login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Rye Field's "Tiger Transport Tracks" set
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 09, 2008
entire network: 10,481 Posts
KitMaker Network: 878 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 04:03 AM UTC
Matt and Alan,

You have both continued in the same immature vein you started out in, and have instead of reflecting on your initial comments have ratcheted them up. You call me out for pouring oil on troubled waters THAT YOU BOTH CREATED.

Your opinion of what the site is or is not is simply that: your opinion. Alluding to silent "others" who share that opinion is not even worth addressing. The site allows all opinions, including yours, and if you find it too "Dramarama" or "comical" for your refined sensibilities, then don't let the door hit you in your tender asses as you leave.

RFM have been called out for an incomplete offering recently released. It's irrelevant what AFV Club did or did not do years ago. The hobby moves on, and if we hadn't been calling attention to where companies come up short, we'd still be building Tamiya over-simplified kits from the 70s and 80s.

Again, if mild "mockery" is too much for your tastes, feel free to hide David's or my posts or whomever you don't like. I stand by my criticism that you both have acted poorly and I'm not surprised you don't like it. Whatever my modeling abilities, I can recognize bad behavior, the kind that chases away an exchange of information in favor of "I know you are, but what am I" schoolboy rants. If that makes me a school master, then you can address me as "Sir" henceforth.
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 15, 2009
entire network: 3,300 Posts
KitMaker Network: 489 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 04:15 AM UTC

Quoted Text

You can't sell jigsaws with missing pieces.



I'll admit the advertisement is misleading (but the whole RFM website is pretty screwed up-- is this actually a kit? I wish I had a dollar for every model kit I built that was missing something!--I'd be a rich man. But when we start criticizing "aftermarket" tracks for being "aftermarket tracks" isn't that a "bit over the top"? It would be different if this was advertised as a "kit" (as the AFV club kit is--and they also sell their transport tracks separately, I believe, in both vinyl and separate link). Now we're saying a company shouldn't sell their products separately without disclosures? If that were the case, 90% of the products on the market would need disclosures of some sort. I can see it now-- "The Surgeon General has determined that building this kit will be a hazard to your modeling psyche..." I'll say it again--tracks are very hard to modify, wheels and fenders not so much.
VR, Russ
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 09, 2008
entire network: 10,481 Posts
KitMaker Network: 878 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 04:23 AM UTC
Russ, I think we have lost sight of the issue here.

David, one of the preeminent experts on the Tiger tank, has pointed out that selling the tracks without the hubs (and mudflaps that can be put into a transport mode) means that the tracks are insufficient to build a Tiger in transport mode. That seems to be an incontrovertible fact, no?

The cost of including these few bits of styrene (the hubs) would be incremental at worst. The mudflaps could be left out as a middle ground, but again, RFM missed an opportunity to release a truly innovative product and instead released another "me, too" one that misses the mark.

It's one thing to simplify the equipment latches on a Tiger model as Tamiya and even Dragon long did. It's quite another to sell transport tracks without the hubs. Why bother purchasing the RFM ones if they are no better than the old AFV Club ones?

RFM is a star in the current modeling world. We frankly as a group I think expect more of them. That's where David and myself are disappointed: with a little more effort, they would have an amazing product instead of one that is no worse, but sadly no better than what already is on the market.

Apparently some folks can't stand anyone saying that. I'm frankly grateful to know I'm not getting the Fully Monty from RFM and can take appropriate measures. If they or members here get butt hurt about it, then so be it.
Removed by original poster on 05/13/19 - 16:26:05 (GMT).
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Member Since: July 12, 2005
entire network: 2,189 Posts
KitMaker Network: 8 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 05:03 AM UTC
Eight weeks ago, I posted on a thread in Rye Field's Facebook page, asking about the contents of this set, and another visitor made this comment:

"There was no need to change roadwheels or anything, just the tracks for rail transport"

Of course this is wrong. Some road wheels will literally hang unsupported if you apply transport tracks without making any other changes. But this visitor didn't know - and none of Rye Field's marketing or Tiger instruction sheets explain it.

The only documentation provided by RFM seems to be the illustration on the track set itself, showing a Tiger drawn with CAD. You can see folded front mudflaps. You can't see what was done to the wheels.

So it's likely that some customers will order the track set, and a Rye Field Tiger, and suppose they have a complete solution. Nobody's telling them otherwise.

