98 replies to this topic

[TSR]

Sam,

An electric motor only drinks to its thirst, so the power on track is irrelevant unless the VOLTAGE is set too high. Slot cars are supposed to run on 12 volts, not 14 or 16. Amperage is a non-factor. Run on a separate standard 50-amp power pack independent from the track batteries (with a switch) set a 12-volt and you will not need post collars... 

[Hworth08]

In post 15 Steve mentioned there wasn't any .010 bodies yet. Probably were, especially for the Russkit team. Production bodies are usually molded four or five at a time. The "outter" bodies are a bit wider and thinner and make the best bodies for racing.

 

There was a body company named Ten Thou but that company may have been 1967.

 

Not sure which year but the magazine author mentions a bit about how thin the bodies are.

[Samiam]

Two of the tracks at SAL are equipped with variable power. The King is all in.Not sure of my motor choice yet but it will be built to run at least 3 on 2 off for 8 heats. I have heard too many stories of vintage comms. grenading on modern power. A modern arm with a vintage wind will most likely find it's way into a 26D for my build. This is not supposed to be reproductions or replicas. Just builds based on the cars and parts run in the series using period correct parts where possible.

 

 Philippe,I do hope you plan on building an example. I look forward to seeing your take on a R&C Series Car.

 

Proposal: Instead of a Proxy race everyone should/ can just post a video of the car doing one 3 minute stint on their favorite track.

[SlotStox#53]

Sam , there isn't any races Proxy or otherwise planned for these babies .. In the introduction thread about these builds Steve mentions this is just for fun & to build some really cool cars to the rules/specs/fun of the R&C series. build cars that we can run So no worries on vintage comms grenading

[Pablo]

Sam, Sam, Sam, did you do your research homework before you blasted in here ?

I suggest you start reading here http://slotblog.net/...the-r-c-series/, post # 1, and do some apologizing. The groundwork has already been laid in concrete for this event.

[Samiam]

Paul,

I have some vintage "HOT" rewinds from the Era. Maybe I'll risk running one of them.

 

The video of my car will have to be done at Buzz-A-Rama. It is only fitting. 

[Samiam]

Didn't think there was going to be a proxy race. Just suggesting a way of displaying the finished cars.

[Steve Okeefe]

In post 15 Steve mentioned there wasn't any .010 bodies yet. Probably were, especially for the Russkit team. Production bodies are usually molded four or five at a time. The "outter" bodies are a bit wider and thinner and make the best bodies for racing.

 

There was a body company named Ten Thou but that company may have been 1967.

 

Not sure which year but the magazine author mentions a bit about how thin the bodies are.

 

Don,

 

You are probably right, they did exist.    What's more, it's even possible the Russkit team knew about this and took advantage of it.

 

But to be completely honest about your claim, in January 1966 they were not marketed as .010" thick bodies, and an ordinary local raceway customer like me or perhaps even yourself could not buy one over the counter, or even order one.

 

The report for the 4th race indicates in a caption on page 68 and again in the article text on page 78 that Morrissey had an .010" thick body on his car.  But that was the 4th race, held in August.  The article wasn't published until November.  I am building a car for the 1st race, held in January, and was very careful to say "early 1966" in my post (#15).

[Gator Bob]

If these are show cars that are not going to be raced .010 or .015 bodies would not make much difference in the end.

[SlotStox#53]

Paul,
I have some vintage "HOT" rewinds from the Era. Maybe I'll risk running one of them.
 
The video of my car will have to be done at Buzz-A-Rama. It is only fitting. 

Good for you, got a couple of hot rewinds too, look forward to seeing your car then Sam.

[TSR]

In post 15 Steve mentioned there wasn't any .010 bodies yet. Probably were, especially for the Russkit team. Production bodies are usually molded four or five at a time. The "outer" bodies are a bit wider and thinner and make the best bodies for racing.

 

Don, true, but in this case, the bodies were made of 0.010" butyrate. Only the "Team" had them and that peed off quite a few racers who actually protested and asked for them to be banned. They became commercially available in 1967 after the end of the R&C series. 10-thou means that the sides of the bodies were more like 5 or 6-thou or less, Russkit did not have the same vac forming technology as Lancer or other companies did. Many production Russkit bodies especially the Chaparral 2D coupe, are ultra thin and very brittle on their sides, because the roof pulled so much plastic off the sides and they obviously did not know how to deal with that.
 

There was a body company named Ten Thou but that company may have been 1967.

 

It was, but at this time we have not found anything they made... 

[Steve Okeefe]

Philippe,

Going back to the R&C race reports and looking again for references to .010" thick bodies, I found two:

In the 4th race report the author (Gene Husting) mentions Mike Morrissey is using a .010" thick Lotus 40 body:



Presuming this is a Russkit body, and going to my library of photos, I found this:



Note this is NOT a part number 615, instead it is part number 615-LW and prominently marked "LIGHTWEIGHT". Searching through distributor's catalogs I could only find part number 615 with a description that does not include the word "Lightweight". This suggests to me that part number 615-LW is a variation on the original part number, and the word "lightweight" indicates the body is made of thinner plastic, possibly .010" thick.

