52 replies to this topic

[Martin]

Have had this chassis for many years. I love the way the builder tied all the connections and used the can as a stressed member.

 

Not sure what to do with it, other than get your opinions and maybe get it running.

 

Anybody seen anything similar ? I'm curious to when it was made or any info.

Attached Images

• 
• 

[Pablo]

Ahead of it's time   

[Bill from NH]

Martin, space frame designs similar to your's were popular in slot racing during the '60s. Most of them were inline & used brass rails rather than piano wire like yours appears to use.This might tell me yours could be somewhat newer. Or, using the can as a stressed chassis member, could indicate it came from Britian or some other European country. Cans were used as stressed members in European anglewinders, both 1/32 & 1/24 scale, much later. Do you know the origin of yur chassis? You should be able to build it into a decent running slot car using a moderate powered motor & the vintage body of your choice. You could even build it into a thingie, if you wished.

[MSwiss]

The carbon dating app on phone has it as Aptil 26th, 1968.

[Martin]

Thank for the input. I was thinking about a Thingie body Bill because of its unconventional "ahead of its time" (Paul) thinking.

 

Mike, I need to get that app, sure would save a lot of guessing. The can and the wheels are all I have to go on. But I would say pre angle winder,  Just my gut.

 

It does have a 26D bigger brother, I suppose it could of had a drop-arm hinging off the rear axle. But I assumed it was never finished. its WB is 4 9/16" the first chassis 16D is 3.3/4" WB

Attached Images

• 
• 

[Bill from NH]

Two items that might help date these chassis are both have right-side spur gears & brass tubing to hold rear axles, rather than using some sort of bushing/bearing arrangement. Wonder what the carbon dating app has to say about them.

[raisin27]

Looks like some nice soldering for that era

[Steve Okeefe]

Martin,

 

The motor can is from a Mabuchi FT-16 (produced from mid 1963 through 1965), so the chassis cannot be older than mid 1963.  More likely it is 1964 or 65, but because the arm and endbell are missing, there’s no easy way to tell.

 

The overall “space frame” chassis architecture suggests 1965; in general it’s a little too sophisticated for 1964 and too primitive for 1966.  This is a guess, as some chassis builders were clearly way ahead of their time.  The workmanship is also very good, suggesting an accomplished builder.

 

The use of pin tube body mounts, and the way they are attached to the chassis offer some clues.  Pin tube body mounts were first documented in the hobby press in 1964, and became widely popular in 1965.  The fact that yours are attached to the top rail (as opposed to the bottom rail) suggest it was intended for earlier bodies that had a pronounced “curl-under” on the sides.

 

I don’t recognize the front wheels, although they are almost certainly independent rotation on a 1/16” axle.  They could be model airplane wheels; another indication that the builder was thinking “outside the box”.

 

Getting this chassis running, although nowhere near impossible, could be a bit problematic.

 

Because the axle tube is attached directly to the motor can, there will be three hurdles to overcome:

 

1. The rear tire size is more or less predetermined, which means the maximum spur gear size is likewise predetermined.

 

2. There are a very limited number of spur/pinion combinations (resulting in suitable gear ratios)  that will exactly fit and mesh properly.  Best guess: 52 or 53 teeth (pinion teeth plus spur teeth).  For example (48 pitch) 13-40, resulting in a 3.08:1 ratio, or 12-41, resulting in a 3.42;1 ratio.

 

3. You will probably not be able to use a set screw mounted spur gear; there won’t be enough room.  Instead, it would probably be best to use a threaded axle and threaded spur gear.  The chassis appears to be configured for right side can drive, which would put the threaded gear on the correct side.  Note that with the endbell on the left side, the arm will have to rotate CW, regardless of which side the gears are on.

 

It should be very interesting to see how this develops! 

[Dave Crevie]

All-piano-wire chassis were a phase in the mid sixties. All sorts of arrangements were tried, most of mine were in-lines, with one using

a small Pittman padlock motor in sidewinder configuration. They morphed into chassis designs that used the wire for springy front

suspension. I never saw one with the can as a stressed member as I did with the Pittman, but it could have been a local fad.  

[MSwiss]

too primitive for 1966. 

