138 replies to this topic

[TSR]

Rick,
There is a simple way to find out if an armature has "conventional" windings or "star" windings; For the "star", there is only ONE wire connection to each commutator's terminals.
I used to do a lot of star winding in the 1960's and if indeed I am not sure if it gave me any speed advantage, the motors such wound all performed great for me and were fast enough for wy needs.
I think that some of the ones that survived and that are now at the LASCM are wound this way, I will have to check.

[havlicek]

Phillipe is (of course) correctamundo...a single lead at the com tabs + those weird pigtails would probably mean a star wind or some other esoteric wind. I still can't figure out why there would be three pigtails (9 wires). Seems as though there would be too many wires for a three pole arm?????

-john

[dc-65x]

The chassis needs some rear axle reinforcement. A file handle did the deed. The bend radius can be adjusted by moving the part up or down on the handles taper:





To get the Russkit Slant Guide set up correctly in the drop arm my Rick's jig came in handy yet again. A couple of pieces of 1/16 X 1/4 brass strip centered the guide in the jig's T-slot:



Cool!



Some shim stock to get the guide height close and it's time to solder the drop arm to the pivot tube:



Now the fun part, soldering the guide flag pivot tube to the drop arm. You've got a couple of seconds at most to get a big filet of solder on the tube before the guide melts . You'll never forget the stink and burning eyes caused by melting nylon so work FAST!



I added a center rail to the drop arm as shown on Don Peters car in the R&C race report:



Time for dinner gotta go........

[Prof. Fate]

Hi

John, the solution might be as simple as this. A proper wind to spec involves FEET of wire, not "turns" of wire.... part of the quality control is that you end up with the same number of turns, but you start with length. So, the winder might have simply started with, say 6' of 32 or something, and gotten the above results.

Jim Russell in the day was corresponding with me and going on about the slant guide. I used them for a while, but then ruined things. About five minutes after Dynamic came out with the '659', with plug in braid, I switched all my cars over.

Fate

[TSR]

Rocky, you must have missed the Cox "Quick-Change" guide on the way, because the Dynamic was but a mere copy of it.

[havlicek]

Hi Rocky,

That would be possible if it weren't for the fact that it sure looks like there are three pigtails (nine wires?) at the bottom of the stack as I mentioned above. It would also be hard to understand how the "extra wire" wound up at the bottom since any extra after the com connection isn't "seen" electrically. Besides, total length of wire is far less important than the number of turns since the coils are of prime importance. If the pattern used from pole-to-pole is maintained, then a 1/4" ...even 1/2" (which would be really sloppy) of length difference is relatively inconsequential. I still think Philippe is probably correct and that this is some sort of star wind, but it's a 100% guess. People did all kinds of wild winds.

-john

[TSR]

I have to believe that this strange armature was simply using the pig-tailing to tension what may have been loose wires...???

[dc-65x]

I thought I'd move the pictures of the armature in question onto this page .

Could a "star wound" triple wind have 3 pig tails???????????

Anyone recogize the name "Guy Glunt"????????????

[havlicek]

That does it, if Philippe doesn't know, then it's anybody's guess! I forgot it's also a triple wind as well, so maybe it's a "Challenger wind" but because it's a triple he had to pigtail the wires instead of just looping them in half. THAT would make sense with the three pigtails. Don Siegel was kind enough to send me a photocopy of an old R&C article..."The Compleat Mabuchi" (note the way they spelled "complete"! ) showing that type wind as a double. Anyway Rick, I think this is one of the neater arms you've revived. Yeah it's sloppy and all, but just the mystery factor alone gives it "coolness". Anyway, I'm revising my complete and absolute guesstimate here to say (non-definitively) it's a triple Challenger wind Where DO you find these things?

-john

[Horsepower]

I can't imagine doing a TRIPLE that isn't sloppy!

[havlicek]

I bet a triple #29 is stoopid fast too. I don't think I ever did a triple, even double winds are a bother for me Gary

-john

[dc-65x]

..........Where DO you find these things?

Squire E. Openshaw Jr. of course

[Prof. Fate]

Hi

A triple 29 would be a BOOMB! (that's Cleauseu french).