I would have no problem believing this body, in this packaging, is from 1967.

In the 5th race report, Gene mentions Mike Morrissey is using a .010" thick Ferrari body (looks a lot like a 330-P3 coupe) made by Shark.



Information about Shark bodies is very hard to obtain, so I'm sure my listing is incomplete, but although I have found info about quite a few Shark bodies, I have never been able to find anything about a Ferrari 330-P3.

There are five Ferraris listed in the tech chart, so there were at least five in the race, but what strikes me as strange is that Gene would call attention to Morrissey's Ferrari not only as being ,010" thick, but also being made by Shark (instead of his using a Russkit body). Anderson's Ferrari is pictured too (and it looks like the same Shark Ferrari body), but neither the thickness nor the manufacturer is mentioned.

Also in my collection of photos is the "LIGHTWEIGHT" Russkit Chaparral 2D, part number 618-LW (as opposed to just 618).  This may be an example of the 2D coupe you mentioned in your post:

 

As with the lightweight Russkit Lotus 40 part number , the Chaparral 2D "618-LW" part number does not appear in the distributor's catalogs, and the body appears in the same (possibly 1967) packaging.

[TSR]

Steve,

that "Shark" body is also attributed by some to Dynamic, and there is a dispute between parties to actually know who made the original mold, Jack Garcia of Dynamic or Ron Klein, then the UbberMaster at Shark. I would lean to the second because the few bodies at the LASCM of that model look more like Shark pulls than Dynamic's. In any case it does not appear that it was made in any quantities besides a few samples used by R&C racers and few others in the USA. I do not believe that it was actually marketed after that, because if it did there would be a lot more of them around, and there are simply, very few. Also all the ones at the LASCM are made of thicker plastic, not 0.010"...

 

Af far as body thickness for making replicas of R&C cars, since there were some there, I see no reason why they should not be "kosher" regardless if the common man (AKA not a member of the "Team") could get his paws on one of not! 

Here is a 1967 Eagle-Weslake V12 F1 body showing the 1967 Russkit packaging for their vac formed bodies. Of course that body never made the R&C series because it came out after the series ended... 

 

 

 

 

[Steve Okeefe]

Time to set up the jig so I can actually build something.

 

It's always best to start with the body you're going to use.  In this build the body is a Ferrari 330-P2:

 

 

When trimming the body, I noticed that the mold lines defined a wheelbase on one side was slightly different than the wheelbase on the other.  No big deal, I'll just trim until they are equal, keeping the wheel arches directly across from each other.

 

But what is the "correct" scale wheelbase for a Ferrari 330-P2?  Doing my homework, I see it is 2400mm or 94.5".  Dividing by 24 gives me 3.9375" or 3-15/16".  Now, we have a bit of a problem.

 

There is NO WAY I am going to cut the body to a 3-15/16" wheelbase; it would look terrible!  What's more, checking the published R&C rules:

 

 

I see that strict conformance to the rules will require the car's wheelbase to be within 1/16" of scale; which in this case would be a maximum of 4" and a minimum of 3-7/8".

 

So, first I cannot make it "scale", and then I cannot even make it conform to the R&C rules.  Stuck?  No.  Here we properly apply the concept of "precedence".

 

When a project needs to get designed and built, but rules and specifications conflict, the issue is resolved by determining the precedence of the conflicting rules and specifications.  Generally speaking, newer takes precedence over older.

 

My number one rule is that I'm going to have some fun building and not stress-out over this.  The fact is most 1966 sports car wheelbases are between 90" (3-3/4" scale) and 96" (4" scale) anyway; I'm in the ballpark.

 

So, I will set-up the jig for a wheelbase of 3-13/16" to match the body I'm using.

 

The trimmed body's width across the front fenders is 2-3/4".  Across the rear fenders is 2-7/8".  R&C rules allow 3".  I can go any one of three ways:

 

1. Build the chassis so the rear tires are 2-7/8" across the outside edges to match the body.

 

2. Flare the fenders out to 3" and build the chassis to 3".

 

3. Invoke the obscure R&C rule that actually allows the rear tires to "stick out" 1/16" beyond the rear fenders on each side.

 

 

I choose door number one (2-7/8" over the outsides of the rear tires and no fender flares).  Why?  Because that is what makes me happy.

 

Moving right along, I need to pick parts.  In particular, wheels.  This is a Ferrari, so I need wire wheels, right?

 

 

Maybe.  Otherwise, it's the signature Ferrari five spoke wheels:

 

 

I think it's a bit early for that.  Any other candidates?  Check this:

 

 

Ten hole wheels,... with knock-offs!  I can do that!

 

 

But wait!  There's another problem.  The R&C rules say:

 

 

Time for another interpretation.  I would bet lunch the O-Rings that particular rule addresses are the 1/16" cross section variety, and I agree completely; 1/16" wide (1-1/2" scale) tires on a road race car are just too narrow.  There are many bicycles with tires wider than that!

