3139 replies to this topic

[Tex]

I really like that clean, flush look of the bottom of the chassis!

[JimF]

Thanks for the pics. I like the way mine runs but I can't fit anything but a Hawk in it so I'm thinkin' about a plate design too. Naturally, I'll steal your idea for starters. I'm thinking 1 7/8" wide center with skinny pans. S/Be done by midweek (maybe).

[team burrito]

I think the JK Hawk is the only motor that will work in this class. The reason is the S7 Mini-Brute is too long & you would have to angle the motor much more just to clear the tires. The closer the motor is to the rear axle, the better it will handle.

[gascarnut]

I think the JK Hawk is the only motor that will work in this class. The reason is the S7 Mini-Brute is too long & you would have to angle the motor much more just to clear the tires. The closer the motor is to the rear axle, the better it will handle.

I guess it depends on how wide you want to run your tires. In SoCal Retro32 we have been runing S7 Minibrutes and Falcon 2 very successfully on 5/8" wide tires in anglewinders. I have one that is only about 8 degrees, but mostly I build them at 16 degrees to use the angled 72 pitch gears and they work great. The Minibrutes are not quite enough power though, the Falcon 2 runs better. I have not tried a Hawk, but I reckon that might be more than enough power!

Nice build, by the way! I would be interested to see how the all-brass construction works in comparison to our more traditional wire rail cars.

Another idea is to turn the gear around and bury the hub inside the left side tire. Mount the tire the other way round, or use rims that have a recessed hub. That saves a bit of space.

What do you intend to use for bodies?

[team burrito]

The smaller the (motor) angle, the better the handling. I have a Mini-Brute in a modified Champion flexi chassis & IMHO, it works great. We actually like the Mini-Brutes in our F1/Indy cars; less speed = more fun. This chassis is just an experiment, but 16 degrees is what I normally build.

Flipping the gear around would give an 1/8" more clearance, but it's may not be enough. The Hawk needs only .800" clearance, where the Mini-Brutes need almost a whole inch. The other problem is the motor can itself. The Hawk's can fit deeper into the axle tube notch like a C-can, where the FK motors can not.

[MSwiss]

I agree with Russ in that the Hawk or Proslot motor would probably be
a bit more versatile in this class.

I would think the Hawk 6 with the slightly milder wind and Neo magnets
would be a slightly better choice than the regular Hawk for 1/32.
If it was too peppy, a 1/2 or 1 ohm resistor in line might be ideal.

[Dominator]

Nice build Russ. It reminds me of a Parma International 32.

[JimF]

I have had mine running for a couple of weeks. It started at 90 gr. and with a Hawk @ 9:43. The darned thing was trying to leap up in the air and vault right off the flat track @ FTH. I added 10 gr of brass and changed the gearing to 8:40 and it was driveable enough that the guys that drove it had fun but it was still a bit of a handful without choking it. (8:42?)I think my next one will use the center pan like yours but wider so that I can put about any motor I want to on board. The wire car I built last year had a S7 in it and it was fine although a bigger angle for sure. (fiddly bending work though)

On the body thing, I used a JK BRM and we have some other JK 1/32 bodies available too. So far it's just messing around.

[team burrito]

My next design will accommodate both motors, but with a bigger angle. I'm thinking a 1-1/2" center section with 1/2" pans & a self-supporting rear axle for more clearance.

[Matt Sheldon]

Dennis & Russ,

When talking 8 degree versus 16 degree are you talking the degree of angle of the motor can in relation to the rear axle?

[Marty Stanley]

Matt,

I do believe that to be the case.

[JimF]

Here is a new Can Am built primarily with a Flat Track in So-Cal in mind. I have one test session in to test the BB fronts. This is 3 7/8" x 7/8" which is a little shorter than my most recent stuff. Main rail and front end support wire is all .075. Front brass chunks are .062. Bracket and guide tongue are by Mr. Warmack. So far this is very good on the MTT and Purple Angel @ Fast Track Hobbies in Rocklin Ca. I think it will be good on the Nor-Cal King tracks anytime the bite is loose.



Front end showing BB fronts from Mr. Swiss



Rear end. The "tabs" are .032 and serve as a nice place to park some lead if necessary and also a nice rear pan stop.



All up weight with this O/S #408 Ti-22 is 114 gr.

[Dominator]

Here's a re-build of one I did a little over a year ago http://slotblog.net/...ost__p__231467. The one pictured in the link had too much rear steer even after adding bracing to the main rails so I scraped the .063 rails and came up with this:


4-1/16" wheel base
7/8" guide lead
.078 main rails
.047 inner rails
Nose & rear brass is .032 brass
Pans & shaker are .063
JK treated front
JK untreated rears
JK hypoid motor bracket
Weight 102.5 grams

The .047 wire runs on the inside of the bracket and yes it was a precise fit! I have run the car and it works great even with the current weight probably will have to add a little nose weight depending on the track but all in all it's a solid ride. You really can't see it in the pic but the wire holding the rear pans together runs through a piece of 3/32 square tubing.

[Tex]

Very cool, Dominic; there's a lot to take in there. Thanks!

[gascarnut]

Here's a retro Pro I finished today:





Specs are:

Wheelbase 3.875"
Guide lead 0.875"
Single rail each side of .078 wire.
Flexing Plumber using .062 wire.

The pans are .032", 3/4" wide by 4" long.

This is how I set up the motor mount. (Thanks to Allen Low for the original idea)



Then there's a brace across the back that supports the other side of the axle tube:



Look for this one to hit a NorCal track some time soon, it's headed up that way tomorrow morning.

[team burrito]

Then there's a brace across the back that supports the other side of the axle tube. Look for this one to hit a NorCal track some time soon, it's headed up that way tomorrow morning.

I like the interlocking of the rear axle, very nice & this is going to the "Hermanator"?

[Mopar Rob]

I like the motor mount. Nice work as usual.

[gascarnut]

I like the interlocking of the rear axle, very nice & this is going to the "Hermanator"?

Thanks!

And, yes, the Hermanator will be running this one, along with a few others of mine he has acquired lately.

[team burrito]

Here's one of four chassis I'm building for Big John at SCR:









I wanted to build a rugged chassis for the Can-Am class, so I had Frank order to the Chicagoland kit. I'm not crazy about the versi bracket, but I do like the extra thickness. The diagonal vertical brace does help, F1/Indy chassis up next.

[JimF]

Russ:

Very nice as always. Looks like Herman and Big John will be loaded for bear when we get to SCR. Big John is a purty dang good racer and he doesn't wreck much so a rig like that will serve him well for sure. Herman also now owns the F-1 that I loaned him (and he beat us with) last time there as well. Looks like I'm gonna hafta up my game as well.

[MSwiss]

Russ,
Like Jim said, very nice as always.

A lot of cool features like the left to right bracing,
both front and rear.

[Rick]

As always Russ, outstanding workmanship. How much does it weigh?

[team burrito]

How much does it weigh?

The whole car (with body) weighs 121.4 grams; a little on the heavy side, but it should handle good. I'll let you guys know the test results later.

[MSwiss]

Is it for the flat track or the King?

[team burrito]

the king, why?