If you made the decisions at AW, LifeLike, AFX or Mattel...what would be the first thing you'd do? Be specific, they could be reading...

I'd follow the lead of the 1/32 scale makers and start creating historic cars. AFX has made a really good start, it would be great to see more in different types of racing. And 15 inch hill tracks like the old 2-piece Aurora bridges, only in longer straights so the incline would be gradual enough not to mess with the magnet cars. Or maybe a 15 inch bank? At a lower angle, maybe 15-20 degrees instead of 45.

-Paul

i would start by improving the tjet 500 chassis to eliminate warping,and gear/axle slop.also realistic roof heights on those awful looking 55 vettes.it would be nice if the aw tjet500 chassis and original aurora wheelbases were the same,and the gearplates had the same attachment tabs.neil

Get the CEO's together for a closed "informal" strategy meeting. Discuss, where are we now, where do we want to take the hobby, listen to the consumer, markert shares, how do we get there, standardize the scale, decide who does what best, who has the capability to do so, without sacraficing thier current product lines, come to a consensus on specializing in a certian areas, and then GO FO IT!

ditto Paul. I'd make a slide-type front axle setup (maybe steel stub axles with lock nuts, like a G plus guide pin sideways - simple) so that scale wheelbases could be accomodated, and I'd build scale model race cars as done with 1/32. I'd market replacement wheels with the cars - just Vincents would be fine. Second, I would start molding/stamping track to look more like scale roadway/racetrack, and work into scale pit lanes and hill tracks, banks etc. as demand increased. I think first I'd mold some simple plastic racetrack accessories - tire walls, concrete barriers, flag stands, fia curbing, oval wall - to be painted by the purchaser.

If I were racemasters, I'd mold a section of straight with the yard of bricks on it, Indiannapolis commemorative. If you use that one Wahoo, I'd like an autographed prototype LOL. I'd also do a Long Beach hairpin - see concrete barriers above. Just daydreaming here, but there is an awful lot of interest in scale modeling and accurate historic and modern race cars, would be nice to tie that in together.

To Steve (Wahoo)... You are doing an awesome job!! I'd give you a raise!!! The only things I would like to see (not so much for me as my track stands) but for my brethren, is an assortment of larger bank curves, and aprons for turns. Your customer service is second to none, and you're an asset and a pleasure to have here on the board! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

To Tom Lowe... Fire your bean counters. They are doing your company more harm than good. The last T Jet release was a disaster. Not enough product to satisfy pre-orders, and half the cars looked like they were rushed out of the plant with the Q/C Dept asleep. Cudo's for the nova, the ice cream truck. Smack on the hand for the poor 57 Chevy, and the munchkin VW bug. Instead of just making toys, give us some quality and we will stand behind you and pat ya on the back. Give us what you did, and we'll stand behind you and put a "kick me" sign on your back while we're pattin' you. I don't want to see the T Jet line disappear. I want it to improve.

How about a few thoughts.. Instead of making the cars faster or "stickier", how about making them slower and more controllable??? Bring the axles back where they are supposed to be, use brass gears, offer a 9 tooth pinion and slightly cooler arm set up. Better wheels and tires. Hell, even stock T Jet tires (not tough ones). And finally a longer chassis. Making the tooling for a longer chassis base can't be that much money. Offer us a chassis with a 1/8" and 1/4" additional wheel base and make the cars proportioned as they should be.

Look at the side views and you'll understand: The cougar, the VW bug, the 71 Nova, the mustang and the fairlane. There's a chunk of each of those cars missing. I'm not saying discontinue the chassis as it sits now. Just reverse engineer it to what was the most successful chassis Aurora made as far as reliability and runnability. The extended WB chassis requires 2 new parts. The pickup shoes, and the base. All the other parts remain the same. It's blatently obvious the tooling for the bodies is set up for an original Aurora T Jet chassis. The wheel wells tell all. So make them.. I don't want to kick ya.. Just pat ya on the back!!!:thumbsup:

well said!i really thought the aw tjets were cool when i first saw them.then i got the real deal,and realized how much the imitator fell short of the original.but bill said it best,it's like comparing apples and oranges.there are alot of simple things that would improve the aw's tjet500 chassis.straight axles,for one.and round wheels.and i agree about the 9 tooth pinion,my one good aw runner fishtails like crazy if i am not careful,i think a 9 tooth would solve that as my nos tjets don't fishtail like that on the straights when i crank the throttle....i think most of the bodies are really nice,but yeah,some didn't quite make the cut,as it were.adjustable wheel base is a great idea,as the three front holes don't quite match the wheelwells sometimes,and when yer customizing,adjustments are part of the game!:)