Here's a quote from the online shop 1999.co.jp where they are selling the Rye Field transport tracks:

When attaching this product to another company's kit, processing may be necessary.

They didn't say that you'll have no "processing" with a Rye Field Tiger, but they certainly didn't say that you will.

I'm posting my warnings about this set because somebody ought to.

David
alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: February 25, 2007
entire network: 2,996 Posts
KitMaker Network: 54 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 05:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Matt and Alan,

You have both continued in the same immature vein you started out in, and have instead of reflecting on your initial comments have ratcheted them up. You call me out for pouring oil on troubled waters THAT YOU BOTH CREATED.

Your opinion of what the site is or is not is simply that: your opinion. Alluding to silent "others" who share that opinion is not even worth addressing. The site allows all opinions, including yours, and if you find it too "Dramarama" or "comical" for your refined sensibilities, then don't let the door hit you in your tender asses as you leave.

RFM have been called out for an incomplete offering recently released. It's irrelevant what AFV Club did or did not do years ago. The hobby moves on, and if we hadn't been calling attention to where companies come up short, we'd still be building Tamiya over-simplified kits from the 70s and 80s.

Again, if mild "mockery" is too much for your tastes, feel free to hide David's or my posts or whomever you don't like. I stand by my criticism that you both have acted poorly and I'm not surprised you don't like it. Whatever my modeling abilities, I can recognize bad behavior, the kind that chases away an exchange of information in favor of "I know you are, but what am I" schoolboy rants. If that makes me a school master, then you can address me as "Sir" henceforth.



So it appears you don't have the same desire as myself, but instead wish to pursue this matter with more of the same tone.

I agree with you on one important count, my opinion, and it was that I was expressing the same as anyone else, including you. You seem to want to defend David Byrden's opinion on this matter no matter what common sense alternative view is expressed.

If there was something inaccurate about the tracks, for example wrong shape, holes or no holes in the guide horns that should be there etc and this was brought up and highlighted as a fault with the item then I would have no argument with those findings or the announcement of such , but to imply as others have done that RFM should be singled out for criticism over not supplying something they clearly never stated would be the contents of the box, is as I said unfair criticism.

Consider the conflicting views in your posts.

On the one hand you want to put forward the importance of David's knowledge and opinions based on that, which there can be no doubt, he is a leading authority on the Tiger 1 tank, and to stop any behaviour that might discourage such people from posting here.

On the other hand you want to play down any "mockery" as some have put it, that his post gives over. Surely the importance you place on his opinion would therefore mean any criticism he should make carries more weight to it than if it came from you or I, and shouldn't be taken lightly.

The parallels drawn by others between such things as jigsaw puzzles or aftermarket barrels is absurd. If you purchased a sink would you expect to get the taps and waste pipes, no these are purchased separately to complete the installation, as you purchased "a sink".

If you buy a tire for your car it doesn't include the air valve as part of the tyre, you purchase it separately as it shows on the invoice, but the tyre is still just the tyre regardless of what else you need.

You brought an airbrush for your modelling. It's pretty useless without the air hose to connect to the compressor. Do you then criticise the airbrush company for not selling you the airbrush with hose included.

Is it that somehow in this matter you see wrong doing in me but not in others. Well that's your problem not mine.

Looking at David's last post "I'm posting my warnings about this set because somebody ought to." then hopefully you'll do the decent thing and note the same for all the other suppliers of transport tracks that don't include the items you list. It would seem they are all at fault under your list and it should be noted as such, that is unless you do have something solely against RFM.

I was accused of coming to this thread with a "personal issue" The only thing I've come to this thread with is an opinion, which is RFM have been singled out for criticism over supplying exactly what others do, and for exactly what they describe on the box, a set of transport tracks.

So how would you describe the statement that "If there had been a polite "Ooops, we didn't know about the differences, it's too late to change" then I'd be less insistent about highlighting their omissions." if that's not having "an issue"






astralscooter
Visit this Community
Telemark, Norway
Member Since: March 24, 2015
entire network: 69 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 07:50 AM UTC
It is all well and good that for an Initial, Early or Mid production Tiger I, one will need hubs that are not provided. A Late won't need these, so any transport track set is much less "inaccurate" for such a vehicle.


Quoted Text

Here's a quote from the online shop 1999.co.jp where they are selling the Rye Field transport tracks:

When attaching this product to another company's kit, processing may be necessary.




