing the points I mentioned earlier, I just wan to see some kind of proof and evaluate based on that.

The "Bugy" misspelling on the body is confirmed:

Jonny wrote:

stingray-63 wrote:

Jonny, I saw several topics on srb here. And I have a big matter with your last post. What can I do to have coherent chassis? I bought a spares lot. And I built 1 superchamp and 1 sand scorcher/ranger. Could you say me if I need to rebuild them? I would like to have 1 or 2 really coherent srb. Not a job lot rebuilt.

Don't panic - this is not new information & if you were happy with your cars before reading that post, you should still be happy after reading it

Lar's view on the "mk.1/mk.2" debate are quite clear (it doesn't really matter that much), I believe in it a lot more than he does - but even so I would like to think I'm pragmatic about it, for example I would say that on somewhat more than the balance of probabilities, you are unliikely to see skinny front arms, front uprights with screw spring stops and "early" gearbox halves on a Super Champ, for example, but on any of the first 3 SRBs, either would be "correct".

Post some pics of those 2 cars & we can compare

Jonny, here is my topic on my SRBs.
tamiyabase.com/...mitstart=0
I am really proud of them. Same if the ranger is a replica and the super champ a rere body. I think that it could be interzsting to have coherent chassis and not a mix if I could have a real mk1 or a complete mk2. Thank you for your advices.

stingray-63 wrote:

...
Jonny, here is my topic on my SRBs.
tamiyabase.com/...mitstart=0
I am really proud of them. Same if the ranger is a replica and the super champ a rere body. I think that it could be interzsting to have coherent chassis and not a mix if I could have a real mk1 or a complete mk2. Thank you for your advices.

I had a look through & it seems to me that the vintage parts are on the "correct" chassis & there's nothing to be gained by swapping parts between the two

Thank you Jonny.

I've had some time today... looking at SRB pot-metal parts:
There are at leas three different gearboxes around. I've highlighted the changes.





On another note, the Mk.1 SS front body post:

That's crazy! It is like if tamiya made prototypes all along the lifz of first SRBs.
Like Harley Davidson. You never can find 2 similar harley.
Tamiya did the same. Mr T never made the same SRB.
That is so hard to say that is a pure boxart or it was repaired......

larbut wrote:

I've had some time today... looking at SRB pot-metal parts:
There are at leas three different gearboxes around. I've highlighted the changes.
...

That first picture isn't very logically laid out - left gearbox halves on the right of the picture, pairs not together ... if we rearrange it ...




... then I'm sure that the left gearbox halves 1 & 2 have been misnumbered - although we'd need to see the reverse angle to be sure (1 should have a large round sticky out bit on the box section right at the front, 2 should be flush). I can see why they've been numbered like that - but assuming the revese of the shafts/bearing holders goes from stacked O's on 1 to a figure 8 on 2 and stays that way for 3 doesn't stack up to me, it's a feature that doesn't have a corresponding one on the other half, whereas the rib on the bottom of the rollbar mount would have to come and go in direct opposition to the other, visible half.


Making that "correction" ...



Looking past that, I think it confirms "mk.1"/early and "mk.2"/later - but also shows a "mk.3" (/Super Champ?) , which I don't think I knew about before?

The pictures I've used are some I took many years ago, not for Mk.-comparison, hence the un-logic sequence.
However I don't agree with the last swap you did of the left halves. It' does not make sense to to me that Tamiya had a reinforcement in the design, them removed it, only to take it back in again.

I'll see if I can find pictures of the inside.