RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

"but I don't like this trend we've seen in Taigen's latest releases where they're just recasting their plastic lower hulls in pot metal".

As I mentioned in the Taigen PZ4 Metal Hull thread the advantage to using pot metal is that with a seriously flawed Hull the metal is soft enough to be readily worked whereas the Asiatam PZ4 metal hull is just a pain to work with.
Shaun.

I would like to know how much(if any) influence or market direction the likes of Taigen or any others take from forums such as this ??

Lets say a new design takes a year........
RCTW has had its share of home made JS2/3 builds for that long............

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but market research has to take place somehow eh !!?

Oi...........

If you are listening big corporation ?

Employ jokers that speak English(not through Google Translate), actually build tanks, and are not hung up on what they shouldn't design.............for fear of upsetting their respective political establishment..........

Have actual direct contact with the folks who finance your industry by way of purchasing what you make through the myriad of groups such as this and the network that supports them.......
Feel the market and advise out loud what you intend to do- then DO it, without delay or excuse.
Inform your agents and distributors, they in turn advise the customer base, interest and demand is created........

Its not rocket science.

[quote="HERMAN BIX"]I would like to know how much(if any) influence or market direction the likes of Taigen or any others take from forums such as this ??"

Herman the answer to your question based on the many errors in the Taigen PZ4 Metal Hull would appear to be NONE AT ALL,
They certainly do not seem to research their products prior to manufacturing them, rather they appear to copy everyone else in the same industry making the self same mistakes as their competitors with TAMIYA standing out as the exception.
I hope you and your family have a very pleasing New Year.
Shaun.

So far- so good Mr jarndice.........and to you & yours as well.

Yip, agree, but hey , if you're they CAD guy doing the job on the PzIV for someone other than H/L, why take the time and employment risk on designing a model which requires a virtual catastrophic re-tooling to achieve, when others sell a boat load of product without being accurate ?
Trust me, the machining of injection dies for mass production with a slightly sloping rear deck and the maintenance of that die(s) is a lot more costly to do when a flat deck is cheaper but still sells.............

The likes of the 'BIG-T' that do 50% less work to produce a JPz IV based on a chassis (50%of a tank)they already have tooled up for,yet charge 50% more for it are the smart ones .........

I'll be damned if not a single one of them outfits are not gauging the potential market by trawling the likes of this place & others.

Hell, I would, and I'm no marketing wizard.

Raminator wrote:It's a good choice for a model and it looks the part, but I don't like this trend we've seen in Taigen's latest releases where they're just recasting their plastic lower hulls in pot metal. There's no real room for modification and the suspension setup is no good; they're just using round springs instead of torsion bars. It's just a shame since their aluminium/plastic/white metal T-34 lower is a work of art.

Still, my SU-152 is going to need an ISU-152 big brother isn't it?

Interesting, I'd say the t34 lower is seriously flawed, it uses springs too but the suspension bolts into plastic rather than metal. Also there as issues with the plastic cladding spreading when the suspension is under load.

Conversely, this being all metal shouldnt have these issues (hopefully). I would say there's nothing wrong with coil springs per say, the tamiya Pershing uses coil springs and is one of the best runners they make.

However we really need to see one in the flesh first before making serious judgements.

I do agree about being a pain to cut up, but I don't think there are any conversions that couldn't be done with a kv-1 lower and the js2 running gear, if butchery is required.

Looks really cool!

We may not think it is perfect, but I'll bet that they sell shedloads in Russia. There are a lot of hobbyists over there who can craft a suspension bridge out of rusty nails in their garden shed, so rectifying anything to suit their needs will be child's play!

Good afternoon,
I can say with some certainty ( already Mate approved ) that they will be selling at least one to me. ;o) I really wanted the Tamiya version but cannot say if I will still be building within the 30 year time span it will take them to get the price down to where mere mortals like me can affords the kit. I can work with Taigen and do anything detail and electronics wise that is needed to make this tank a real Monster like the 'Palace'
regards,
Painless

hi guys estimated time for this tank to hit the market is April 2018 price as yet not disclosed but will be in bb and ir versions

tomhugill wrote:Interesting, I'd say the t34 lower is seriously flawed, it uses springs too but the suspension bolts into plastic rather than metal. Also there as issues with the plastic cladding spreading when the suspension is under load.

I'd agree that the suspension mounting is the weakest part of the Taigen T-34 design, surely it wouldn't have been difficult for them to have used some small cast metal sockets for the arms to go through like their KV lower. A washer on either side of the arm takes a lot of the slop out of the suspension travel though, and it wouldn't be too hard to add some crosswise strengthening braces where necessary. It's probably just me, but I think there's something to be said for a prototypical suspension setup given the lengths we go to to make things look and behave realistically.

tomhugill wrote:I do agree about being a pain to cut up, but I don't think there are any conversions that couldn't be done with a kv-1 lower and the js2 running gear, if butchery is required.

Oh absolutely, you'd probably only be using this as a base for an ISU-152 or potentially IS-3; anything earlier in the family tree would need a KV hull, and anything later (like an IS-7 or obyekt 268) would need to be scratchbuilt anyway. I just don't like the cast hull as a trend is all, because if they've done it for their two newest releases you can bet they'll keep doing it for future ones too and I don't like the implications for modification. I'm sure I'm complaining about nothing, but who doesn't enjoy looking a gift horse in the mouth every now any then eh?