this a real rr1?

i have heard of them but never seen one any of you guys have a picture.

right here, sir:
http://livingmasterpiece.com/stoneway/restore_engine.asp

Lovely I need to look out for one of those

Yes, the stoneway group makes quite remarkable little pieces of jewelery...look at their rr-1 restorations!

ive seen them they are great i have also seen their tether cars and they are lovely and on ebay i recently missed out on what i believe was one of their cox .010 powered tether car.

I was the one who bought this engine. It is real and I've been searching for this version for quite some time.
It is perhaps the rarest of all production Cox engines prior to 1969. If my research is correct, it was only manufactured for six months.
If you're interested, I can post my findings here.
Mud

Please do post your findings and by all means become a member it's real quick easy and free.

Cox Thimble-Drome, Initial Issue RR-1
The initial issue RR-1 is unlike any subsequent version of the engine. Even the vacuum-formed box bottom is distinct from later variants. This is one of the most difficult production engines, if not the most difficult to acquire from L. M. Cox Mfg.
RR-1 History
The RR-1 and Babe Bee .049 were developed concurrently over a 15 to 20-month period beginning in October 1954. The Babe Bee was finished by January 1956. The RR-1 was completed by the end of June* that same year. (Re: “*” see below.)
Components of the Initial Issue RR-1. It should be noted that early advertisements for the RR-1, which were copied directly from Cox-made scratchboards, represent this initial issue version:
01.) Smooth, narrow-conical crankcase.
02.) No oil groove inside the crankcase bore.
03.) Five-fin glow head. (Four cooling fins and one small decorative fin at the base of the glow head core, similar, in appearance, to cat. # 302 Glow heads. [A la Space Bug, Thermal Hopper, Space Bug Jr., and Strato-Bug .049.]) Later versions of the same engine had the fifth decorative fin removed.
04.) 4-piece “302-J” piston.
05.) Larger rotor valve pin.
06.) “STD” engraved on rotor face. (Indicating “standard,” right-hand rotation.) Furthermore, subsequent rotor valves had a smaller rotor pin access hole. Rotor valves fitted to later versions of the RR-1 will not fit on the Initial Issue version.
07.) Tank front is smooth with blue anodizing.
08.) Port is pointed upward. The tank front cannot simply be rotated to situate the port facing down, as found in later versions. This would place the timing 180° out, and the tank front filler tubes would be on the right hand side obstructing the fuel pick-up tube.
09.) Venturi is identical to Babe–Bee .049.
10.) Tank back is identical to Babe Bee .049 except the fill tubes are not tapped.
11.) Tank back has clear iridite plating.
12.) Fuel pick-up tube is black rubber, (or vinyl,) without the .008” spring.
13.) The box bottom has been vacuum formed to fit effortlessly underneath the smooth, initial issue crankcase, (at the wider portion of the crankcase neck.) Later RR-1’s with turned fins had this section of the box bottom enlarged. An RR-1 with turned fins will not fit the initial issue box bottom. This is more than just a passing “bit of trivia.” It must be noted that this vacuum formed bottom was only used on the RR-1. So if this bottom cannot fit a ribbed crankcase then it can only be meant for a smooth crankcase.
When was the Initial Issue RR-1 available to the public?
An article written for American Bicyclist and Motorcyclist dated April 1956 notes, “The ‘RR-1’ is the first rear-rotary valve .049 to appear on the market…” One is left with the impression that by the time the article was published the engine already was available. However, in a letter dated May 24, 1956, written and signed by Roy Cox to Mr. Dale Kirn, he gives a clue to the release of the RR-1. He writes, “The material you requested is being mailed today except the three RR-1’s. We are not yet under way on that item. It will be a few days yet and we will send them as soon as they start to go through the line.” It would seem the initial issue version was released shortly after May 24, 1956. How soon after is not known. Take for granted that the engine was released within one month after the letter was written. This might aptly be considered, “a few days,” thus setting the start of the production run three weeks into June 1956.
How long was the Initial Issue RR-1 in production?
Blueprints for the RR-1 tank front, dated June 7, 1955 note that on November 6, 1956, the following changes were made, “Venturi changed, Fins added, Port turned over.” The amount of time between the changes noted on the blueprints and when these revisions were incorporated on the production line is not known. If the amended version of the engine began one month after the modifications were noted, then assembly for the “finned” RR-1 was set in motion mid-December 1956, or perhaps early in January 1957. If this is true then the production run of the initial issue RR-1 was only six months. Without any other company documentation or original support material, (newspaper articles, business journals, etc.,) the aforementioned is only an estimate. Furthermore, and again without any company documentation, it’s impossible to know the number of engines manufactured during this time frame. Assuming the six-month running time, however, the numbers had to be comparatively few.
Mud

Admin wrote:Wow, very impressive! You sure done your homework! Thank you for posting that, I learn something new everyday! You seriously need to join this forum, we need people like you on here!

Jacob

I couldn't have put it better myself!!!

On the low priced end of the spectrum, a few months ago on eBay, I bought a pair of brand new never run pre-1996 Black Widows for about $63.00. I about did a dance when I won. I bought one in a hobby shop in 1993 and it never ran as good as these.
It was the first auction I had ever won too.

The first auction I won was a nib December 1990 cox tee dee .010

The first auction I won was a nib December 1990 cox tee dee .010

I've never even seen a Tee Dee in real life. I'd love to have one, maybe an .049 or bigger.

like me ive never had a medallion i never ealy saw their purpose they are not as powerful as a tee dee or even a killer bee in my opinion they are waste of what a front rotary valve can do.

they are as powerful as a black widow, they might have just one bypass, but that is compensated by the larger carburator.
i do like mine. when its running, its very reliable. and if you say the medallion is a waste of a rotary valve, what
is the rr-1 then?

i said waste of a front rotary valve the rr 1 is rear rotary any way from what ive heard medalions are hard to start. but if you lke them i might pick one up if its going cheap.

they are hard to start, that's true, but once you get em running they are really nice, especially if you have one with an r/c throttle.
they are very picky with the starting mixture and get flooded very easily.

ah what do you think they are worth.

35 pounds, for a nice one

Ok I'll keep my eyes out for one.