 

The "Fat" O-Rings I have selected to use as front tires are .210" (more than 3/16") cross section, which would be a solid five scale inches wide.  Once again, I'm in the ballpark.

 

So now I've got my critical dimensions sorted, I can set up the jig.  What's this?  The jig doesn't do 3-13/16" wheelbases?  Nope; only 1/8" increments.  Time for some fudge.

 

I have some thick-wall brass tubing (I'm sure it's K&S - are you really going to make me look up the part number?  )  Cutting four short pieces each of 3/16" x 1/8" and 1/4" x 3/16", and slipping them over the spaced out 1/8" pins, I can "fake" a 3-13/16" wheel base:

 

 

The jig wheels are standard 3/4" and 13/16" pieces, and the guide post height is about .125"

 

Now I'm (finally) ready to build the chassis.

[SlotStox#53]

Nice bit of research & informed decisions Steve, very much look forward to seeing the chassis coming together on the jig

Awesome mag wheels too

[Jairus]

Brilliant jig motor!  Wish I had thought of that.... but won't be long before I have one too.

[Steve Okeefe]

Paul,

 

Thanks! 

 

Part of my goal (for the first build at least) is to set precedent and demonstrate a reasonable decision-making process.

 

The path to any superior result is very rarely a straight line, so I'm making an attempt here to be informative and provide an example of how to follow the less than straight path, without taking shortcuts, and hopefully achieve that superior result.

[Steve Okeefe]

Brilliant jig motor!  Wish I had thought of that.... but won't be long before I have one too.

 

Jairus,

 

I don't know about the "brilliant" part, but the darn thing is 100% heat proof, as well as acid resistant - and that's what I wanted.

 

Be careful to keep the cut ends square (so the two can ends go together straight), and make it as long as the longest motor you intend to use.  If necessary, you could make several in various overall lengths to simulate different motors...

 

Remember the formed can end (that rests on the jig surface) has a radius, where the molded endbell (it's supposed to be simulating) has a sharp corner.  I usually place a snip of .016" brass under it to raise it up just a tad.

[Jairus]

Your discussion on the wheel designs is interesting. If a bit pedantic.  I noticed that only a few racers pictured during the time period bothered matching up wheels/inserts to the specific body they were running.  Most just ran what they had or picked due to availability at the time.

 

I have no problem with what you are doing (Milla Miglia) because that was my first choice too.  But it must be pointed out that running bare Russkit repop rims is acceptable too in this series.  We are making every "ATTEMPT"  to be accurate/korrect as possible. But sometimes running a set of Cox mis-matched wheels on a racer is still correct for the era.

Thanks for the update on the jig motor.   

[TSR]

Maybe.  Otherwise, it's the signature Ferrari five spoke wheels:

 

 

 

 

There is a good reason for that: this is not a real 275P but a contraption built from old and new parts by a British vintage racer. The car is accepted as what it is not because of a very tall story and a fairy tale by the constructor-racer... the wheels came from a stock 512BB.

 

All the 330P2 (there are not too many...) raced with either Borrani wires or in some cases, Campagnolo magnesium cast wheels copied from the British Dunlop used on the Jaguar XKE factory lightweight racing cars.

[SlotStox#53]

Love those Dunlop mag wheels off the Jaguars, were they the same wheels used on the earlier D-Types?

[TSR]

Paul, no, they are evolution of them. The original Dunlop wheels on the D-types and many other British 1950s cars such as the Connaught F1, BRM F1 and lots of Cooper, Tojeiro, Lister cars were two-piece wheels made of a magnesium rim riveted to a steel center. They had little round holes on their centerpiece. All were centerlock. The later Dunlop are one-piece castings, with similar web design but small rectangular vent holes. These are the ones Campagnolo copied for the 330P2 and 330P3 cars, before the 5-spoke design of the 330P4.

[SlotStox#53]

Ah cool, thanks for the info Philippe

Amazing how wheel technology changes so quickly over such short time ! Plus when people copy it changes even quicker!

Love those old wheels , finish off the old British cars really well.

[TSR]

For the R&C Ferrari 330P2 project, the best I could recommend would be standard 15" Russkit wheels with Russkit Porsche 906 wheel inserts that would be the closest "look" to the Campies... 

[Jean-Michel Piot]

This sport version of the 330 P2, with a low windscreen just as in the repop of a lancer body also existed with the Borrani wire wheels.

 

Funny, I'm building the same 330 P2 out of a K&B kit, where I cut windscreen just as suggested in the building instruction if one wanted to have the NART version.

 

Should it help, here are few pictures, notably inserts I made with Monogram 275P 1/24 kit in order to have wire wheels on the K&B (2 out of 4 wheels inserts were missing in the kit I had, besides the K&B inserts are ugly). I used the static version of the kit.

 

Not perfect (especially for the front) but vintage...

 

 

 

With this sport version, here is the correct roll bar: