38 replies to this topic

[havlicek]

 I've said it before, but I don't really see a reason for the D-can and the minicans when the "C" can do it all, and really well. The strap motors are a different story; I get that. 

 

I was just reminded of this when rescuing this motor and getting ready to build/wind an arm for it. It had solder everywhere, and epoxy all over the magnets, but after a takedown, scrubbing/polishing and reassembly, it's ready for a new heart transplant.    Whatever arm I do for it, it will run as well or better than either a "D" or "mini."

[Alchemist]

Hi John,

 

Your workmanship is always "art" to me, and that motor is a gorgeous piece of art!

 

Would you have photos of the way it looked when you first received the motor please?

 

Thanks for sharing John!

 

Ernie

[havlicek]

Hi, Ernie, and thanks. But really, all I did here was to remove the magnets and bearing from the can, de-solder it and polish it up afterwards, then reassemble and align everything. The real deal here (for me) is that the C-can motor can about cover all the non-strap bases as well or better than other can type motors. Why the others still exist (other than inertia in the case of the "D") is something of a mystery to me.

[zipper]

Those cans were so flimsy - just one unlucky hit and that's it. I gave up after just a couple of races.

[havlicek]

The subject here isn't about "what's the best C-can," it's about "why are there other cans still out there?", Pekka. 

 

Personally, since the thread has already gone OT, I think the old RJR cans are as good or better than what's out there today.

[zipper]

Yes, it was fast as long as kept in shape.  C-can is my favourite, especially the original - vast improvement over the predecessors.

[Bill from NH]

I ran open class C-cans during the '70s and '8's. It's an old design regardless of who makes them. Manufacturers need to spend more time and effort into developing the mini further than what has already been done. Just their smaller size brings handling improvements to a slot car.

[havlicek]

I ran open class C-cans during the '70s and '80s.

 
You and many other people.  
 

It's an old design regardless of who makes them.

 
No, the general size specification may be old, but the design is basically the same as the minicans and the D-can. Also, the C-can has changed a lot since the Mura "Green Can."
 

Manufacturers need to spend more time and effort into developing the mini further than what has already been done.

 
Why? How? There are lots of parts for these for those who want to up their game... magnets, a whole range of arms, ball bearings, different end bell hardware... even aluminum end bells. It's a smaller version of the D and C-can motors, there's not much to "develop" other than making a different motor. All the "developments" that have gone into the C-can have already showed up in the minican.
 

Just their smaller size brings handling improvements to a slot car.

 
That might make sense if this were 1965, but in today's tightly controlled and spec'd environment, you don't generally race minicans against C-cans, anymore than you race C-cans against D-cans. Along with the developments of lightening and skeletonizing the C-can that have been incorporated into the minican, you also get poorer en bells that can't hold on to a bushing/bearing and are cramped for space, and a weaker bearing strap. More today than ever, it's strange that the minican, essentially a smaller, less well-made C-can even exists.

[Jesse Gonzales]

C-can opens! yessss. I loved the sound of a good 26-27 or 24 in a green can with polished Blue Dots. Reminded me of the old Indy Novi engines, lots of neat sound and HP.

 

Keep building them, John.

 

Jess Gonzales

[Bill from NH]

C-cans are so popular, where are they run regularly anymore? Not just in special events, but in weekly events? Anywhere? There is no question but what the C-can is a well-developed fine running  motor and has a variety of parts is easily accessible.

 

But the truth of the matter is in the US, the day of the built motors is gone. Even RTR cars don't come with rebuildable motors anymore. This doesn't apply to slot car racing in other countries and collecting worldwide. but other than in an Eurosport class or open class wing cars, where else could a custom arm be used other than to just run laps?  Like it or not, the industry has stuck a fork in built motor racing. 

[old & gray]

From a Friday night flexi class:

 

Motors
– Any 16D setup made for Parma, Pro Slot, or Kelly
– Tagged FCR armatures legal.

– Tagged 16D armatures 0.518" Maxium diameter are legal.

– The use of other armatures will result in the deduction of laps. This is to allow the racer to use up the equipment they have before buying new armatures.

– Any horizontal endbell hardware may be used
– Any motor brushes
– Any motor springs may be used
– Only 16D magnets may be used and can be glued into position, shimmed, honed

– Magnets must be flat top.
– Oilite may be soldered or glued to the can.