John, tripples arent any more difficult than a double. As usual, I am not sure there is a performance advantage, but it does allow a few more TURNS because of the ability to seat the wire. In the day I did a number of very good 32 tripples.

The point about winds versus turns, is that you do it by length and work to get the turns the same. The reverse made it too easy to get it wrong. Some years ago doing autopsies on blown Parma "death star" arms, found a lot of them with 70 to 73 turns of 30s wire, all the same length. Quality control was lacking.

You are correct, a quarter inch doesn't matter, but a turn can be over an inch wrong.

Or, over the decades, I might have been "overthinking" like Duffy and gotten all anal about this!

Philippe.
I saw the dynamics first, and oddly, in the 1/8th shaft. As most of my 1/32s for club racing were 1/8th I did a mass conversion. But then using the big shaft dynamics. I rarely used the Cox because I didn't like the mounting. Again, not being Steube, I preferred to use collars with at first, a spacer glued on the top.

Anyway, some decades ago, I was having this conversation with John Robinson of MRRC. He was a huge fan of the 659 in 1/8th for 1/32 cars and did a run of reproductions. THIS allowed me to restore a lot of cars that had lost the guide.

Fate

[havlicek]

Hi Rocky

John, tripples arent any more difficult than a double. As usual, I am not sure there is a performance advantage, but it does allow a few more TURNS because of the ability to seat the wire. In the day I did a number of very good 32 tripples.

(!) I would definitely not agree with that and would for sure like to see some triples you've done! Doubles are "harder" than singles because of trying to keep the winds neat...and neatness DOES count. By that reasoning, keeping a triple neat would definitely be more difficult than a double, even though I don't think I ever did one. If you mean by "not harder" they use the same basic winding technique...I guess so, but then a quintuple wind wouldn't be any harder than single

The point about winds versus turns, is that you do it by length and work to get the turns the same. The reverse made it too easy to get it wrong. Some years ago doing autopsies on blown Parma "death star" arms, found a lot of them with 70 to 73 turns of 30s wire, all the same length. Quality control was lacking.

That those arms were blowing with the same length wire on each pole but with up to 3 turns difference, only underscores what I'm saying. Anyway, maybe you do it that way...but I don't and the people I learned from didn't. The winding pattern is GOD...if you're meticulous about your patterns and repeating them, the length will fall into place within acceptable limits every time. Even if your pattern falls apart on the last few turns, which is where it usually will, the length difference will be physically tiny and electrically invisible. You start at the first pole and match your patterns with one unbroken piece of wire ending at the first pole all over again. If you're diligent, you can take apart the arm afterwards and the lengths will be "right there".

Again, small differences in length don't matter...and not just a quarter inch either. The "coils" (turns) on each pole DO matter though. Where this often comes into play is on the last pole of a 3 pole arm. Frequently, this pole will have a longer length of wire on it on a really full arm (even with squishing the wire on there with a popsickle stick) because the wire will somewhat overlap the first two a little on the sides...and it doesn't really "matter" in the end "IF" the number of turns are the same. Ideally, what you want is the same number of turns and the same exact length of wire on each pole, but practically speaking this often isn't possible and striving for it will ultimately be a wasted effort. Now I'm not an electrical engineer with an education DC motor design (who here is?), but I've seen this all work. Different strokes.

You are correct, a quarter inch doesn't matter, but a turn can be over an inch wrong.

!?exactly...which is why I say "patterns are king" and "don't lose count". But we're wrecking Rick's beautiful build thread here, so I won't add any more OT here.

-john

[dc-65x]

......But we're wrecking Rick's beautiful build thread here, so I won't add any more OT here.

No problemo, nobody's wrecking anything . It's good to have something to talk about until I can get back to working on the chassis this Friday. I'm going to partially disassemble and rework it .

[Duffy]

It's good to have something to talk about until I can get back to working on the chassis this Friday. I'm going to partially disassemble and rework it .

While we're dissembling here, or whatever, here's MY take on centering an inline motor with Rick's new block.

This randy little wafer is machined to the size of the full-length T-slot and has a .078" groove in the top to accept the motor shaft.

