1275 replies to this topic

[Craig]

I haven't had the opportunity to get to my build yet however, I have been doing some designing. The following is a simple build that's pretty straight forward and I'm hoping in the spirit.

Vintage nose piece, vintage bracket and all the rest from the K & S rack

Jairus, I'll look over the entry list for car number availabilty and get that to you soon.

[Jairus]

Looks good Craig and quite vintage to me.

[Craig]

My number selection/request will be #33

[Pablo]

Craig, that design looks D3 inspired

[Craig]

Craig, that design looks D3 inspired

A little D3, a little like a chassis I built back in the 70's. The one I built way back then worked stellar so I'm trying again.

[Maximo]

I like it. It is clean neat and very tide and probably works like a champ! Do we know what body will dress this chassis?

The Proxy is going to have such great entries soon.

-Max

[Craig]

Thanks David,

I want to cover it with a body like this.

[don.siegel]

This is kind of a sidebar to the main discussion, but concerning "weight up front", this is a chassis I built in 1968 for a Versitec SS101 - possibly the worst handling chassis I ever built, but it does show that the idea of getting some weight in front of the front axle was already around.



That said, I have to say that Bob's chassis looks kind of modern to me...

Don

[boxerdog]

I think Bob's chassis is fine.

[havlicek]

So, except for the front half axles...howzabout this one (width is 3")?:



-john

[The Bugman]

Well Mr Israelite chassis looks good,EXCEPT,,,,,if that nose wiring is over 3" wide
,then it should be NOT LEGAL,my chassis at first was 3.25"wide,
and was TOLD it needed to be ONLY 3" wide,,what good for one
has gotta be good for ALL,,bring it in to 3" wide then its good to go

[The Bugman]

So, except for the front half axles...howzabout this one (width is 3")?:



-john

car looks great John

[HarV Wallbanger III]

3 1/4" body was legal but the rear track width had to be no more than 3" ....

[boxerdog]

Nice car, John!!! I have little half axles (no movement) also. But mine isn't that nice.

[Jairus]

Do you have plans to replace the front axle then? Pretty sure I said no floppy front wheels.... but, other than that. It looks very legal John.

[Gator Bob]

3 1/4" body was legal but the rear track width had to be no more than 3" ....

That's where I get confused on the rule.

[havlicek]

Jairus, if I need to replace the front axles or fix them so they don't move, I'll do that. I just want to be sure before I do that, no one else will have half axles and it turns out I didn't need to change them. BTW...the car has a BEAUTIFUL Jairus-painted American Flag motif Choti, which is probably the main reason I would use it. I have no idea if the chassis will work well, but the car looks freakin' aces with that body

Anyway, if half axles didn't happen back then and no one else will be able to run them, I'll be happy to rework the front end...please confirm!

-john

[Jairus]

I don't think it's the stub or half axles that are the problem. Nor is the movement the whole problem since I said an ISO is deemed legal.

Back in the olden days Champion had a "Snuggler" ISO chassis with long rails that ran alongside the tongue and then bent up and out to fit the front wheels. Are those "half axles"? I would say yes and it's vintage.
Are they solid? Sort of... but there is a also a lot of flex in the two inches of wire to the cross bar weld.

So... if you can come up with a justification for "Inspired by the car above", then I am listening.
Incidentally, the above chassis is legal if anyone has the balls to use one. They are a piece of junk as far as I am concerned, but if any of the technology is helpful with building your own chassis. Feel free to use this as an inspiration. I'm pretty sure it was probably hanging on the hook in our 1970 hobby shop.


I just don't want to see chassis with front axles like this:

[chief32s]

Hey Jairus,

I love that champion chassis, whatever it might have run like. I particularly like the way in which the motor forms an integral part of the chassis structure, rather than being something that is bolted into a complete chassis. Also like the way the rails/wheel mount members are pivoted around the axle on the brass spacers. A neat iso-design and as you know, I'm a fan of the iso chassis.

The fronts on that second chassis seem to be almost as pointless as those diiddy pin wheels you see on some of the modern chassis. If you are going to run a tripod/sled thing why not totally remove the wheels, I guess if they are sprung in some way there might be some justification in having them, but as you say, they are banned as far as this proxy is concerned.

As you can see, my chassis has a nice solid fronts that will hopefully be in contact with the track and will support the guide.. Two shots of where I'm at as of this evening. (Hope all looks legal...At least its square now hehe).





Sorry for the poor lighting. We are experiencing a thunderstorm.
ATB
Al.

[Jairus]

Looks legal to me Al!

[draggon]

This is kind of a sidebar to the main discussion, but concerning "weight up front", this is a chassis I built in 1968 for a Versitec SS101 - possibly the worst handling chassis I ever built, but it does show that the idea of getting some weight in front of the front axle was already around.





Thats pretty ugly, and not in a good way. That was my train of thought way back when. Turned out that weight applied equally on all four corners was the best. I had previously thought that if I stuck the guide into the slot all would be well.

[Pablo]

Bob. Bob, Bob, what part of "rear track width" don't you understand ? I don't understand why YOU don't understand

been "Dazed and Confused for so long, it's not true"

[Gator Bob]

Hey ... ....I understand "rear track width" but ... " it's what's up front that counts"

[Mark Johnson]

I'll take #2 please .
Mark

[Mark Johnson]

If you have a two piece front axel that is soldered solid to the chassis and the wheels hold the chassis off the track surface .
I think that would be legal , or am I mistaken .