– May use a flanged ball bearing in the can end. This is an attempt to save the racer money.
– New holes may be drilled in the can to attach the end bell, and screws holding the end bell on, may be added or replaced
– The can and/or magnets can be modified to provide axle clearance, and the can oilite may be notched so as to provide gear and/or chassis clearance

 

Sounds like a built motor class to me, but I haven't seen any reports of how many entries.

[havlicek]

C-cans are so popular, where are they run regularly anymore? Not just in special events, but in weekly events? Anywhere?

 
I don't know where you're getting this from, Bill. My point isn't that C-cans are "popular" (!?), it's that they can do everything D and minican motors do, as well or better. Aside from G12 (BTW, which I think is run regularly in and out of the country), I don't know what other classes run them. The question is "why do the D and minican motors even exist?."
 

 But the truth of the matter is in the US, the day of the built motors is gone.

 
That may be almost true in many cases (see above), but you are changing the subject again by equating "built" motors with C-cans. As I said, C-can motors and minicans use the same designs, manufacturing techniques and materials. If a minican motor (as well as a D-can motor) can be sealed and "not built," so can a C-can. The "built" or "not built" (i.e. sealed and factory spec'd) thing has zero to do with the subject here.  
 

This doesn't apply to slot car racing in other countries and collecting worldwide.

 
Your points don't apply here in the US either... as well as being besides the point of the question.
 

but other than in an  eurosport class or open class wing cars, where else could a custom arm be used other than to just run laps?

 

Once again... I'm talking about "can" type motors *the C, D and minicans. Last I checked the Eurosport and open classes use strap motors, although they are hugely popular worldwide, relatively speaking... but you're still off topic. Here you're even more off topic by bringing in "custom arms." None of that has anything to do with the can types. There are, and have been tagged factory arms for all three types of modern can motors... as well as custom arms for all of them.  The arms are not the subject, the cans are.
 

Like it or not, the industry has stuck a fork in built motor racing.

 
Boy, you are doggedly determined to answer a question nobody asked.   Any of the three modern cans can be built or sealed. My point remains that the C-can motor can do anything the D or the minican motors can... as well or better, and there doesn't seem to be any reason at all for the minicans to exist. They don't seem to have been introduced as a way to answer any particular "need."

None of this is to say I don't like them (to me, they are just as much fun to work on as any other, because... they are the same basic design), or that this is in any way about a "personal" slant because I build motors. I don't really see myself as being involved with "built" motors at all. The phrase means more about racers selecting off-the-shelf parts and that's more about assembling motors which I don't do.  It's not about me... or "built" motors.

Let me put this another way. The D-can motors are still around at least some, just because they were an accepted size before there were C and minicans.  The C-can came about afterwards when both still could be raced against each other, and the C-can quickly took over.  Much later, the minican came out in a time when the various can motors are not raced against each other, but oddly, the C-can is just as viable (in my view, more so). You could have a perfectly fine running C-can motor with a 60/30 wind tagged-by-the-factory arm and have it sealed just as well as a minican motor. Those motors would be better in some ways than a minican of the same spec and would only be run against the same types, so there would be zero advantage in terms of weight or CoG.

[Bill from NH]

There is no doubt C-cans are able to be built into fine running motors. In the '70s Mura also used their "Green" can to built Grp. 12 motors that sold for $12. These  had milder winds and unbalanced arms that weren't epoxied. I bought one, it was a dog! Still have it down cellar. No one at Modelville Hobby got them to run good enough to replace Grp. 12 B-cans, which were the weekly motors from 1970-76. If C-cans were going to be "the" universal slot car motor, it would have taken place years ago and eliminated D-can use in the process. But this never happened.

 

To this day, I still don't understand why Pro Slot or JK introduced rebuildable mini motors. I can only assume it was for the worldwide market, not that of the US. We can continue to disagree and that's okay. But I can't change your thinking to what I see as correct. Continue building the motors you want to build.

[havlicek]

To this day, I still don't understand why Pro Slot or JK introduced rebuildable mini motors

 
That is the subject here Bill, and I can't figure it out either, which is why I asked the question.  
 

We can continue to disagree and that's okay.

 

We never disagreed, Bill. You were answering questions I never asked... and giving extraneous information as well.
 

But I can't change your thinking to what I see as correct

 

Oy veh. OK, so now please show me where you said something... anything about why the minican even exists, and then I disagreed. Your very first response that was actually on point (although still not an answer) is right above in your last post where you say the same thing as I have been since post #1... that there was no good reason at all for the minican to be introduced.