I would do a lot of things, but the first two would be to develop a radically new, much smaller, and lower torque motor for HO slot cars, so the motor was not so overwhelmingly dominant from a performance and structural perspective. With HO, you are basically driving a motor with a body on it. The second would be a huge (by current standards) 4-lane banked curve set that allowed realistic renditions of NASCAR and historic Monza style tracks.

The banked track thing is obvious so I won't discuss it other than to say it would be molded as a 4-lane set of pieces that mate with existing 2-lane track, perhaps through a transition piece, and the smallest radius would be 24 inches, with bigger ones being available.

My vision for the next generation HO motor is one that approximates the form factor of a Buss style fuse (http://www.acehardware.com/sm-buss-fuses-electronic-equipment-fuse-5-pack-buss-fuses-electronic--pi-1291786.html), right down to having a metal end that would deliver power to the tiny motor inside the tube. Imagine a Buss fuse with a pinion gear on one end. I'd expect the whole motor to snap into the chassis just like a fuse snaps into a fuse holder, with one or more ends of the motor being squared off to prevent rotation of the can itself, unless some other securing mechanism is provided. Motors would be sealed and come in different speed grades. I'd open up the design for licensing so third parties can sell aftermarket versions, but the form factor would remain fixed so any motor can be snapped into any chassis.

Because the motor would be so small it would not have a lot of torque, hence could not handle super mega traction magnets. The motor would be light enough to require chassis designs that have tunable handling characteristics, not just serve as a placeholder for big traction magnets. This would bring speeds down, put chassis "design for handling" back into the building equation, and allow for extremely low profile body designs. I'd like to see HO racing equivalents of 1:32 and 1:24 chassis designs, sort of along the lines of the Riggen HO or Dynabrute but with a drastically smaller motor. Plus, having a quarter inch diameter motor would allow classic open wheel designs, front engine designs, etc.

Achieving the form factor using conventional motor designs may be a bit of a manufacturing challenge, but I'd expect that a variation on pager motor designs would be feasible today. In the future, maybe some type of a magnetic-ceramic design where the windings are baked right into the core or perhaps a piezoelectric design would be both practical and cost effective, or design a brushless motor controller that's small and inexpensive enough for HO slot cars.

Oh, and as King I would declare permanent 4 day work weeks so every weekend is a 3 day event.

I'm right there with you guys. Moulded four lane track that can expand to eight, or twelve if needed. Longer straight sections. and a "Spec" motor that can't be played with. The biggest draw on Fridays in this neck of the woods is Slot-it 1/32 non-mag class. 24000 "Boxer" motor, Spec Tires (silicons that come w/the car), and right now it has to be a Grop C car, but that may open up in the future. smaller chasis = better bodies.
along with the four day work week, topless Tuesday's, no underware Wednesdays.....

First thing I would do is redo the Super 3.It should take
the same bodies as the AFX etc. and have a lower center
of gravity than a G+ and out perform it.

So many good ideas! Would love the track changes, especially with the banked curve options. Just make sure the degree of banking could support slower cars as well as the track burners. :thumbsup::thumbsup: rr

