Thanks, Tamiya-san

We’re saddened to report the passing of Shunsaku Tamiya, the man behind the Tamiya line of models. What was surprising about this, though, is how many of our readers and writers alike felt touched by the Tamiya model company. I mean, they made great models, and they’re definitely a quality outfit, but the outpouring of fond memories across a broad spectrum was striking.

For example, we originally ran the story as breaking news, but our art director Joe Kim spent a good part of his childhood putting together Tamiya kits, and felt like he absolutely had to do a portrait of Mr. Tamiya to pay his respects. I presume Joe is more on the painting-the-models end of the spectrum of Tamiya customers, given his artistic bent. Jenny’s writeup is absolutely touching, and her fond remembrances of the kits shines through her writing.

Myself, I’m on the making-small-robots end of the spectrum, and was equally well served. Back in the early ’90s, the “twin motor gearbox” was a moderately challenging and tremendously rewarding build for me, but it was also the only variable-ratio small motor gearbox that we had easy access to for making small bots to run around the living room.

Indeed, the Tamiya line included a whole series of educational models and components that were just perfect for the budding robot builder. I’m sure I have a set of their tank treads or a slip clutch in a box somewhere, even today.

It’s nice to think of how many people’s lives were touched by their kits, and to get even a small glimpse of that, you just need to read our comment section. We hope the company holds on to Mr. Tamiya’s love for quality kits that inspire future generations, whether they end up becoming artists, engineers, or simply hackers.

Personalization, Industrial Design, And Hacked Devices

[Maya Posch] wrote up an insightful, and maybe a bit controversial, piece on the state of consumer goods design: The Death Of Industrial Design And The Era Of Dull Electronics. Her basic thesis is that the “form follows function” aesthetic has gone too far, and all of the functionally equivalent devices in our life now all look exactly the same. Take the cellphone, for example. They are all slabs of screen, with a tiny bezel if any. They are non-objects, meant to disappear, instead of showcases for cool industrial design.

Of course this is an extreme example, and the comments section went wild on this one. Why? Because we all want the things we build to be beautiful and functional, and that has always been in conflict. So even if you agree with [Maya] on the suppression of designed form in consumer goods, you have to admit that it’s not universal. For instance, none of our houses look alike, even though the purpose is exactly the same. (Ironically, architecture is the source of the form follows function fetish.) Cars are somewhere in between, and maybe the cellphone is the other end of the spectrum from architecture. There is plenty of room for form and function in this world.

But consider the smartphone case – the thing you’ve got around your phone right now. In a world where people have the ultimate homogeneous device in their pocket, one for which slimness is a prime selling point, nearly everyone has added a few millimeters of thickness to theirs, aftermarket, in the form of a decorative case. It’s ironically this horrendous sameness of every cell phone that makes us want to ornament them, even if that means sacrificing on the thickness specs.

Is this the same impetus that gave us the cyberdeck movement? The custom mechanical keyboard? All kinds of sweet hacks on consumer goods? The need to make things your own and personal is pretty much universal, and maybe even a better example of what we want out of nice design: a device that speaks to you directly because it represents your work.

Granted, buying a phone case isn’t necessarily creative in the same way as hacking a phone is, but it at least lets you exercise a bit of your own design impulse. And it frees the designers from having to make a super-personal choice like this for you. How about a “nothing” design that affords easy personalized ornamentation? Has the slab smartphone solved the form-versus-function fight after all?

Trickle Down: When Doing Something Silly Actually Makes Sense

One of the tropes of the space race back in the 1960s, which helped justify the spending for the part of the public who thought it wasn’t worth it, was that the technology developed for use in space would help us out here back on earth. The same goes for the astronomical expenses in Formula 1, or even on more pedestrian tech like racing bikes or cinematography cameras. The idea is that the boundaries pushed out in the most extreme situations could nonetheless teach us something applicable to everyday life.

This week, we saw another update from the Minuteman project, which is by itself entirely ridiculous – a 3D printer that aims to print a 3D Benchy in a minute or less. Of course, the Minuteman isn’t alone in this absurd goal: there’s an entire 3D printer enthusiast community that is pushing the speed boundaries of this particular benchmark print, and times below five minutes are competitive these days, although with admittedly varying quality. (For reference, on my printer, a decent-looking Benchy takes about half an hour, but I’m after high quality rather than high speed.)

One could totally be forgiven for scoffing at the Speed Benchy goal in general, the Minuteman, or even The 100, another machine that trades off print volume for extreme speed. But there is definitely trickle-down for the normal printers among us. After all, pressure advance used to be an exotic feature that only people who were using high-end homemade rigs used to care about, and now it’s gone mainstream. Who knows if the Minuteman’s variable temperature or rate smoothing, or the rigid and damped frames of The 100, or its successor The 250, will make normal printers better.

So here’s to the oddball machines, that push boundaries in possibly ridiculous directions, but then share their learnings with those of us who only need to print kinda-fast, but who like to print other things than little plastic boats that don’t even really float. At least in the open-source hardware community, trickle-down is very real.

Limitations, Creativity, And Challenges

This week, we announced the winners for the previous Pet Hacks contest and rang in our new contest: The One Hertz Challenge. So that’s got me in a contesty mood, and I thought I’d share a little bit of soap-box philosophizing and inside baseball all at once.

The trick to creating a good contest theme, at least for the creative Hackaday crowd, is putting on the right limitation. Maybe you have to fit the circuit within a square-inch, power it only with a coin cell, or use the antiquated and nearly useless 555 timer IC. (Yes, that was a joke!)