Since no one has chimed-in with the actual reasoning behind the minican, I'll just assume it was a complete "marketing" thing. In other words, they came out (whoever was first between PS and JK) with the thing, and people bought it. The minican is however in no way a better motor for slots than the C-can motor.

[GE53]

When I got back into slot cars in the late 2000s I thought the mini motors were just the next progression in affordable motors, small light with adequate power for better-handling, easier-driving cars, better for someone just starting out. Definitely a marketing thing.

[havlicek]

I think you're probably right, Glenn. These motors were/are sold with fairly anemic armatures, so I think people saw them as a new "easy-to-drive" can motor, equating the motor type with less power, as well as less weight and in a smaller package... although C and even D-can motors can easily fit in 1/24 cars with no problems... heck, even an FT36D and larger-still padlocks can fit in a 1/24 car.    Of course, the makers of the minicans also came out with versions that have way stronger magnets in both the poly and solid neos, much hotter arms etc., and a fair number of people have taken to making some pretty crazy fast motors with them.

In short, the minican is the same basic design as the larger C and D-cans that were already there for decades, and there doesn't seem to be a reason for them. Certainly the whole Retro thing leans way more (and continues to do so) towards the not-easy-to-open motors that have one-piece cans and only "end-caps" instead of endbells.  The irony there is that recent versions of those with the super-strong neos and hotter arms have also come to market... in effect "built motors" from the factory that are just tougher to "re-build" because of the design.      It's all pretty strange.

[jimht]

C-cans and their magnets that were economical and functional with any wind gradually devolved to the point that they are useless with anything faster than a Group 12...and were replaced by straps with cobalt magnets. The pricing became astronomical as the market for both C and strap motors grew smaller.

 

D-cans were kept alive by Parma for years because they owned the tooling, dominated the market and kept the price economical. Now D can motors are just the same old same old...overpriced boat anchors that are just for racing, not RTRs.

 

F-cans are cheaper and more versatile...good for basic slot cars that don't need race motors, but F cans with strong neo magnets are usable as inexpensive modifiable race motors, just as the C can was originally.

[havlicek]

C-cans and their magnets that were economical and functional with any wind gradually devolved to the point that they are useless with anything faster than a Group 12... and were replaced by straps with cobalt magnets

 
I'll have to take your word for it, because I build them with "nothing special" magnets all the time with some crazy arms. I'm not a fan of the really skeletonized C-cans, but you can still buy some fairly "closed" C-cans and very good ceramic magnets for them. This is all besides the point though, since a C-can with the equivalent wind as the minicans would be a fine motor.
 

F-cans are cheaper and more versatile.

 

Cheaper, yes, but there is no real reason for that when both are basically the same thing... minus a little steel... but the C-can and matching endbell is generally sturdier.

I still see no reason why the minicans ever came to be.

[Cheater]

I still see no reason why the minicans ever came to be.

Damn, I was composing a long post in reply when we got a lightning strike near the house that took down the power and I lost it all... Not gonna try to recreate it; let's see if I can give a shorter version.

The answer to your question, John, involves history more than the inherent qualities of the C-can motor itself.

Almost no one, as far as I know, has ever created a motor from scratch only for slot cars. They were nearly all sourced from other hobbies and uses. When the 36D came along, I am certain it was simply selected from the Mabuchi catalog, probably because it was cheaper than the padlocks and Pittmans and likely a better performer, too. None of the subsequent can-style motors were 'clean-slate' designs but were based on the seminal 36D (and shorter 26D) unit. By the time Mura, Champion, etc., got involved, it was clear that the 36D was too big and heavy for decent handling, so along came the 26D and then smaller A, B, and C-cans. Sure, motor makers tinkered with can hole designs, endbell and brush designs, and lamination profiles but the familiar 36D DNA was still there.

The "FK-size" can came first from Nori Ono's PlaFit company in Japan in the late '80s and it gained a small following in the US as it was perfect for 1/32 cars and/or small tracks. Again, the PlaFit Cheetah was likely chosen from the Mabuchi catalog. When PlaFit sold out of the Cheetah and decided not to reorder them (as the minimum quantity likely had increased while the slot car hobby had decreased), west coast hardware manufacturer Todd Radke, with long experience having products made in the Pacific Rim, filled the gap with the very similar Falcon motor and FK-size motors continued to gain popularity. Parma's inability to continue to supply the popular sealed 501 pushed a lot of people toward the smaller FK-size motors, too. They were cheap, reasonably durable, and well-sealed, which appealed to a lot of racers and raceway owners. As the use of these motors continued to grow, others began having them made to sell under their own labels.