I am assuming that the H.O. target market is not a toy for Christmas with loops, that works for two weeks and is thrown away, or a obsessive compulsive collector toy in all white that a person can say is a slot car?, or a fastest of the fastest blur. Those for the most part is what IS being produced. Walters and Racemasters excluded, but they are still, in my opinion too fast, for all but the larger tracks and besides I don't have that much fun running them. I have short straights and real curves on my track. I think Racemasters is plugged in on that issue with their multi voltage power pack to a certain extent, but being able to run a car flat out without lifting is not my idea of fun either. Maybe prying out the magnets will get me there.
I notice a lot of the 1/32 folks club race on wood without any magnet enhancements. That is something to look at and maybe shoot for in our scale. A dependable, affordable, motor chassis that can run well with or without magnets on plastic or wood. That means a smooth running chassis from the top to the bottom whatever style. The stub axle with jamb nuts for front wheelbase adjustment that was mentioned above would go along way to solving body wheelbase issues allowing more body styles to be produced more realistically.
Next, is a basic fool proof timing system that the casual racer or modeler can incorporate in their layout easily for races or for comparison when racing oneself or for car tuning comparisons.
It shouldn't be too hard to produce a snap on turn apron for the various curve sections, or at least for a couple of popular sizes. Might be able to produce a universal rubber piece that can snap into the underside of the track and be trimmed to fit almost any curve.

I'd get serious about a slottless system that really worked.

after that, I'd create several different lines of cars

a pop culture line... Monkees, Munsters, Flintstones... etc

a "yesteryear" line... 20's - 50's

Whacky customs line... all cars Barris and Daniels and the like

and an all in one chassis that had a totally adjustable wheel base that could also swap out various mounts so it could fit onto any mass produced body from any company

1. Track with EZ install power taps.
2. A plug in and go race management system that is user friendly, and can expand to 4 6, and 8 lane layouts.
3. Track resembling real life race surfaces.

plug and play timers!ninco makes an arch that works well,battery powered,we use it for short 5 lap heats in 1/32

I'd like to see a high banked track with a board track texture and two 1920's board track racers in the set. Also, bring back the motorcycles.

gotta agree on the motorbikes!tried one that my buddy has and it was a hoot!

As knig for the day I would have a list of issues like "whirled peas" and the "whatness of why" to address first. Once I worked my way down to the question of silly toys I'd start here.

Adustable wheel base chassis in HO like the big boy chassis. A throwback concept with some modern modular revisions. Including snap in, class based, motors. Chassis would also have a snap in provision for either anti grav or weights.

For the pancake crowd. An exact replica of the best of all the stock t-jet parts....not a freak hybrid...just the best within the breed. Harrison Woodrow came REALLY close! Let's shut them up once and for all. Dont like the cost? Then dont buy them and go fish for your own good parts ....IMHO it's that simple.

Above all, emulate Racemasters (for example) and dont allow mediocrity to escape your R&D and hit the market.

Dont cater to the collector crowd! Let your product speak for itself and it WILL be collectible/desireable.

Oh....and to simplify this process....I'd kill all humans! ;)

i think bill's cat has taken over his body and typed this last comment!lol

1) Track standardization between all makes (the model rr guys figured the importance of this to grow the hobby years ago). Tomy is the obvious standard.

2) Bank turns: 18" and 21 radius"

3) Borders for curves w/ clip on gaurdrail ability.

4) 4 lane sets with historic race scenarios (i.e. include the top 4 finishing cars from the 1979 Daytona 500 and a worthy track size in a set).

5) Wide radius curves where outside lane moves close to inside lane.

6) Easy to use and see digital readout lap counters.

Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL

1. Track with EZ install power taps.
2. A plug in and go race management system that is user friendly, and can expand to 4 6, and 8 lane layouts.
3. Track resembling real life race surfaces.

4. Realistic race track structures as is found in 1/32
5. Realistics borders
6. A recognition that they are not just producing mere toys.

HO slots has its share of serious hobbyists who would buy these things if they were available. It is the availability of all these things that often draws enthusiasts to 1/32.

how about 36 inch straights.. 1 lane, 2 lane and 4 lanes?

programmable track switching could be cool too. You have a bunch of different layouts by just switching a few triggers to turn on to new lanes. Put them on timers so the layout changes constantly. That would keep things fresh.

Yes, it would be nice to be KING.
I have a dream ... oops sorry, wrong King.

My dream is to have a world were all the little slotheaded boys and girls can race side by side in peace and prosperity. Where the stench of HO bias is finally ridden and replaced with the sweet smell of burnt oil and hot Ozone from free living armatures racing unencumbered down the track.