As for the quote, I would, as a modeller, first and foremost interpret this as follows:

"When attaching these tracks to a kit from a different manufacurer, the tracks may or may not fit the drive sprocket or road wheels without modification".

This is the reason why we see time and time again questions on whether tracks of brand X fit kit of brand Y.

It is great that the technical details are pointed out to educate whomever would like to put their Tiger in transport mode, but I fear that what the casual reader may take away from this whole debackle, is that RFM's transport tracks are [auto-censored], when there is every reason to believe that they will be among the best injection molded tracks available if they are on par with their combat tracks. In fact, as someone who knows only too well what is required (and missing from kits) to put a Tiger in transport mode, I'd be much more interested in David's take on the accuracy of the tracks themselves. I mean, who knows what I need them for? Perhaps lying around in a diorama and not attached to the Tiger at all...

I really do believe David's one and only concern is to spread the Truth about the Tiger, but after having followed his posts on the forums for years, I'm afraid that he also chooses too harsh words sometimes, and are consequently misunderstood, and the discussion soon gets derailed. Written communication is as difficult as sorting out details of any given Tiger I.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 09, 2008
entire network: 10,481 Posts
KitMaker Network: 878 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 08:19 AM UTC

Quoted Text

So it appears you don't have the same desire as myself, but instead wish to pursue this matter with more of the same tone.


The only desire you have evinced is one of self-justification. If you feel you are better-suited than I to take the high road, then take it and stop defending yourself and rehashing the same point over and over.

Quoted Text

I agree with you on one important count, my opinion, and it was that I was expressing the same as anyone else, including you. You seem to want to defend David Byrden's opinion on this matter no matter what common sense alternative view is expressed.


When a common-sense alternative is advanced, I'll consider your opinion. You fail, along with Marc, to see any other viewpoint than your own. I have already stated that the tracks are not defective, per se, but incomplete, and that RFM let slip a superb opportunity to out-do other manufacturers. Given the low level of research that most modelers do (check the reader count for reviews of books vs. kits here), it's highly-likely these tracks will end up on kits without the hubs, much less the raised mudguards. Incidentally, I consider myself better-informed on Tigers than some, and I knew about hubs, but did not know about the guards. I think that shows the omission of the hubs especially dooms these tracks to a level of mediocrity that they didn't have to assume.

Quoted Text

If there was something inaccurate about the tracks, for example wrong shape, holes or no holes in the guide horns that should be there etc and this was brought up and highlighted as a fault with the item then I would have no argument with those findings or the announcement of such, but to imply as others have done that RFM should be singled out for criticism over not supplying something they clearly never stated would be the contents of the box, is as I said unfair criticism.


You miss the point of David's critique and mine. It's no different than when Dragon released its many Sd.Kfz.7s they omitted any canvas top, either extended or folded. The vehicle built from that kit was therefore visually-inaccurate and incomplete. A transport Tiger built with these tracks will be similarly incomplete.

Quoted Text

On the one hand you want to put forward the importance of David's knowledge and opinions based on that, which there can be no doubt, he is a leading authority on the Tiger 1 tank, and to stop any behaviour that might discourage such people from posting here.


David can defend himself and doesn't need my help, but yes, I have seen this ragged sort of thread chase away those who want to exchange information. Your whole behaviour here (yes, I can spell Brit English if needed) has been about pique and defending RFM, as if you were a share holder.

Quoted Text

On the other hand you want to play down any "mockery" as some have put it, that his post gives over. Surely the importance you place on his opinion would therefore mean any criticism he should make carries more weight to it than if it came from you or I, and shouldn't be taken lightly.


I didn't see very much mockery at all, and if the British can't handle mockery, then how the heck did y'all ever produce Monty Python or live through their careers? Again, David can defend himself just fine.

Quoted Text

The parallels drawn by others between such things as jigsaw puzzles or aftermarket barrels is absurd.


Not absurd at all. You have not made that case to my satisfaction. And in the US, tires come with air valves, sorry.

Quoted Text

Is it that somehow in this matter you see wrong doing in me but not in others. Well that's your problem not mine.

I don't see wrong IN you, I think you're WRONG. That's more than a semantic difference.

Quoted Text

... unless you do have something solely against RFM.