I believe Dan Debella introduced the first FK-size rebuildable minicans with the typical replaceable brushes; I'm guessing partially because it was a good fit for his manufacturing set-up. Originally these motors were called 'Euro Mk 1' which suggests the intended market was mostly overseas, where 1/32 is much bigger than 1/24 and smaller tracks the norm. The companies making C-cans and C-can pieces dwindled at about the same time and the fewer remaining makers found their C-can prices growing to an uncomfortable level for many in the hobby.

Racers being racers, so long as a motor can be opened, they try to make 'em faster to the point that for most, there was little reason to stick with C-cans. And that, IMO, is how we got to where we are today.

[havlicek]

 Hi Greg... and I feel your pain about long posts disappearing...been there, done that more times than I care to think about! I agree with pretty much all of what you said, BUT this :

Originally these motors were called 'Euro Mk 1' which suggests the intended market was mostly overseas, where 1/32 is much bigger than 1/24 and smaller tracks the norm. The companies making C-cans and C-can pieces dwindled at about the same time and the fewer remaining makers found their C-can prices growing to an uncomfortable level for many in the hobby.

... is more about the historical timeline than any particular "raison d'etre" for the minican. I mean, what you seem to be saying is that the minican was able to be sourced more cheaply, even though there is no fundamental reason for that... given that the C-can should be about the same cost. If that really is the case, then this all is even more hard to figure!    All the chassis and whatnot were already out there for C-can motors, AND YET...HERE WE ARE! 

[jimht]

The C-can motor was developed as an improved version of the original Mabuchi can.

It was designed for racing... and has been fiddled with since the beginning with constant corresponding price increases and really was never intended to be used as a motor in RTR slot cars.

 

C-cans are better quality because they were made for racing.

They cost more than a motor for an RTR slot car should from their inception.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

 

The F motors were designed as inexpensive RTR slot car motors.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

Price is the issue.

 

There's no way price is not the issue.

C-cans motors cost more than Chinese motors from the very beginning and still do by orders of magnitude.

They certainly do have better quality and better performance to go along with the higher price.

 

Constantly saying that one doesn't understand why F cans exist when there are "better" alternatives is kind of missing the point.

 

The C can is not a better alternative for a RTR slot car and it never was.

[Half Fast]

The F motors are the backbone of one of the most popular forms of slot racing today: Retro.

 

Cost is a factor and a lot of people simply do not want to build motors.

 

Cheers

[havlicek]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.
 

Price is the issue.
Price is the issue.
Price is the issue.
Price is the issue.
 
There's no way price is not the issue.

 

I don't know how else to say what I've already said, so I'll try it again. There is absolutely no reason why a C-can motor should cost substantially more than either a D-can or a minican. They are produced using the same materials and manufacturing techniques. If "price is the issue," then none of this makes any sense. The tooling to make C-can motors was already there long before the minican. Someone (either PS or JK) actually had to spend money up front to make the minicans and endbells to match.
 

The F motors are the backbone of one of the most popular forms of slot racing today: Retro.

 
I think that the sealed no-endbell motors are probably more so, but others can correct us.
 

Cost is a factor and a lot of people simply do not want to build motors

 
I've already replied to both the cost and "built" issues... many times. You can just as easily build a minican as any other traditional "can" type motor... either a C or a D. This has already been covered more than once in the above thread. Again though, you are incorrect that "people simply do not want to build motors"... as far off-topic as that is, and it's way off topic.

Since no one can actually answer the question, this thread can and should die.

[Don Weaver]

I would chime in by saying that 15 cents an hour with no benefits vs. $15 an hour with benefits has a significant effect on the finished price.  Add to that the price differentials resulting from significantly higher order quantities and it's easy to see a large price differential. Just my opinion.

 

Don

[jimht]

 "There is absolutely no reason why a C-can motor should cost substantially more than either a D-can or a minican."

 

LOL.

 

Are you basing that opinion on what a C-can costs over time vs F or D cans or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

 

I guess when one hasn't ever had to buy a new can, or whatever, it clouds their world view of what new stuff costs.