There are two basic reactions when you try to constrain a hacker. Some instantly try to break out of the constraint, and their minds starts to fly in all of the directions that lead out of the box, and oftentimes, something cool comes out of it. The other type accepts the constraint and dives in deep to work within it, meditating deeply on all the possibilities that lie within the 555.

Of course, we try to accommodate both modes, and the jury is still out as to which ends up better in the end. For the Coin Cell challenge, for instance, we had a coin-cell-powered spot welder and car jumpstarter, but we also had some cool circuits that would run nearly forever on a single battery; working against and with the constraints.

Which type of hacker are you? (And while we’re still in the mood, what contest themes would you like to see for 2026?)

Pulling Back The Veil, Practically

In a marvelous college lecture in front of a class of engineering students, V. Hunter Adams professed his love for embedded engineering, but he might as well have been singing the songs of our people – the hackers. If you occasionally feel the need to explain to people why you do what you do, at fancy cocktail parties or something, this talk is great food for thought. It’s about as good a “Why We Hack” as I’ve ever seen.

Among the zingers, “projects are filter removers” stuck out. When you go through life, there are a lot of things that you kinda understand. Or maybe you’ve not even gotten around to thinking about whether you understand them or not, and just take them for granted. Life would all simply be too complicated if you took it all sufficiently seriously. Birdsong, Bluetooth, the sun in the sky, the friction of your car’s tire on various surfaces. These are all incredibly deep subjects, when you start to peel back the layers.

And Hunter’s point is that if you are working on a project that involves USB, your success or failure depends on understanding USB. There’s no room for filters here – the illusion that it “just works” often comes crashing down until you learn enough to make it work. Some of his students are doing projects cooperatively with the ornithology department, classifying and creating birdsong. Did you know that birds do this elaborate frequency modulation thing when they sing? Once you hear it, you know, and you hear it ever more.

So we agree with Hunter. Dive into a project because you want to get the project done, sure, but pick the project because it’s a corner of the world that you’d like to shine light into, to remove the filters of “I think I basically understand that”. When you get it working, you’ll know that you really do. Hacking your way to enlightenment? We’ve heard crazier things.

The Need For Speed?

We wrote up a video about speeding up Arduino code, specifically by avoiding DigitalWrite. Now, the fact that DigitalWrite is slow as dirt is long known. Indeed, a quick search pulls up a Hackaday article from 2010 demonstrating that it’s fifty times slower than toggling the pin directly using the native pin registers, but this is still one of those facts that gets periodically rediscovered from generation to generation. How can this be new again?

First off, sometimes you just don’t need the speed. When you’re just blinking LEDs on a human timescale, the general-purpose Arduino functions are good enough. I’ve written loads of useful firmware that fits this description. When the timing requirements aren’t tight, slow as dirt can be fast enough.

But eventually you’ll want to build a project where the old slow-speed pin toggling just won’t cut it. Maybe it’s a large LED matrix, or maybe it’s a motor-control application where the loop time really matters. Or maybe it’s driving something like audio or video that just needs more bits per second. One way out is clever coding, maybe falling back to assembly language primitives, but I would claim that the right way is almost always to use the hardware peripherals that the chipmakers gave you.

For instance, in the end of the video linked above, the hacker wants to drive a large shift register string that’s lighting up an LED matrix. That’s exactly what SPI is for, and coming to this realization makes the project work with timing to spare, and in just a few lines of code. That is the way.

Which brings me to the double-edged sword that the Arduino’s abstraction creates. By abstracting away the chips’ hardware peripherals, it makes code more portable and certainly more accessible to beginners, who don’t want to learn about SPI and I2C and I2S and DMA just yet. But by hiding the inner workings of the chips in “user friendly” libraries, it blinds new users to the useful applications of these same hardware peripherals that clever chip-design engineers have poured their sweat and brains into making do just exactly what we need.

This isn’t really meant to be a rant against Arduino, though. Everyone has to start somewhere, and the abstractions are great for getting your feet wet. And because everything’s open source anyway, nothing stops you from digging deeper into the datasheet. You just have to know that you need to. And that’s why we write up videos like this every five years or so, to show the next crop of new hackers that there’s a lot to gain underneath the abstractions.

Open Source Hiding In Plain Sight

On the podcast, [Tom] and I were talking about the continuing saga of the libogc debacle. [Tom] has been interviewing some of the principals involved, so he’s got some first-hand perspective on it all – you should really go read his pieces. But the short version is that an old library that many Nintendo game emulators use appears to have cribbed code from both and open-source real-time operating system called RTEMS, and the Linux kernel itself.

You probably know Linux, but RTEMS is a high-reliability RTOS for aerospace. People in the field tell me that it’s well-known in those circles, but it doesn’t have a high profile in the hacker world. Still, satellites run RTEMS, so it’s probably also a good place to draw inspiration from, or simply use the library as-is. Since it’s BSD-licensed, you can also borrow entire functions wholesale if you attribute them properly.

In the end, an RTOS is an RTOS. It doesn’t matter if it’s developed for blinking LEDs or for guiding ICBMs. This thought got [Tom] and I to thinking about what other high-reliability open-source code is out there, hidden away in obscurity because of the industry that it was developed for. NASA’s core flight system came instantly to mind, but NASA makes much of its code available for you to use if you’re interested. There are surely worse places to draw inspiration!

What other off-the-beaten-path software sources do you know of that might be useful for our crowd?