As stated above, RFM had an opportunity to do something great and instead gave birth to a mouse. AFV Club's transport tracks have been out for years, and should not be held to the same high standard.

Quoted Text

I was accused of coming to this thread with a "personal issue" The only thing I've come to this thread with is an opinion, which is RFM have been singled out for criticism over supplying exactly what others do, and for exactly what they describe on the box, a set of transport tracks.


Yes, you have stated that over and over, as if that somehow makes your point.

Quoted Text

So how would you describe the statement that "If there had been a polite "Ooops, we didn't know about the differences, it's too late to change" then I'd be less insistent about highlighting their omissions." if that's not having "an issue."


As a fair indication that if RFM is happy to accept our accolades for their ground-breaking products, then they should be big boys and acknowledge when they are simply shucking corn (to use a jazz expression).

And like any good jazz riff, this one needs to come to an end. You've had your say, Alan, and I have had mine. Good luck with your modeling, and may David and all those who can contribute knowledge to "Dramarama" continue doing so.
alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: February 25, 2007
entire network: 2,996 Posts
KitMaker Network: 54 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 09:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text


You miss the point of David's critique and mine. It's no different than when Dragon released its many Sd.Kfz.7s they omitted any canvas top, either extended or folded. The vehicle built from that kit was therefore visually-inaccurate and incomplete. A transport Tiger built with these tracks will be similarly incomplete.



It's not over till the fat lady sings

Yes, I 100% agree with your remark regarding the Dragon Sd.Kfz. 7's and the absence of the canvas top, and would also agree if RFM brought out a complete Tiger kit which stated that it was a variant equipped with transport tracks and didn't include the parts David listed to complete it but it didn't. The tracks are sold as separate entities.

So as you say, you've had your say, I've had mine. We will agree to differ on our opinions, as that is all they are.

At the end of the day it's just little plastic models stuck together , at a level of importance the individual wants to take it to, based on their own enjoyment of the hobby.

All the best. Happy Modelling

Alan
Kevlar06
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: March 15, 2009
entire network: 3,300 Posts
KitMaker Network: 489 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 10:01 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Russ, I think we have lost sight of the issue here.

David, one of the preeminent experts on the Tiger tank, has pointed out that selling the tracks without the hubs (and mudflaps that can be put into a transport mode) means that the tracks are insufficient to build a Tiger in transport mode. That seems to be an incontrovertible fact, no?

The cost of including these few bits of styrene (the hubs) would be incremental at worst. The mudflaps could be left out as a middle ground, but again, RFM missed an opportunity to release a truly innovative product and instead released another "me, too" one that misses the mark.

It's one thing to simplify the equipment latches on a Tiger model as Tamiya and even Dragon long did. It's quite another to sell transport tracks without the hubs. Why bother purchasing the RFM ones if they are no better than the old AFV Club ones?

RFM is a star in the current modeling world. We frankly as a group I think expect more of them. That's where David and myself are disappointed: with a little more effort, they would have an amazing product instead of one that is no worse, but sadly no better than what already is on the market....



Bill,
Apparently we are off track here (pun intended) 🚂(as in train wreck!) These tracks are "workable" and may indeed be an improvement over the old "glue", "vinyl" or "white metal" pin tracks provided by AFV Club and Fruil. See the advert below, there's nothing else that indicates these are any more than replacement tracks.
https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10598881/30/2
That we are all disappointed RFM didn't include folding fenders and wheel hubs is regrettable, but these items don't detract from what the tracks are being advertised as-- merely workable transport tracks. I agree, it would have been a great opportunity for RFM to create a "Transport Set" of accessories for RFM kits. But I also understand how difficult this would be to make an accessory set to fit other manufacturers kits, if that is what you are after. I have problems with the AFV Club "Transport Tiger" kit, in that you get everything you want in the the kit to depict a Tiger in transport mode, Except" for a rail car, the natural setting of such a model, making the kit somewhat useless for anything (unless you buy an aftermarket rail car). Having worked in a LHS, I watched many customers bypass the AFV Club kit because it didn't include the full width items (in fact, we never sold a single one of the 10 kits we had on hand for this exact reason). But, that's a different (but related) issue. In this case, RFM is offering an improvement (maybe, as I haven't seen the tracks) over the existing market availability. It would be an "improvement" not because it has the "bells and whistles" you mention above, but because if it is following in line with previous RFM track offerings, it will lie differently over the roadwheels (since it's workable). So yes, we've all missed the main point-- it's deficient in that it doesn't include the rest of the tank, but it wasn't intended to either-- but who knows maybe in the future? Before I move off-- I have my own problems with RFM, but it doesn't involve these tracks-- it does involve their M551, which seems to have fallen off the edge of the earth somewhere, but that's a whole 'nuther ball game as they say.
VR, Russ
PanzerKarl
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Member Since: April 20, 2004
entire network: 2,329 Posts
KitMaker Network: 276 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 13, 2019 - 05:11 PM UTC
I blame the lack of research and technical assistance.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 09, 2008
entire network: 10,481 Posts
KitMaker Network: 878 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 03:03 AM UTC
Russ, there rarely are perfect answers to these matters, so I appreciate David raising the topic. I rather suspect RFM can withstand his "mockery," and it has perhaps raised awareness here about what is necessary to have a true transport mode Tiger. Few of us probably will build one (I happen to have a transport mode dio on the back 40 of my workbench, complete with Tank Workshop resin flatcar, warts and all). And even though I have transport tracks and hubs in the parts box, even I did not know about the raised mudguards. Goes to prove you CAN teach an old dog new tricks if he's willing to learn, which some on this thread clearly are not.