The odd Sandy Calder shape of the thing is why? you ask why? because I can set up the chassis components and clamp 'em in, then slide this little gobbet under all and push it up & against the shaft with a setscrew/T-nut; and remove it as I wish, all without disturbing anything else.

Typical Duffy overthinking, but there it is.
OCDuffy

[Dooner]

Ignius Duffy.

[Jairus]

Dang... I want one of those...

Pr'olly just cut a slot in a piece of threaded rod though

[Duffy]

Pr'olly just cut a slot in a piece of threaded rod though

SEE?? That's what any sensible guy does!!

Earlier this week, while looking through my CARE package of vintage bits, I started thinking about messing with motors. First thought, I swear: "Ooo, that'd be cool, I might do it...tomorrow I'll go into the shop early and make myself a winder..."

I tell ya, way more entertaining to watch me than to be me.

D-Li

[dc-65x]

Cool gizmo Duffy . It should work great.

SEE?? That's what any sensible guy does!!

Sensible guys cut their just finished chassis into pieces.........huh :





The outer rails have to come off. I had brain fade and put them on wrong. I didn't want all the other bits to fall off so I did a careful unsoldering. The front and back first:



Then the drop arm pivot:



Now I'm back to this

After some cleanup I can start again

Anything you can build you can modify anyway you want. That's the thing about scratch building, the only limit is your imagination .

Onward..........

[Duffy]

Okay, now I know who landed the box of 3,000 braids from TigWldr's yard sale!!

Once again, thanks for sharing a procedure we don't think about nor plot out, until we need...

In my other hobby, guys will ask this or that question about how-to-do: "I'm scared, what if it doesn't turn out right??" And the answer is, "Then you just fix it. Big deal." So much of building is just giving yourself permission to goof gloriously.

Duffy

[GTPJoe]

Rick,

It takes real nerve to go to a one railer, but I think you can make it work!!
A little fragile but a flyer for sure...LOL!!

Great stuff, now I know I'm not the only one who needs "do overs"!!

Thanks for this build....

[flarimer]

Gee, imagine my suprise - and the smile - when I came across this thread. I remember that car well. And, the lead-in picture to the R&C article is of me qualifying the car. I was using the wrong gearing (too low) and it would run out of revs before the banking. Sure came off the corners tho.

The chassis was pretty conventional for the time and strikingly similar to the 2-rail one you are building. Tho I doubt I had the center bar in the swing arm.

Good luck with your build, I'd love to see it completed and in action.

If I remember right, there was some controversy about having the gears hanging out in the open rather than enclosed by bodywork. Finally it was agreed that since the 25B's ran without a tail-cone that mine could as well. I also set the body a bit further forward on the chassis so that I could drop it lower and extend the swing arm further forward.

Cheers,
FLarimer
Member, Team Russkit

[dc-65x]

Hi Fred,

Thank you so much for chiming in on my post . It is fantastic to hear from you. I hope I can do your original car justice. It is one of my all time favorites. Your car was a truly beautiful car that was also a real RACE CAR. I've just finished tearing my chassis apart and rebuilding it to, what I hope, more closely resembles what you ran. I'll post pictures tomorrow.

Thanks Fred!

Rick

[flarimer]

One other thing I noticed from the picture - the outboard frame rail angled outward and up, the bend being just at the rear edge of the body, and joined to the axle tubes out near where the tubes terminated. I don't recall if this car had the rear hoop as yours does tho it was pretty standard to do that. Some of us used two tubes, one as you have that is on the same plane as the chassis rails and a second one that was soldered at the very rear and angled upwards to join the Russkit engine mount right inboard of where the axle tubes were slid thru the engine mount.

Al Hall gave me grief over using the Russkit driver's head as it didn't have a visor over the driver's eyes. Of course, the Cox driver's head was more correct but the size didn't match up with the cockpit insert that we were using (and besides, it woulda been hard to explain using a competitors product). Later on Jim and the guys produced a driver's head that was more accurate. The seat belts - they were molded into the insert so I simply painted the blue (for the dunlop overalls) around them. Oh well...