57 replies to this topic

[dc-65x]

My 1/32 scale Pittman DC-65X (6 volt) powered car ran so well at Eddie's a few weeks ago I decided to make one in 1/24 scale. The parts for the build are a Cox weighted swing arm kit for the guide (the Super Flex lead wire is being saved for a Pro car), a Kemtron chassis kit for the rear axle bracket (I'm planning on having the Laser Dude make some of these up), Russkit front tires, "German" rear tires, our own Russkit clone wheels, Weldun gears, and of course a Pittman DC-65 motor:



Now, what to use for a body . How about one of these:





The Lotus 30 (Clark) on top is much lower and swoopy than the #92 Lotus 30 on the bottom. An internet search turned up some cool pictures of this beautiful car which for some reason was a racing failure. Check out how low and swoopy this one is:





Man, it sure looks fast! I was worried the Pittman might not fit in the low and swoopy Clark body so I also wanted to find pictures of an earlier version for the taller #92 body. This one caught my attention. I don't know anything about the real car except I think it looks unique and very cool. It might be somebody's "Kit Car" for all I know but I like it:



Check out those "Cooper style" wheels. I've never seen them on a Lotus 30 before. And, how about these PIPES!



HOLY SMOKES!



Again, it doesn't matter if the real racer was unsuccessful. I'm sure the slot version will be a blast. Time to build the chassis and see which version gets the nod...

[don.siegel]

Another fascinating post, Rick! Wish I could help you on all those bodies, but I'm not so sure myself. The lower-slung Lancer Lotus looks more like a 40, but it says 30, so that's pretty definite!

Will you be reworking the DC65 at all, or just using a stock 65A-6 volt? If the tires are all pretty scale you should be able to fit in the motor with no problem.

Also, if you posted pictures of the 1/32 car with the 196-65X I missed it... any problems with the conversion?

Thanks!

Don

[TSR]

this beautiful car which for some reason was a racing failure.

Rick,

The sheet-steel chassis copied from the Elan was flexing so much that the front and rear suspensions felt like they were attached by rubber bands. The other problems were of the aerodynamic kind. The car felt like a Cessna on take off. I drove one of these miserable piles once and scared the bejeezus out of me. But they look SOOOO good!

It is in fact amazing that the 23 was so good and the 30/40 so bad, only a year apart.
Interesting to see the dual numbering of what is essentially the same body from Lancer. The later type 40 they made, used by Western Hobbies for their "Devastator" RTR and by Pactra in their RTRs and kits, has a full complement of the Ford V8 "bundle of snakes" exhaust and looks more 'pointed".

As far as the fragile Cooper-like wheels on the green "30", ... what were they thinking??? One can buy perfect Lotus repro wheels in the UK.

I am also amazed that the fellow with the red example did not fit front and rear spoilers on his car, as they are perfectly legitimate period implements as precipitously used by Clark at the 1964 LA Times GP at Riverside. The period Russkit poster showing Clark on the backstretch with such implements, but even with them, the car has its suspension fully unloaded. It shows what kind of courage it took for someone really stepping on it to manage the beast... One has to have LOTS of respect for Jimmy...

[Hworth08]

It is in fact amazing that the 23 was so good and the 30/40 so bad, only a year apart.

I don't know much about the Can-Am cars but wasn't this the first time some of the companies used big cubic inch, heavy (in pounds), engines with a lot of torque?

[TSR]

I don't know much about the Can-Am cars but wasn't this the first time some of the companies used big cubic inch, heavy (in pounds), engines with a lot of torque?

First it is not "Can-Am" of course because Can-Am began in 1966. Before, it is "USRRC" which stands for United States Road Racing Championship in SCCA talk.

Second, it was not the first time. In the 1950s, many American specials such as the Hagemann, Troutman-Barnes, etc., had either Chevy or Ford engines, and don't forget the Scarab that in 1958 beat the works Ferrari at Riverside. In 1962/63, several American racing outfits used Chevy and Ford V8s stuffed in Cooper frames, the King Cobra being one of them of course. In 1963, the Chaparral 1 was a dominant road racing car with a Chevy V8. Later in 1965, some of the Brabham BT8 (including one of the two I owned0 were fitted with the Olds-Traco small V8 that later became the Rover engine.