Hi Steve,

I don't think the above statement can apply as another "primitive" chassis is in post #5, with a Classic 26D.

 

When did they come out?

 

1967 or 1968?

 

I remembered assembling a Dynamic chassis based Fairlane, in that time frame, with the latest thing, a Classic 470, 26D.

[Martin]

Very helpful Steve. It was the quality of construction and the out of the box thinking that sparked my interest.

Yes, I believe the front wheels to be airplane landing gear wheels.

Good thinking on the body curl under necessitating higher mounting locations.

I have mocked up rear wheels and they need to be over an inch diameter but under 1 and 1/8" D this should help date it as the trend for smaller diameters is traceable. 

I put a 39 tooth on an axle and looks to in the ball park. maybe a 10 tooth pinion (3.9 to 1) would work with that large diameter tire ?

This builder could be a lone wolf doing his own thing or in a club setting and not influenced by conventional  trends. 

One other thing I found is it requires a slant guide for it to sit flat.

I will take some pics as I mock this up.

Thanks to all that have taken an interest.

[Steve Okeefe]

Mike,

 

The chassis in post #5 is equipped with a Mabuchi FT-26 can.  Given the orange color it was almost certainly a Classic CM-450, which was an endbell drive motor.  The CM-450 first appeared in late 1966.  I note the chassis has a threaded axle and is also right side drive.

 

26Ds were most popular in 1967, and had a good run, but were pretty much gone by 1968, at least for pro racing purposes.  They were too tall (for pro racing), and the 16Ds with their more powerful magnets and much improved commutators were by then producing superior horsepower.

 

So the chassis in post #5 cannot be older than late 1966, and almost certainly dates to early or even mid 1967.

 

Something I find very curious is that it has a 4-9/16" wheelbase.  For 1:24 that's scale stock car territory (109.5" WB).  It's sort of a shame the builder didn't finish the chassis.

 

So, is it possible the chassis in post #1 was actually built in 1966 or even 1967?  Yes, of course, but the design features are consistent with competition slot racing cars built in 1965.  Right down to the (as Martin reports) 3-3/4" (90 scale inch) wheelbase and Russkit Slant guide.

 

The chassis in post #5 could have been built any time after late 1966, but as a competition slot racer its basic architecture was already obsolete.

 

Something just occurred to me...  the chassis in post #5, with its very long wheelbase, would make a nifty drag racer.  Hmmm...

 

I think Martin is right; the builder was probably a lone wolf or club member doing their own thing.

[Steve Okeefe]

I have mocked up rear wheels and they need to be over an inch diameter but under 1 and 1/8" D this should help date it as the trend for smaller diameters is traceable. 

I put a 39 tooth on an axle and looks to in the ball park. maybe a 10 tooth pinion (3.9 to 1) would work with that large diameter tire ?

 

Martin,

 

I was guessing the tire size might turn out to be 1-1/16" and the spur a 39 or 40 tooth.  Given the can size, the axle tube size and a probable 1/16" track clearance requirement, that all fits.

 

Unfortunately, given the fixed distance between the axle and motor shaft center-lines, I don't think a 10 tooth pinion will reach a 39 tooth spur.  Or, if it does reach it will be a very loose mesh.  I could be wrong of course, given all the weirdness of vintage slot car parts, but I don't think so.

 

All these problems with tire diameter, tire width and gears that don't reach and mesh is a significant part of what drove Roy Moody to innovate his 1:32 scale "sidesaddle" sidewinder (using a 26D no less), and Gene Husting (RIP) to shortly thereafter be the first to apply the idea to 1:24 pro racing.

 

Perhaps it is a bit more than ironic that, in a manner virtually identical to these two odd sidewinder chassis, Gene's original Anglewinder was built with the axle tube soldered directly to the can, and used the can as a stressed member.

 

Maybe these two sidewinder chassis were actually constructed in 1968? 

[Martin]

Steve all your insight is right on the money.

 

I will start mocking things up to establish gear mesh and tire diameter with more accuracy. The end bell gets really close to the tire so I have to play with track and tire width to keep an outside measurement of 3" 

 

I have been looking for a likely candidate for a body. I will post a pics of 2 options, nether on which I am completely happy with.  

