86 replies to this topic

[mdiv]

Hi Dokk!

Our CARS Club is basically the first to tackle this idea and I think most of us have been leaning towards Dynamic chassis, of which the RMMs are quite plentiful.

Do you agree or disagree?

(PS: Thanks, Ron )

- Mike

[TSR]

Dynamic is good... and aplenty except for the guide tongues.

[mdiv]

Right back atcha!

Working on it!

- Mike

[Larry Mattingly]

I would think the Dynamic frames (if available) would be the logical choice for any style of vintage racing.

Easy to work with, and they race well.

They had a rear motor carrier for virtually anything. I still have a few for the Pitman 704-705 series, which I hope to get to some day.

Since they bolted together, could you not mate the cast rear motor bracket to a standard brass front end?

The Dynamic was about the only commercial piece that held its own with scratchbuilt frames back in the day. I remember finishing second with one in a Western PA pro-series race on an American 90' black in New Kensington in 1965. And I even recall someone making the A Main with one at a Rod & Custom race in SoCal during the mid-1960s.

LM

[TSR]

The Midwest frame company marketed Dynamic motor carriers with a frontal brass pan floating around it. Maybe that would be the way to go for a true vintage class.

[Hworth08]

The Russkit kit frame such as HERE might be a good base for a vintage division.

The motor bracket, front motor plate, and front axle carrier are easy to duplicate. The frame is a lot more simple to build than it appears. With .790" tires all around, the frame actually handles quite well with Russkit 22 power.

[TSR]

Don,

I believe that a VAST majority of today's enthusiasts would not know where to begin...
I think that the Dynamic frame idea is something most can do without too much trouble.

[Hworth08]

Philippe,

Guess you're right. And those same folks can't get half the performance a Dynamic frame can offer. Then they'll complain that their motor is slow.

[mdiv]

Don,

Teach us.

- Mike

[Hworth08]

I can't teach everything without the final rules.

However, the Dynamic frames were/are extremely sensitive regarding the guide angle. We used to have the Dynamite class that was all Dynamic frame parts and 36D motors only. The 36D motors required tall rear tires that forced the nose of the guide down. Solution was to place the guide rail in a vice and place various metal strips to bow the rail to the correct angle. Takes a week or so for the rail to bow and remain bowed but it sure was worth it!

And then you'd hit a wall and snap the rail!

[mdiv]

Aha!

What about brass tongues, brass front axle carriers, and brass body mounts? Do you think those three parts of the equation would allow for a car that rocks?

My take on rules is this: KISS, and run what ya brung, just don't destroy the TRAAAAAAAAACK!

- Mike

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

How about allowing some of our resident pro builders who need the money to build period-correct replicas?

I suspect Rick could do the bits and jigs cheap to crank out, say a '66 Steube chassis!

While I know these guys used multiple rod drop arms, I also observed in the day, that lots of folk just replaced the rods with a single solid drop arm.

Fate

[mdiv]

Hi, Rocky,

I am all over that however I don't want the jaildoors or anything like that. That is too technical.

I want Dynamic bolt-together chassis that a kid with a screwdriver and some patience can build. Maybe use a soldering iron a little bit but not too much, if you get my drift.

Maybe pictures would help? Let me see what I can do...

- Mike

[NJ Racer]

Mikey,

Aren't you too old for this?

[JerseyJohn]

How was crabbing? We missed you Saturday...

[mdiv]

LOL Ray. Reminds me of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.

Yoda: "Too old to begin the training."

To that I reply, HA!

Never too old to have fun, Ray, never too old.

We missed you Saturday, but I hope you had a great time crabbing with Anthony.

- Mike

[Hworth08]

What about brass tongues, brass front axle carriers, and brass body mounts? Do you think those three parts of the equation would allow for a car that rocks?

Our Dynamite class was real popular till the scratchbuilts took over. Most everyone had a couple old ones in their box and we just ran them at odd times.

The rules were strict as to the chassis having to use parts with a Dynamic number. We did use the brass body mounts with pin tubes instead of screws. Then Dynamic came out with what I think was called an outrigger body mount that were more or less brass pans. Then followed the Sloppy Sam mounts. These last two mounts show up on eBay but sell quite high. We never liked the brass tongues, they didn't break but were easy to bend.

We often used the wire front axle, again hard to find.

As I see it, the simplest would be open-wheel bodies of the period. Maybe stock-performing Russkit 23 power or a 36D that a Harvey Aluminium body will fit. The "good" Dynamic parts are pretty rare now so the KISS system applies.

Perhaps homemade brass parts that have to bolt on and mount solid?

[mdiv]

Don,

Cool! Thanks for the info and advice.

A great club trip resulted in a pair of outriggers at very fair prices.

You seem like my kinda guy, Don. I'm not really into the fancy shmancy stuff. I like to solder but not enough to spend three hours soldering. I just want to make something square and true, straight, brace it somehow, and solder it so it will survive a rider or wall crash.

Do you have any pictures of cars from this "Dynamite Class?" I know I promised pictures earlier but I'm very lazy.

I may have to borrow the name "Dynamite Class" from you if I may!?

- Mike

[Hworth08]

Mike,

Sure, the Dynamite Class is now yours!! Actually, I saw on the VSRN site that Dynamic called some of their products dynamite. That might have been where our track got the name. Shucks, I was only 11 or 12 back then but had some good adults helping me a lot.

I do remember the Sloppy Sam mounts helped quite a bit. We'd update our cars as Dynamic released new products.

As we got older, the Dynamite races were very simple. If business was slow and there were enough drivers we'd just have a race. Like most of our races, qualify for lane choice, then 200 laps straight, no lane changes, no track calls, and no marshals. The track owner, Lou, just went about his business and usually didn't even watch the race. Someone would holler around the 190th lap and Lou would kill the power on lap 200. Simple and pure fun!

And my favorite cars? Far and away scratchbuilt about 1/28 scale oval track basement racers. We used the Pyro 1/32 scale coupe bodies of the 1934, '36, and '40 Fords with Russkit 22 and 23 type motors. Several of the group I raced these with had just retired from racing the NASCAR Modified Specials (the coupes). They were family friends but didn't give a kid an inch! Sadly two of this group have passed away recently.

[mdiv]

I promise I'll get you guys some pictures ASAP.

I have other business to attend to at presently.

- Mike

[TSR]

The Russkit 23s would be hard to find while the 22s are very easy. I would go with the 22s in inline or sidewinder mounts. The inline mounts are relatively easy to get.

[mdiv]

[nods in agreement with the good Dokk.]

I wonder if I could turn a 4.7...

- Mike

[Hworth08]

A 4.7? Sure, 4 minutes and 7 seconds!!

Actually, if everyone has the same horsepower, after 15 or 20 laps you just WON'T notice the difference in speed.

A couple of times I've raced Aurora T-jets, the world's slowest slot car, in the afternoon and GT-1 and GT-12 on Saturday night. GT-12 were 3.2 second cars on a 155' Engleman. After a few laps it just doesn't matter how fast you're going, you just guage your car off the other competitors and don't notice the speed.

There's been a lot of money spent for speed when it's the competition that matters.

[TSR]

Actually, if everyone has the same horsepower, after 15 or 20 laps you just WON'T notice the difference in speed.

I noticed that after the first lap when I am trailing...

[mdiv]

Don, I was being facetious!

- Mike