Where you are not judged by the speed of your chassis, but the by soul of your design.

Yes... speed is nice, speed has it's place... but it's the character of the soul in your design that will live forever and inspire future generations of slot-a-haul-ics to reach the mountaintop. I may not get there with you, but we as a hobby, will get to the promise land!

Oh yeah, there'd also be a lot of hot 25 yr old honeys serving me ice cold beer and red hot steamed clams as I ran cars from my poolside track, complete with underwater roadways .... some garlic bread would be nice too.

ah, to be King....

Oh yeah, there'd also be a lot of hot 25 yr old honeys serving me ice cold beer and red hot steamed clams as I ran cars from my poolside track, complete with underwater roadways .... some garlic bread would be nice too.

ah, to be King....

I have to agree with the last for sure! Wouldn't it be awsome to go to a local track and see total hotties hanging out lusting after all the short,bald hairy guys that are racing their finely tuned scale racing machines?
Other that that I think an under track lap timer/race system that is truly plug and play.

VJ has it right.............Barris mobiles ROCK

First thing I would do is redo the Super 3.It should take
the same bodies as the AFX etc. and have a lower center
of gravity than a G+ ....

and spares!

I would make it so these things came to pass:

1. GAR to finally come out
2. Audi R15 from AFX
3.Turn borders
4. F1 bodies for the Mega-G
5. Hard body from WHP
6. An HO controller from TruSpeed
7. Mattel sells their slotline to Tamiya
8. Ninco and Slot.it bring out HO lines

Guys,
I really doubt you will ever see more banked curves, especially in four lanes. Speaking from experiance, as someone who tried to bring new track options to market, the demand is simply not there.

Check out this thread where some of the issues with producing some of the "dream" track pieces we may like to see is explored:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=192633

Had the track we already produced sold out, or sold like hotcakes, I would have been the first one to try getting new pieces produced.

On the chassis side, I am a big fan of the simplicity of the Tyco HP-7 design. It would be very easy to customize this chassis with different characteristics. If different can motors and magnet bars were available, you could combine them to create lots of variation. Magnet bars with differing strengths (even a dummy bar with no downforce) and can motors with different windings and ohm ratings. If you could also make a narrow pan version, the possibilities are endless.

This chassis would also be great as an introductory chassis to get young kids into the hobby. Runs great out of the box and easy to work on.

Joe

Joe - do it! We would all buy loads :)

If a Hutt were King for a Day:

1) Give Wahoo Steve and his crew at Racemasters a raise. Help them sit down with Tomy exec.s and show them the SCX, Ninco, Scalextric, Carrera, etc. model of producing a full service 1/32 line of products versus just cars and track. This would lead to larger radius turns, turn aprons, figures, buildings, etc. However, see (2). The focus here may be just of more track options and turn aprons. Give Racemasters the backing to buy the slot car line from Tomy if the current owners don't see the light.

2) Get Walthers' Life Like team together with the body and decal designers at Trevco so Life Like COTs could look as sweet as the Trevco ornaments. Have a marketing team show them the SCX, Ninco, Scalextric, Carrera, etc. model of producing a full service 1/32 line of products versus just cars and track. This would lead to larger radius turns, turn aprons, figures, buildings, etc. The building and figure parts of this would approach being a slam duck for walthers as they already produce or deal with producers of both items.

3) Give some worthy team the backing to bring out spot on TJet, Slim Line, and HP7 chassis Replacements. Dash comes to mind.

4) Give BSRT, Slot Tech and Wizzard awards for both pushing the design/performance envelope and supplying great parts for practically every chassis type. Give them backing to keep up the effort.

5) Have a marketing team sit down with Mattel exec.s and show them how they are missing opportunities to make more money on the Tyco line. These opportunities would be

a) Make use of the existing stock of Tyco/Mattel body styles.

b) Get the Hot Wheels team to take the Tyco chassis into account in their design efforts and introduce body styles as both Hot Wheels and Tyco cars. Kids could move from playing with Hot Wheels to runnig Tyco's in a natural progression and the Hot Wheels collectors would have a new set of items to collect (slot cars). Use the brain trust in the Hot Wheels dept. to create some sweet wheel options for the slot car line. Offer these as "styling hop up kits" that could be purchased separately.

c) Show them the SCX, Ninco, Scalextric, Carrera, etc. model of producing a full service 1/32 line of products versus just cars and track. This would lead to larger radius turns, turn aprons, figures, buildings, etc.

d) Get back to basics in production. Improve QA and material use (as in tires).

