57 replies to this topic

[TSR]

Steve, this is NOT correct. The Cox Lotus kit allows you to make a Lotus 30 OR a Lotus 40. The story is quite simple to understand and is being described in my new book as it happened:

The Cox design team attended the 1964 Los Angeles Times Grand Prix at Riverside and saw the Jimmy Clark Lotus 30 there, of which they took plenty of pictures.

In early 1965, Cox issued their first kits, the 1/32 scale Ford GT and Cheetah and the 1/24 scale Ferrari F1. The same design engineering team under Bill Patton attended more local races, where they photographed the Bob Challman Type 30 (picture shown above is part of the Cox archives) and decided to add the car to their line. The tooling was prepared and the kit was supposed to be issued in December 1965, in time for Christmas. But in October, they again attended the yearly LA Times GP and saw the NEW Type 40 also driven by Jimmy Clark.

Because the differences were not great, they decided to make a kit that would include both versions and added in the mold a second, wider roll bar, a new exhaust for the type 40, as well as adding in the body mold a rear spoiler not present on the original type 30.

Hence one could build either version, albeit neither was really correct.

The decal sheet was DOUBLED, allowing one to build either the Bob Challman Type 30 shown above as raced in 1965, OR the Clark type 40 of the 1965 LA Times GP. The instruction sheet describes both options for assembly. Please note that the original Type 30 had the 1963 Indy engine, with exhausts coming out from under the car.

The later COX Lotus 40 RTR (but ONLY the RTR version, not the kit) was factory-assembled in Hong Kong as a Type 40 but received inaccurate paper stickers as racing numbers as well as an Ackerman steering mechanism forcing very narrow tires, so only one built from the kit with the proper decals has any chance to be made into an accurate model.

Regards,

[Hworth08]

Judging from Philippes's photo, I'd say today's haulers have advanced more than the race cars.

I am almost sure the #3 car sitting beside the Lotus was NOT driven by Dale Earnhardt Sr.!

[dc-65x]

Thanks for the kind words Chris. Your builds are an inspiration and an unobtainable goal for us all to strive for .

Rick,
Just in case you need something more colorful for another, here is the actual Cox Lotus 30 from which their model was copied:

More colorful indeed . I can't have a green Lotus without a yellow stripe . I decided to use the big pipes and Cooper style wheels from the original car and then go my own way. Here is the body fresh from paint but before detailing:





It turned out OK. It's got some boo boos but at least I didn't scrap it . That means I can still trade the other two Lancer #92s I have to LASCM .

I bought some original Auto Hobbies interior kits on eBay and decided to paint one with Tamiya gloss aluminum. Repops of this interior have been available from Professor Motor:



Now comes the hard part... finding a detailing paint brush that doesn't shake . I keep buying new ones but they all seem to shake when I use them .

[Bill from NH]

I am almost sure the #3 car sitting beside the Lotus was NOT driven by Dale Earnhardt Sr.!

I agree, Don, but only because the car isn't black.

Open trailers were also used by NASCAR teams in the same period.

[TSR]

It's a Lotus "Seven" also belonging to Bob Challman, who also had a white Lotus Elite.
That picture I posted is one of the nice ones that will be in the book, because part of the Cox archives and actually representing the model they chose.

Rick, boo-boo or not, the paint is splendid.

[Howmet TX]

I know it's dangerous to dispute the words of the Dokk, but I have to say the 30/40 thing has always been an issue for me with the Cox model.

Although as you say it was intended to be built as either, I tend to agree with Steve Dieters that you can only build a reasonably representative 40, because of the shape of the tail. But even then, the cutaways in the fenders and the lack of the tri-oval shaped side vents behind the front wheel wells compromise that. It has always seemed a pity to me that the Cox designers carefully copied one actual racing example with unique features, but then changed it.

The 30 had a very supple, elegant and uncluttered shape. The additions to the 40 gave it a throughly different character in my opinion.

I don't mean this as criticism - just an observation. Things were different then. But imagine if Fly or any other commercial manufacturer released it like that now!

Those Lancer shells are naturally truly beautiful, and this build is fantastic! I'm always blown away by your work, DCX!

[TSR]

I have to say the 30/40 thing has always been an issue for me with the Cox model.