What Lotus missed with the 30/40 was chassis rigidity. ALL the surviving cars running today have replacement chassis made of thicker gauge steel, and that helped a lot. But the car is still a horrid pile, and I remember lapping some of them at Laguna Seca after having to follow them for a lap or two as I witnessed their unfortunate drivers fighting with the unruly machines.

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

Rick, thanks for the project, just made me smile all over. I have most of a survivor of the period with a Mabuchi besides the later 26D car. And I am tempted to see what I have and restore it. Not sure I have the wheels still, which tended to migrate to the next project.

But thanks.

I saw Clark drive the 23 at the 63 LA Times GP. Before the race he drove a 30, and looked wonderful. He had the magic to mask the "flexi-flier" aspect of the car.

Dave McDonald in a Cooper Cobra, Penske in the Zerex. Good times. Good NOISE.

Fate

[dc-65x]

Hi Don,

Yes, they are both Lotus 30s. The Lancer Lotus 40 is drop-dead gorgeous with its low stance, ducktail rear spoiler, and bundle of snakes exhaust. I'm saving those for some 1966 Rod & Custom Pro cars:



The 1/32 scale car I referred to was this one with a DC-65 motor:





I have done three Pittman 196s with 65 arms and they were not simple drop-in swaps like the period magazines stated and a few bloggers have experienced. All my arms are NOS but from the same source so maybe mine are the exception. They are too long to fit without modification.

Using the Crane rear end all I had to do was flip the armature bearings around so the flange was on the outside and trim the armatures rear spacer as short as I could without hitting the windings. Then the arm would fit but I think the comm was too far forward to line up with the brushes . Rotating the brush plate 180 degrees solves that problem:



I'm going to run a stock 65-6volt motor to start with. Then I'll swap it out for a lightened, ball bearing version.

Thanks for the Lotus 30 info, Philippe. Pretty cool you got to drive one! The first Lancer Lotus 30 #92 looks a lot like the London show car. Its sides are too tall which is helpful for my particular sidewinder application. The later "Clark" version is more like the cars as they first raced with lower more scale body sides, six vent holes in the rear engine cover, front gas cap, and some other "warts". So far I'm thinking that one will get an inline... maybe a 196/65-6volt conversion .

Thanks too for answering Don H's question. You did a much better job than I would have!

Thanks, Rocky.

If you need a set of our "original" Russkit repop wheels for the project let me know and I can send you some. Living in "Smell-A" (Los Angles) in my "yout" I remember Dave McDonald sideways in turn six in the King Cobra at Riverside... good times.

[dc-65x]

Here the assembled Kemtron rear end is mated to the motor and is set up in my neat-O Rick's Jig. Time to start building a pin tube space frame... oops... something is missing . No front motor brackets .



Rather than cut up the Kemtron frame I made some up:



The empty hole will be used to mount the drop arm and rear body mounting pin tube. They worked out so well I'm hoping the Laser Dude will make a small run of them along with my version of the rear brackets:



The first main rails will lay along side the front bracket run up to the front axle tube. I got an idea of how to make sure the rails were straight and parallel. I could have just used some lay out lines on the jig but I found a machinist tool that made things super precise and easy... the machinist adjustable parallel:



I simply measured over the front motor brackets and set the inner parallel to that number. Then I adjusted the outer parallels until they snuggled up against the rail on each side. The parallels even made sure the front 90 degree bends were perpendicular to the jig and parallel to each other. NEATO! There was plenty of room to tack the rails to the bracket:



This is the most perfectly-aligned frame I ever done and it was also the easiest to align. The drop arm is next:

[munter]

Rick,

This is, as we say here, "a visual symphony!"

I usually build chassis using brazing rod of about 1.5mm, which is similar in dimension to the pin tube.

Do you use rod? Is there an advantage using the pin tube? The rod is cheap and plentiful but maybe I am missing something with the tube??

Regards,

[dc-65x]

Thanks, John.

Back in the day at my raceway we were all about light weight before we got motors with real power and tires with real traction. So we started with pin tube for its light weight and later moved on to brazing rod jail door frames for their "road-hugging weight" .

[dc-65x]

The drop arm is a really long dog so I used a Chris Chan design to strenghten it... Mr. Zig Zag:





I think it worked out really well. Here's the finished chassis less rear axle assembly:

[idare2bdul]

We need an "I'm not worthy" icon.