6) Have a chat with Auto World:

a) Hook up them with the Hobby Talk crew to create a beta-test team. Software (especially games) make active use of beta-test teams to prove out a product before it is launched. This could have prevented the parts fit issues between the original Aurora TJet and Magnatraction chassis and the AW versions as well as the teething troubles with the Super III.

b) Show them that there is a positve marketing model for supplying spare parts.

c) Show them that steps to make the cars run better will not hirt sales to collectors.

d) Introduce their suppliers to modern quality control techniques. Give AW the mantra of create no defects, accept no defects and pass no defects. Give them contract language with their suppliers to back up the mantra.

e) Use all the above to make an out-of-the-box ready Super III, build a credible new release schedule, and ensure that the 4-gear chassis is the cool product we know it could be.

6) Send some "stimulus" funds to the one-man operations that have helped keep this hobby alive with resin bodies, custom parts, incredible tools, routed tracks, etc. Do the same for the awesome people who have set up shop so we could have ready access to HO goodies.

7) Give funding for a national program to open community slot tracks as a vehicle to reduce youth crime. See Pete's efforts in Fresno as the pilot example. This hobby can teach positive life skills just as well as any sport.

8) Give Hank funding to keep this site running. Give him a special King's Citation for creating and running a forum that has keep the dream alive for so many of us.

Hutts are big and so are their answers. :drunk::hat::freak::dude:

Tish tosh!... yer highness. :rolleyes:

That all makes way to much sense. :freak:

Butt; seeing as how you put some heart AND soul into this....All those in favor of making Russ the Hutt "Knig" for a day say aye. :thumbsup:

Aye!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[QUOTE=Grandcheapskate;2720326]Guys,
I really doubt you will ever see more banked curves, especially in four lanes. Speaking from experiance, as someone who tried to bring new track options to market, the demand is simply not there.



Jim adds:

The secret in introducing new track pieces is to sell these individually as well as in sets. Sure, there might not be that big of a demand for a 4 lane curve as an accessory piece.

But if this new piece was included in a new set.....Then, there is an opportunity to produce enough to justify costs. I don't know how many AFX Super International sets have been produced but I bet enough have been sold to have justified a new piece included in the set.

Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL

Speaking of bringing new track to the market....Whats the story on the AFX 18" radius curve pieces.

From my understanding, an individual developed and sold the piece (he deserves a place in the slot car hall of fame). Then, Tomy comes out with one.

Whats to stop the same thing from happening with a 21" curve? I will buy eight right now!

Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL

That was Grandcheapskate. I still think he should do an 19.5'' (as well as a 1'' and 2'' four lane straight), but there is probably not enough demand for any of those.

Joe - do it! We would all buy loads :)

There would need to be an up front demand (and pre-order) for at LEAST 4,000 pieces in anything I would now be willing to consider. I cannot afford to again put up all the money and store thousands of pieces.

Assuming that a banked curve in a layout would require 4 pieces per curve (and no addition "lead-in" piece requirements), that would mean at least 1,000 orders. I am going to assume you would use a banked curve only to create a 180 degree turn, therefore each order would be for 4 pieces.

I thought I would blow through the 6,000+ pieces (each) of Tyco 6" and 15" curves. All I needed were 500 guys worldwide to buy 10 each and I could have started on something new. It didn't happen (at least so far), so any new project would require raising the capital before starting.

I'm sure all you guys have great intentions, but selling 8 pieces each to a handful of guys, no matter how motivated, just doesn't add up.