John, I totally agree with you. The Cox 30/40 is a compromise satisfying neither type, and its shape is simply not right either way. However one may somewhat resolve the detail issue in the following manner:

1) Lotus 30 of Bob Challman (chassis 30/02 as seen at Monterey in November 1964): FILE OFF the rear spoiler back to the standard rounded tail shape, polish the plastic, and add a small aluminum flat spoiler. Color is BRG and number is fancy "2" in yellow. No other decals. Use the "Type 30" parts in the kit including the clear plastic carbs top and lower exhausts as well as the single roll bar (both painted in black).

The tail can be filed because the original molding did not have one, and there were actual test shots without the spoiler. The mold was modified after October 1965, but there is enough meat left to get the tail almost correct.

2) Lotus 30 of Bob Challman (chassis 30/02 as seen at Riverside in May and October 1965): LEAVE the molded-in fiberglass spoiler because his car was so modified, use all the kit's "Type 30" parts and all the decals from the sheet so as to look like the picture I posted.

3) Lotus 40 of Jim Clark at the LA Times GP in 1965: add another 1/16" to the rear spoiler's height and the two vents in it, use the "Type 40" parts in the kit including the wider roll bar and top exhaust. You will also need to make an aluminum front spoiler as the car was taking off without it and one was hastily added after practice. Use the Clark decals that are part of the decal sheet. Not truly satisfying because the body shape is all wrong anyway.

The best period slot car Lotus 40 body is the one made by Russkit. The Lancer is pretty but too "pointed" compared to the real thing and the fenders are not "bulbous" enough.

Here is the Russkit body (actually the nice replica made by Electric Dreams):

I know it's dangerous to dispute the words of the Doc

No, it's not. I have been proven wrong at least twice and taken the flak as graciously as I can, meaning admitting fault but with the usual grumbling, eh!

[Steve Deiters]

The point I was trying to make is that the Lotus 40 was marketed by Cox as just that - a Lotus 40. Now whether it truely represented an accurate manifestation can be the source of endless discussion not just about this but any race car really.

Let's face it a race car in general or a slot racing car for that matter is a work in progress, with no two ever exactly alike. It sounds like the designers at Cox compromised on the info that they had. Forty plus years latter does it really matter? The kits and the RTR's are what they are.

As a consumer of the product - I did own one - I'll defer to what it says on the Cox box which was Lotus 40 with the "40" standing on end the same point size as the word Lotus. You can see the box by doing a search on Google images and typing in "Cox Lotus 40 RTR" and you can go to a website slotberlin.com. For this argument (what did Cox market it as) I'll defer to the packaging. Is the car that was in it totally accurate or not? Let's not lose any sleep over it.

[Jean-Michel Piot]

Hello, folks.

Some months ago I posted pictures of some of my Cox Lotus 30s and 40s. But as the debate is about this model...

About the differences between a 30 and a 40, do not forget that the Type 40 nose is little bit longer than the one of the Type 30.

See those wto cars, both based on the Cox model :



Indeed the rear spoiler of the Cox body can be sanded in order to build a Type 30:



As for the livery, Bob Chalman's Lotus 30 slightly changed during time. This one is based on a John Wilson picture. Later on it was painted white.



One may compare this Cox Lotus 30 to the picture I used (and severall others that I bought to John Wilson) by going there:

Bob Chalman's Lotus 30

Now about the Lotus 40 decals: those made by Cox are not totally accurate. The "Clark" sticker is wrong. Cox made it yellow with black letters instead of white with blue letters. And the font for the numbers is also wrong.

Of course I also used genuine pictures in order to make my Lotus 40 as accurate as possible.

Did I tell you that I'm a Lotus fan?

[dc-65x]

HOLY SMOKES! Those are some beautiful models, Jean-Michel .

I was thinking about some of your other amazing work with drivers faces and eyes as my shaky paint brush struggled to simply paint a goggle lens . Since I can't paint them anyway, it's a good thing the driver doesn't need eye balls to see with as I'll be doing the driving .

Thanks for sharing your Lotus 30 and 40 with us. They are superb.

[TSR]

The point I was trying to make is that the Lotus 40 was marketed by Cox as just that-a Lotus 40.

Steve, only for the RTR version...