Simply beautiful work.

[Gary Bluestone]

Is there an advantage using the pin tube?

Tubing resists bending more than solid rod, so it is more rigid than rod for the same size. The side walls of the tubing have the curved surface which gives it strength.

One way to bend tubing is to fill up the inside so it won't collapse, and the bending force is transmitted to the opposite side. You will notice bicycle and motorcycle frames are made of tubing for this reason. If you try to bend solid rod , the center core acts as fulcrum and transmits the bending force through to the opposite side.

If you try to bend tubing, it will resist until it finally kinks and deforms.

[dc-65x]

Yes, ummmm... what he said ... and it's only 75% of the weight of solid rod.

Hi Gary,

Welcome to the blog . You wouldn't happen to be a mechanical engineer?

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

I only briefly used tube, and stopped because of the "kink". I suspect I was as bad a driver THEN as now.

Mostly used piano wire!

I did a 1/32 Vette with a Pittman as well. Converted the Revell to a Grand Sport and did serious surgury to make a 704 fit! Sadly the car didn't survive past '65. A "friend" borrowed it for a 1/32 drag at the local strip. The set up allowed polarity switching, as the drag guys didn't agree on pos right or left. So it got totaled in a head on!

Snif.

I bought the recent issues of the GS, for the body, but haven't decided what to do.

Some of the usual suspects have been chatting PM with me about a spring convention. Perhaps we can do a race!

Fate

[idare2bdul]

Last year some racers showed up with Pittman 196s in F1s. I'd like to see some 65s, 85s, and Kemtron-powered cars.

[Gary Bluestone]

. You wouldn't happen to be a mechanical engineer?

Sorry, no diploma! If I had any formal engineering schooling I could probably expain the theory in a way no one could understand.

Today they call us mechanical technicians, 40 years ago they called us grease monkeys.

[TSR]

Tubing resists bending more than solid rod, so it is more rigid than rod for the same size.

This is an absolutely correct statement.

[dc-65x]

I got the mechanical assembly done. Simpler times indeed







I've decided the earlier Lancer Lotus body #92 will fit better so this is the version I'll be building:



Next up are those Cooper style wheels with knock-off hubs and those big honkin' PIPES!

[Jairus]

Love how your wires lay. Looks like they are the perfect length and won't interfere with the drop arm at all.

Nice chassis, Rick!

[dc-65x]

Thanks, Jairus.

It's cool you noticed that. I try to get the lead wires to lay "korrect" but rarely do. This was just luck and those Marklin train wires look vintage and even self-center the guide without using modern techniques.

[dc-65x]

To install knock-offs onto Russkit Cooper wheel inserts I chose some Riggens for their "Pin Wheel" fronts. A Russkit wheel necked down with brass tube served as a drilling fixture and 1/16" aluminum rod and some Zap glue attach the kno-k off to the insert:





A little black paint and they're done:





For the big honkin' pipes I used 5/32" aluminum tube with four 1/16" aluminum rods Zap-glued into one end:



I laid out the huge slots to be cut in the body on some masking tape and went to town with an X-Acto knife and tapered reamers:



The old body didn't crack and we've got slots:



The pipes got mounted on some sheet plastic ready to tape inside the body:



I filled in the gaps between the big tube and small pipes with epoxy and painted the small pipes flat aluminum:



Time to mix up some British Racing Green and dig up the air brush...

[bosmeck]

This looks like it's going to be another amazing car, Rick. Brilliant!!

[TSR]

Rick,

Just in case you need something more colorful for another, here is the actual Cox Lotus 30 from which their model was copied:



PS: Your bodies will be shipped to you as soon as I can get to the LASCM next week.

[Steve Deiters]

The 1/24 scale Cox RTR/Kit was actually a Lotus 40, not a Lotus 30.

Cosmetically the difference between the two models - the 30 and the 40 - was that the 40 had a spoiler that was part of the body form on the tail end. There may have been some others, but that was the most prominent. The 1:1 40s ran larger wheels, brakes, and engine than the 30.

When Richie Ginther was asked the difference between to two models he said the 40 just had ten more mistakes than the 30! Not a real favorite of the people who drove it from what I have read, but one of the more elegantly-designed cars of the era.