To build a Tiger model in "transport" mode, you need:

Folded mudflaps
16 wheel hubs of 2 different types (not necessary for Late Tigers)
Transport tracks

A photo of Rye Field's "Tiger Transport Tracks" set is online, and I see only the third item in that list.

The RFM kits include one-half of the hubs, and plastic non folding mudflaps that are not convenient to cut and fold.

This aftermarket set needs aftermarket !

David

They must have some sort of deal going with Griffon models

That's disappointing. Thank you, David, for alerting us to the problem.

To be fair none of the other suppliers of aftermarket tracks include the items you list.

They were detailed in a press release on here back in March so you could see what was coming

http://www.armorama.co.uk/news/31556

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.

David

Well, with respect that's your assumption not others. I believe AFV Club have made transport tracks and they make Tigers. Their first release of the Tiger and the transport tracks was some years ago but you don't seem to level the same criticism at them. One would think you have something against RFM.

Alan "some years ago" the quality and expectations were different. Today's manufacturers are building high-quality kits with interiors for the advanced modeler. If I manufactured a new metal aftermarket M1A1 barrel for the current kits but did not include the thermal shroud for the barrel or fume extractor would we grumble that the kit did not include all the parts, sure we would. In this day and age, David has a valid point. The few extra pieces to complete the conversion would have given the manufacturer an advantage in the current market place and they missed the opportunity to provide what was needed in one kit and we noticed.

They may have missed a business opportunity but that doesn't mean they've done anything wrong, which is the impression I'm getting from David Byrden.

It states quite clearly on the products box what it is. I find this an unfair criticism of Rye Field but it comes as no surprise given the originator of this thread.

Hum... I reread Davids post and see the humor that the aftermarket kit needs an aftermarket kit. I got it, Karl got it. I did not see David do any more than point out RFM was in a great spot to make a complete kit. I saw nothing disparaging about RFM in his comments.

There was no mockery and no disparaging remarks. I suggest a little remedial reading comprehension to see where your mistakes lie.

Of course, if you wish to point out exactly where you see these things please quote them in a post below and we'll parse them together, okay?

What would you describe this as then ? "This aftermarket set needs aftermarket !"

I thought it was an objective statement of fact. No?




Could you explain that, please?

David

David, Alan seems to have a personal issue of some sort and a forum to put it on. Sorry for that. You did not say anything negative about the quality of RFM or their service and to my recollection, you have not treated them any differently than any other company. When an inaccuracy or omission is on a tiger kit you have pointed that out for all Tigers. Those that buy the kit know what to do to increase the accuracy if that was one of their goals.
Being the latest company to make a transport track RFM had the opportunity to make a complete kit but instead, they followed the path of others who also need additional parts to complete the conversion. I don't recall any flack when you pointed out a kit that came without zimm and zimm aftermarket was needed to make it accurate.

It seems to me to be an observation that this new set was still incomplete. But as was just mentioned above, you came into this thread with an obvious bias against the OP so one can see why you would view his comments through a negative lens.

RFM have put out transport tracks that are, as pointed out, incomplete. You may be quite content with that, but I suspect I'm not the only one who wants to have the 411. If I'm going to need new mudflaps and hubs, I would prefer to know that now and not purchase something that will need additional parts.

RFM may not be the only company putting out incomplete products, but they should not get a pass for being "like the rest."

Alan and Matt, please grow up and address the issues and not the personalities. I'm losing patience, frankly, with those of you who can't conduct a dispassionate discussion of facts without getting into personalities. I know that some folks enjoy watching the train wrecks that develop around personal clashes, but it's the kind of immature behavior that drives away those with knowledge who want to discuss the accuracy issues of these kits.

Please stick to whether RFM's transport tracks are, in spite of the criticism, worthwhile or not, and skip showing us your knotted knickers over whether you're upset someone may have "mocked" a particular company.

And please forgive me, but when did "mockery" become something adults couldn't stand?

I don't see any problem here. Can we ask the question in a different way?-- What manufacturer makes Tiger transport tracks with all the options of fenders and wheels included (or excluded?--the answer is AFV Club by the way)? But if AFV club and Rye Field are the only ones making aftermarket transport tracks, does that make them deficient in some way? At least these two companies created an option for the modeler--it's a whole lot easier to model fenders folded and wheels missing than it is to narrow the track width.
VR, Russ

Bill

Is it any wonder this site is known as Dramarama in some circles.