My suggestion to RFM would have been the middle ground: hubs (which can be modified to ANY kit) and skip the mudguards (but perhaps have a photo showing them on the box so the entrepreneurial modeler could scratch them or use PE). But if they're not going to use David's expertise, they certainly aren't going to ask me.
Pongo_Arm
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: January 27, 2017
entire network: 122 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 03:59 AM UTC
these posts read to me like someone sought engagement with the company as a tech consultant and was turned down and now they have an agenda. Just the bitterness.
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Member Since: July 12, 2005
entire network: 2,189 Posts
KitMaker Network: 8 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 05:07 AM UTC

Quoted Text

these posts read to me like someone sought engagement with the company as a tech consultant and was turned down and now they have an agenda. Just the bitterness.



You don't say my name, Mr. Sutton, but this is appears to be a comment about me.

So I must ask you to explain it.

If I "seek engagement" and I'm refused, why would I be bitter?

What was in it for me? A free kit?

David


alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: February 25, 2007
entire network: 2,996 Posts
KitMaker Network: 54 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 06:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Goes to prove you CAN teach an old dog new tricks if he's willing to learn, which some on this thread clearly are not.

My suggestion to RFM would have been the middle ground: hubs (which can be modified to ANY kit) and skip the mudguards (but perhaps have a photo showing them on the box so the entrepreneurial modeler could scratch them or use PE). But if they're not going to use David's expertise, they certainly aren't going to ask me.



Well despite what is probably a snide remark aimed at me, I to the contrary am always willing to learn, so I put forward the following and wish to know if it's correct.

I politely disagree with your suggestion regarding what RFM should do rather than provide "hubs (which can be modified to ANY kit) and skip the mudguards (but perhaps have a photo showing them on the box so the entrepreneurial modeler could scratch them or use PE)."

If anyone was making aftermarket to complete a subject in transport mode then folding mudguards should be provided for all variants. Hubs are only required for some variants.

As Arid writes in his post "It is all well and good that for an Initial, Early or Mid production Tiger I, one will need hubs that are not provided. A Late won't need these, so any transport track set is much less "inaccurate" for such a vehicle.

Interestingly enough the image on the box for RFM's tracks, and I'm not expert on identifying Tigers, looks like a Late variant. If so, and if what Arid says is correct then the only thing "missing" are the folding mudguards. As RFM provide mudguards in the Tiger kit and you propose "so the entrepreneurial modeler could scratch them" then I'm sure a little handiwork with a knife would create the folded finish. So it appears they do provide everything for a late variant in transport mode.

Here is the image of the Tiger on the box, is it a late model? Does a late model need hubs?


I'm sure if my reading of what Arid has said is incorrect regarding this matter those with greater knowledge will speak up.
PanzerKarl
Visit this Community
England - North West, United Kingdom
Member Since: April 20, 2004
entire network: 2,329 Posts
KitMaker Network: 276 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 06:53 AM UTC
Wow the venom on here lately,it's as though you can't have an opinion on something and someone jumps down your throat.