Thanks...Joe

I meant a chassis. Same deal with numbers though....

my biggest complaint is the lack ofscalemanship. yes that is a word i just said it didnt i. you cant run a mev with aw they just dont match cant we all just make the same size cars. to steal a line from R.K. it cant be that hard to get together with each other and get a standered scale body can it. i just got a 63 impala from aw man the roof on it looks like a space ship. what were you thinking. as for track dont really care its all good. and make the car a little slower so we can run them if we want faster make hop up parts it worked before. by the way bill for pres.:woohoo::woohoo:

A lot of you guys are crazy for dioramas and scenes on your layouts. Can you imagine a molded-slot track diorama - add power to the push car stuff that's out there? Car pulls out of the Hilltop garage, a real Le Mans start..... put ho scale lanes on 1:24 or so size pieces and mold in (and glue in/assemble) a bunch of detail.

You know, a lot of the problems and limitations associated with molding all kinds of curves would be solved if somebody came up with a functional flex track. I know it could be done, but how expensive would it have to be?

Joe, how many Tomy 18" curves did you build vs. sell?

The Tomy 18" piece was totally new territory, filling a need that had never been filled up to that point in time. It was revolutionary and Tomy liked it so much they did one too.

The Tyco pieces were filling what you perceived to be a under supply in a product line that you have an affinity for. Maybe you over estimated the demand? In an case, the Tyco pieces were evolutionary at best, no new ground being taken.

A revolutionary new track piece that fills a void and taps into the market leading track format ... probability for success is definitely higher. Whether it's worthy of the big upfront investment, I don't know. The fact that no current track maker supplies anything that allows you to construct a layout that vaguely resembles the most popular form of racing in North America may be a sign that the potential just ain't there. But then again, if anyone wanting to build even a regular oval needs 8 of my 4-laner Big Banks, your math is hinting that maybe the idea is not too far off the mark.

In any case, being King, I would use the razor blade model and basically give away the track and transfer all of the expense to the cars and parts. Nearly free track means more tracks being built means more cars and parts being sold. It's fun to be King.

. . . On the chassis side, I am a big fan of the simplicity of the Tyco HP-7 design. It would be very easy to customize this chassis with different characteristics. If different can motors and magnet bars were available, you could combine them to create lots of variation. Magnet bars with differing strengths (even a dummy bar with no downforce) and can motors with different windings and ohm ratings. If you could also make a narrow pan version, the possibilities are endless.

This chassis would also be great as an introductory chassis to get young kids into the hobby. Runs great out of the box and easy to work on.

Joe

I agree - the HP7 is outstanding for all the reasons you mention. :thumbsup: I'd love to have the options you mention also, like different motors, magnet weight slugs, etc.

I agree, one of the best classes we had was a stock HP7 class.

Let's see, if I hit the Powerball and made myself king of slot cars, I'd do this:

1 -- Steal Joe's ideas for the HP7 and roll them out, plus add a few of my own like a longer, skinnier version with about five different front axle settings.

2 -- A re-pop part fer part of the classic t-jet.

3 -- A modern tjet with snap-in rear axle and a chassis 'buddy clip' system to mount other AFX / Tomy style bodies.

4 -- A screw-on chassis of tjet dimensions, but with an inline motor and snap-in rear axle.

5 -- Tomy compatible turns in 21, 24, 27 & 30 inch sizes. Also, 1/8th turns for 12 thru 30 inch sizes. I'd buy all of Joe's Tyco 6 & 15" curve pieces and put him in charge of this project, since he has experice with the 18" pieces he made so well.

6 -- Tomy compatible 1 inch straightaway piece for that layout that doesn't quite line up right.

7 -- I'd buy Edwin's Tracker 2000 and rename it Tracker 2010 with a new track list of all my new track pieces. Free to download, also, since more people playing with it will lead to more people buying track pieces.

8 -- More kick-ass wheels like the Vincents for both Tomy & Tyco axle sizes. Steelies, Cragers, BBS, stockers, etc.

9 -- Tomy compatible 27 & 30" bank turns, at about 20 degrees of tilt

10 -- Super-skinny chassis for slim body cars like vintage Indy or modern sprint cars. Think about a regular inline motor, at 1/2 scale.

There's more I can add, but I need to save something for Day #2 as King.