Accuracy or not of the kit was not my point. Cox marketed BOTH versions of the car, the 30 and 40, by offering in their kit the parts to make either, as well as accurate decals for either. Jean Michel's nice models show the different parts, roll bars, exhausts, engine cover... supplied in the kit.

And the important point here is that Cox intended to produce the Type 30 to begin with, and the change to a "40" was a last-minute decision that made the model a mongrel of sorts. No big deal, it is still a pretty slot car...

Apparently and according to Lloyd Asbury, formerly of Lancer bodies fame, some test shots of the "30" body with no spoiler were made. He THOUGHT he had one but was never able to find it. So we will have to take his word for it.

Thanks for sharing your Lotus 30 and 40 with us. They are superb.

Rick, you are not kidding...

[dc-65x]

Well... my Lotus 30 is finished. Showing mine a few posts after Jean-Michel's is more than a bit daunting . I'll suck it up and share my project though. OOH, OOH, OOH! I just thought of an excuse. This is a high performance race car! That's it. That's why it isn't detailed to the hilt. Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, it's a race car .

This is what it will show a Cox kit. They'll suck exhaust from my scratchbuilt honkin' pipes.



The hand-flared aluminum tube velocity stacks will pile on even more devastating speed :



My blind little driver will be glad to let me do the driving as we lap them kit cars :





All kidding aside, this is the way I'd have built the car in '65 or so and I had great fun building it today:







Time to grab the Lestoil for those "German" tires and head to Eddie's road course for a test drive... Onward!

[Jairus]

Whoo-hoo!

First-rate build.
Like the guages.
Love the pipes.

[Tex]

As usual, no words can do it justice.

Excellent.

[Howmet TX]

Those cars look so fast standing still it's almost always a disappointment to put them on the track....

Sorry, DC - I speak only from my own personal experience! I'm sure those honkin' pipes will give your car that extra traction. An absolutely beautiful build!

I have my own little Russkit-based hottie 40 waiting in the wings, but I think I'd better let the memory of this car fade a little in the collective Slotblog mind before unveiling anything (in full agreement with the DoKK there - the Russkit shell is tops.)

[Jean-Michel Piot]

Nice job! I like it.

For something that can really be fast AND accurate, gents, try the Fein-Design Lotus 40. Yes I know it's not vintage, though if you keep it 20 years or so...

[Tex]

Dig those tires, too; they look like a relatively accurate aspect/profile... REALLY makes a car look good.

[Hworth08]

Another NICE ONE!

Bring on Team Russkit!

[TSR]

The Team Russkit cars were never that neat...

Rick, a beautiful build. Nothing to be ashamed of and not subject to a comparison with Jean-Michel's beautifully detailed production cars because scratchbuilding in the style of period cars vs building a kit and enhancing it are two different forms of slot racing art.

Both of you are tremendously talented and we are lucky to have you both as inspiration.

[mcseitz]

Awesome! I really like the intakes. They look original, only better. Having raced a Cox Chappy, Lotus 30, and Ford GT40, I can report that the GT40 can withstand a barrel roll with a lot less damage then the other two.

[tossedman]

Great car, Rick! Love the details - pipes, intakes, etc. They really spice it up. Well done.

[don.siegel]

Absolutely fantastic, Rick! That thing just screams "slot car" in all its glory...

Let us know how it does on the track too, be very interested to see how it stacks up to a 36D-powered car, for instance, or a Kemtron, or other contemporary models. And if it's a bit down on speed, you can always add the wet wick, ball bearings, etc...

Don

[dc-65x]

Thanks to everyone for your support .

I'll be sure to report back on how it runs. Based on how this one handles I want to build another DC-65 6-volt powered car. The motor will get the full lightweight treatment and ball bearings. The body will be something really low and wide. So many slot cars to build... so little time .

[Prof. Fate]

Hi,

Hmmm. I know somone photographed my 26D powered scratchbuild at the last convention. Mine is yellow with age. I haven't managed to kill the original body.. Very tatty and very different from these wonderful examples.

But I wondered, looking at the 1/1 survivors, if the current owners made changes in the cars to improve them.

Fate

[endbelldrive]

Hi Rick,

Good-looking car. Your painting hand looks pretty steady to me.

By the way, can you give us a tutorial on hopping up a DC-65 and no... you can't have those DC-65s that I got from you last year.