I had it a few months back over a matter with Border's Panzer IV kit and trying to tell people about the mistakes.
People just use this site to flame an argument.
bill_c
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
MODEL SHIPWRIGHTS
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: January 09, 2008
entire network: 10,481 Posts
KitMaker Network: 878 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 08:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Wow the venom on here lately.... I had it a few months back over a matter with Border's Panzer IV kit and trying to tell people about the mistakes. People just use this site to flame an argument.


There are those who can't seem to realize that careful research and/or observation are more interesting and important than random-assed opinions.

We now return you to your regular programming.
Byrden
Visit this Community
Wien, Austria
Member Since: July 12, 2005
entire network: 2,189 Posts
KitMaker Network: 8 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 09:19 AM UTC
This is a board about armor kits.
This thread is going off topic. And what was the exact moment when it went off topic?


Quoted Text

One would think you have something against RFM.



There. Somebody started talking about people's motives. That's off topic. It's Armorama, not Byrdenrama!

And that Tiger in the box art? It's a Mid Tiger. It has the 25mm roof and straight hull edges.

David
Pongo_Arm
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: January 27, 2017
entire network: 122 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 09:25 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

these posts read to me like someone sought engagement with the company as a tech consultant and was turned down and now they have an agenda. Just the bitterness.



You don't say my name, Mr. Sutton, but this is appears to be a comment about me.

So I must ask you to explain it.

If I "seek engagement" and I'm refused, why would I be bitter?

What was in it for me? A free kit?

David




I do not know, but your tone is what it is.
astralscooter
Visit this Community
Telemark, Norway
Member Since: March 24, 2015
entire network: 69 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 09:36 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Does a late model need hubs?



No. The steel wheels of a Late model is narrower overall than the rubber tyred wheels. In fact they are more or less of equal overall width as the transport tracks. So no hubs needed for a steel wheeled Tiger, hence my statement to that effect.

Name's Arild, btw. I may have a dry sense of humor, but I'm not completely arid...
alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: February 25, 2007
entire network: 2,996 Posts
KitMaker Network: 54 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 09:51 AM UTC

Quoted Text

This is a board about armor kits.
This thread is going off topic. And what was the exact moment when it went off topic?


Quoted Text

One would think you have something against RFM.



There. Somebody started talking about people's motives. That's off topic. It's Armorama, not Byrdenrama!

And that Tiger in the box art? It's a Mid Tiger. It has the 25mm roof and straight hull edges.

David



Thanks for the correct identification on the Tiger. I see the detail now you describe regarding the hull, by the front tow shackles?

As regards your reference to my comment, with respect I disagree. When you went from stating facts about technical detail to making your assumption in the post before my comment

"But Rye Field are different. They make Tiger kits as well as Tiger transport tracks.

It would be easy to assume that combining their Tiger with their tracks gives you a complete solution."

Why apply that rule of thumb to one company and treat them differently.



alanmac
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Member Since: February 25, 2007
entire network: 2,996 Posts
KitMaker Network: 54 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 09:53 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Name's Arild, btw. I may have a dry sense of humor, but I'm not completely arid...



Apologises, Arild. Better pay more attention to how you folks spell your names, I'm off to Oslo on business at the end of the month.
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Member Since: August 09, 2002
entire network: 1,569 Posts
KitMaker Network: 49 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 12:36 PM UTC
Interesting that the picture Alan provided shows the mudflaps folded if I am not mistaken.
astralscooter
Visit this Community
Telemark, Norway
Member Since: March 24, 2015
entire network: 69 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 04:32 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Apologises, Arild. Better pay more attention to how you folks spell your names, I'm off to Oslo on business at the end of the month.



No worries, Alan. I've had my name spelled much worse. My name is a derivation of Harold (or Harald), actually, so it's not as outlandish as many others.

Enjoy your stay in Oslo!

One plus that I'm certain that these transport tracks will have over Friulmodel tracks, for example, is that it will have accurate track bolt detail on both sides of the track.

Which will matter if you are concerned with the direction in which the track is mounted on your model. On one project, I actually had to replace the Friuls I originally purchased with AFV Club tracks, to avoid having to show the open end where the mounting wire shows, if the track were to be mounted in the direction shown in my references. Used (slightly modified) Tank Workshop hubs for that project.

Arild
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Member Since: December 02, 2002
entire network: 12,476 Posts
KitMaker Network: 69 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 - 04:41 PM UTC