From what I see here ,most would run into bankruptsy
in short order.Bank curves and motorcycles were never
big sellers.People bought realistic looking slot cars and
the highest performing slot cars.It is a dog eat dog world
and only the best products will make it.A can motor car
is tall and heavy.A pancake car is low but slow,good for
the retro croud.For the performance people a low,monoque
inline magnet car is needed.Bodies can be made lower and
lighter.Alot of people race box stock and use what is winning.
The chassis should be able to run a multitude of bodies from
F1 to Nascar with GTP and others in between.The collectors
will buy these too,just look at the magnum 440 indy cars.

The original Aurora AFX track lineup included 5 and 7 inch straight tracks.

So many great layouts are unable to be constructed with Tomy AFX track because these 2 pieces of track are no longer available.

I would add to my list:

6) 7" AFX straight

7) 5" AFX straight

Also, whoever mentioned the 1" straight piece might be onto something as well.

Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL

4 -- A screw-on chassis of tjet dimensions, but with an inline motor and snap-in rear axle.




You mean like this? While it doesn't have a snap in axle It is a very competent performer. I think with the change in brush tubes/brushes it will hang with the fray bunch quite well. it's not far off now!

You mean like this? While it doesn't have a snap in axle It is a very competent performer. I think with the change in brush tubes/brushes it will hang with the fray bunch quite well. it's not far off now!

Let's hear some more about this one, is this something new? And if it is new, why wouldn't a snap in axle be in there?

Let's hear some more about this one, is this something new? And if it is new, why wouldn't a snap in axle be in there?

Nope. As a matter of fact it's as old as the Tjet. It's an Atlas chasis. It's actually pretty well dsigned. I don't know why more developement wasn't put into it as it seems as if it's a decent runner. My car has wheels made by myself, hop up gears and shoe limiting. It does have it's weak points such as the gear train and electricals but both aer easily addressed.

Thanks one and all for the feedback. And yes the manufacturers are reading these! There is one thing that has come up that has piqued my interest and that is the "inline" TJet type chassis. Would it be safe to assume that as long as it performed at the same level as a TJet it would be acceptable. I guess what I'm asking is, you want the same scale speed, not a TJet version of a modern magnet car running at the much higher speeds?

Keep the ideas coming. I know you have really made me start considering some things that I haven't thought about before. And who know what some of these suggestions may lead to...

Thanks,
Paul

To keep the Tjet people happy, I think anything
developed for use in that class should be interchangable
with the Tjet.
Inline cars will inherently be faster.I think the latest
technology should be used to make an affordable
highest performance car possible.All of our favorite
cars of the past were made around those parrameters.
Many hours were spent on the drawing board and test
tracks developing those cars.I can remember all the
excitement I felt looking at the new cars coming out
with all their performance claims.I could not wait to
get my hands on the latest equipment.I would buy
different bodies to see which handled the best.

I would say " faster than a t-jet... but not lexan bullet fast" Most of here aren't serious racers and quickly bore of the magnet driven blurs that forever cling to the track.

I know I do.

An inline t-jet chassis that's about as a fast as a Tyco HP-7, with adjustable traction magnets would be very cool. This way, the magnet crowd and have their track clingers, and the rest of us can have a car that slides through the turns.


Hey Paul... what about the hotties and the beer.. any chance of making that happen?

Thanks one and all for the feedback. And yes the manufacturers are reading these! There is one thing that has come up that has piqued my interest and that is the "inline" TJet type chassis. Would it be safe to assume that as long as it performed at the same level as a TJet it would be acceptable. I guess what I'm asking is, you want the same scale speed, not a TJet version of a modern magnet car running at the much higher speeds?

Keep the ideas coming. I know you have really made me start considering some things that I haven't thought about before. And who know what some of these suggestions may lead to...

Thanks,
Paul

Yup, same scale speed, same size with regards to being able to use the old bodies, but make it with an inline motor, a snap in rear axle, and make it so the line produces every car within the same tolerances.

That's what makes the t-jet now so difficult, some particular chassis are warped, arms are all over the place with respect to speed, torque, etc...... With my modern BSRT cars, I know that I can put together a good car with parts right off the line and not have to fish through and find any "special" parts to make the cars run well. The G-Jet is a fine example of a box stock car running well out of the package.

If some one could do that with a modern t-jet, it would make a killing!