 

Moving forward,

[Martin]

Played with gearing I had in stock. A 12 /39 fits perfect ( sorry about the fuzzy pics)

1 & 1/8" tires give .100" ground clearance so I would shave off .030 ish.

This guide looks good to me. Not sure the maker?

 

I did try a bunch of bodies, actually quite a few fit well. 

 

I noticed  the front tires have PERFECT in raised letters.  If that means anything to any model aircraft guys?

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[MSwiss]

Nice job on the car.

Perfect has been around forever, selling commonly used parts for model airplanes, model railroading, and chemistry.

There hook was racks that made ordering and stocking their merchandise, quite convenient.

Not much different than a K & S rack.

We had 2 or 3 of them at the hobby shop I worked at as a teenager.

http://www.perfectpa...neMainFrame.htm

[Martin]

.......and there they are P61. You sir are a wealth of information.

I almost did not mention them, glad I did, Thanks Mike.

 

I do like the idea of a thingie and a drag racer for the long w.b. chassis. I did place a few bodies on the car and they just seemed too mundane for this guy. Take a look.

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[Martin]

I fixed the hole in the can and gave it a good cleaning. Got to pic a color for the can then start to reassemble.

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 

[don.siegel]

Great thread Martin, and looks like an excellent restoration project. I agree with Steve on this: ca 1965. 

 

I found one kind of like this on ebay many years ago, but in 1/32 and nowhere near the build quality of yours! In fact, kind of thingified and messy...

 

 

 

This was all during a period when folks were trying to reduce weight as much as possible, and this pseudo monocoque design seemed fairly popular among scratchbuilders, one way or another! 

Don 

[Martin]

Same DNA for sure, Thanks for sharing.

 

Cox QC guide puts it at 66 assuming  that is original to your car?

 

Do you know if the Cox QC guide came out before the Cucaracha 3/66 ?  Splitting hairs, I know, and I like Steve's 1965 date. It does have that feel to me also.

[don.siegel]

The guide came with the car Martin, but that doesn't automatically mean it was there at the beginning. This looks more like a guy took the old SP500 out of his Revell car and decided to built something better, come what may! 

 

I think the Cox guide appeared with the Cuc, but would have to check that.... 

 

Don 

[Ecurie Martini]

Great thread Martin, and looks like an excellent restoration project. I agree with Steve on this: ca 1965. 

 

I found one kind of like this on ebay many years ago, but in 1/32 and nowhere near the build quality of yours! In fact, kind of thingified and messy...

 

 

 

This was all during a period when folks were trying to reduce weight as much as possible, and this pseudo monocoque design seemed fairly popular among scratchbuilders, one way or another! 

Don 

 

I still use this "pseudo monocoque" approach for some builds, e.g. shoehorning a sidewinder FC can into a Ninco XK 120 body

 

EM

[Phil Smith]

 

Unfortunately, given the fixed distance between the axle and motor shaft center-lines, I don't think a 10 tooth pinion will reach a 39 tooth spur.  Or, if it does reach it will be a very loose mesh.  I could be wrong of course, given all the weirdness of vintage slot car parts, but I don't think so.

 

I said the same thing in a thread a while back. Philippe responded that if, for example, a 20/80 combo meshes well, so will a 19/81 and a 30/70, and 50/50 and so on. As long as the total tooth count remains the same (100 in that example) the gear mesh will remain the same. I thought BS, but a quick Google search found Philippe to be right. Much to my irritation!

[Martin]

This was my understanding also, meaning this car works with a 12/39 or 13/38 or 14/37 I could go the other way 11/40 which will be about as big as I can go and still have 1/16" clearance.

I will stick with what I have got. Tired of looking through lots of gears, and do not have a lot of experience with 1 - 1/16" D tires.  Do you have a feel for that? 

 

More body choices ?

Attached Images

• 
• 
• 
• 

[don.siegel]

Those all look pretty nice Martin; I'd have a slight preference for the Avenger body, just because it goes better with the small front tires. 

 

What kind of track will you be running on? And what arm and magnets did you use in the end? In general, I'd say the higher numerically the better, but I'm more used to running on shorter tracks... 

 

Don