Rather than pore oil on troubled waters your comments instill exactly the opposite, and I for one neither accept or respect such comments.

On the one hand you come over as some irritated schoolmaster scolding his pupils then revert to jibes like "and skip showing us your knotted knickers"

Knowing and appreciating your long standing membership of Armorama and your contributions over the years on this occasion I'll put it down to you having a bad day, and we all have them.

I didn't use the expression mockery, that was someone else along with others the assumption I have something personal against David Byrden which also isn't true. Against some of his remarks - yes.

I said, and still believe it true, that his criticism of RFM in this instance is unfair, and it's not about giving them "a pass" as you call it. He has posted this on other web sites and I'm not the only person to feel the same.

They, as part of their business, have released transport tracks, clearly labelled as such on the box, in line with transport tracks released by Friul, Modelkasten, AFV Club, and going by memory, Spade Ace as well.

They would be aimed at anybody wishing to use these tracks on their Tiger, be it from Dragon, Tamiya, AFV Club, Trumpeter, Academy. No where on the box does it state exclusive use with RFM products.

They are not "incomplete" as you state - the tracks are in the box as described.... transport tracks.

I fail to see why they should be singled out for criticism for doing what others have done without supplying the list of additions David Byrden lists. Neither am I saying he is wrong to point out those additions are required to turn a Tiger into one equipped with transport tracks. Although be it any Tiger not just RFM's.

As for this being seen as a personality issue, that would seem to come from others and reinforced by your comments. Or are we under the ruling that certain individuals are beyond criticism and only favourable comments towards them are allowed, which certainly seems like we are then dealing personalities.

To negate any further prolonging of bad feelings and comments I am prepared to withdraw from this discussion. Hopefully drawing a line under the matter.


Happy Modelling.

Alan

Talking about tracks...


H.P.

So Alan has declined to explain his comment about me.

For my own part: I confess that I was literally unaware that AFV club introduced a Transport Track set seven years ago. I honestly thought they had no offering except the all-in-one and complete "Transport Tiger" kit. I will add their track set to my website shortly.

And, do I have a prejudice against Rye Field?

Well, as we speak they are shipping a kit that supposedly builds a specific tank, that's featured on the box art and mentioned in the marketing material.
But the kit does not build that specific tank version.

Nine weeks ago, on their Facebook page, I asked about this version problem. They didn't respond.
At the same time, I also asked about the transport set contents, and once again they didn't respond.

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.

David

RFM's transport track kit (or anybody else's) isn't inaccurate or (very) incomplete for either an Initial Tiger I or a Late production. For the Late, one will need the flipped up mud flaps, and for the Initial, one needs the hubs, but including flippable flaps as well as the missing hubs required, would induce additional cost to the track kit.

It is a missed opportunity though for RFM not to include the full set of wheel hubs in any of their Early Tiger I kits. An omission they can easily rectify in a future release, much as Dragon used to do (usually after being told to by David B.). Speaking of Dragon, it is weird that they never issued these hub parts themselves, given the amount of odd Tiger I detail that have provided over the course of their many kits.

The RFM transport track kit by itself, is on par with just about any other transport track kit out there by way of features, and judging by the quality of RFM Tiger tracks I've seen in general, probably will be better than several competitors as tracks go.

Arild

David’s point, to me and some others here, was simply that RFM have missed an opportunity to provide the full kit & trump several other manufacturers that have already produced just the tracks. And because they’ve just joined that queue then yes, why shouldn’t they be singled out for criticism?

If someone (who is more entitled than most to express such an opinion on this subject) doesn’t stand up and say (or imply) “You can do better”, then we’ll just get more of the same. The contrarian contributors to this thread have detailed & listed that we have indeed had more of the same, reinforcing David’s point. Anyhow if this site has become such a joke I guess that’s the last we’ll be hearing from you eh?

Anyone who’s followed David’s rigourous research over the years would be hard pressed to detect any bias for or against any particular manufacturer. His criticisms, positive or negative, appear to me to be based solely on evidence, or the lack of it as he is the first to admit

I fully agree. But there also is something more to the reproach David was articulating: By selling the "transport tracks" with nothing else but the tracks, you also imply that the tracks are the only pieces needed to depict a vehicle in transport mode, so this practice (of advertising/labeling) is misleading. The fact that others have done so before is no reason to keep this practice up, and arguably even less so when there's ever more research material easily available.

You can't sell jigsaws with missing pieces.