AFX SRT vs Mega-G???
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
658 Posts
http://www.hoslotcarracing.com/Main.html
Unless I'm reading it wrong :freak: the first GT40s listed are on Mega-G chassis (MG). They sell for 24.50 and 29.99 with the clear windows.
Unless I'm reading it wrong :freak: the first GT40s listed are on Mega-G chassis (MG). They sell for 24.50 and 29.99 with the clear windows.
Joined
·
6,318 Posts
Glad to see a SWB MegaG coming out. Looks like it will work with all their previous stuff.
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
I purchased 2 of the new SWB Mega-G chassis and am initially disappointed. One runs OK but the second is slow. Both seem to have a problem with the interface between the pickups and the brush tubes. Anyone have any experience, solutions?
Thanks,
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com
Thanks,
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com
Joined
·
124 Posts
I picked up one of the Mega G's and wasn't very impressed either. The problem was that one of the brush barrels loosened off with run time. I applied some adhesive and screwed it back in and it ran alot faster. The idea of the car is nice but it was a little cheaply engineered. I don't like that the Mega G chassis will only fit Mega G bodies and I was never crazy about super magnet chassis anyway. My fav. has always been the original magnatractions.
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
That is extremely unfortunate.....
They are not designed to be adjustable but they do move. The brush barrels in the MegaG do not have a detent, flange, or knurling on the brush barrel to keep them from moving inward. I noticed this on the first one I bought when I was breaking it in and picked it up by the sides and the pitch of the motor changed. They need to redesign the barrels to have a more secure brush barrel retention system, like the ones used on Wizzard chassis. If the MegaG brush barrels had a removable set screw adjustment like on the Wizzard chassis the brush barrels could be glued in since there would be no reason to remove them.
There are a few issues with the MegaG chassis design that reflect its singular focus of being very light, very narrow, and very low. The brush system will be correctable with aftermarket adjustable brush tubes. I do wish the tail of the chassis was given more real estate so there was room for existing crown gears to fit. I also wish that the shoe springs participated in the electrical system. But overall, it's a remarkable design and no doubt we'll eventually figure out how to make it go very fast.
I also will miss the SG+ a great deal, it's far from being obsolete. I wish they could fix whatever regulatory issues are preventing the SG+ from continuing on.
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Exactly! I have tweaked springs, the part of the shoe that wraps around the barrel, etc. and I can't solve the issue.
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com
You should compare the shoe bends in the new MG 1.5 versus the old MG 1.7 to see if they changed the bend geometry at all. Even though there is no retainer to keep the shoe on the hanger like some other chassis designs have I have not had any issues with the MG 1.7 design suffering from this problem.
I wonder what changed?
I wonder what changed?
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
afx too:is the sg + done for then?i like em too!
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Perhaps a geometry issue with the shorter shoes?
Also when comparing the two chassis, the window area for the traction magnets is much smaller. I don't notice any less magnetic pull but haven't done and true testing. Too busy trying to solve the shoe issue.
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com
Also when comparing the two chassis, the window area for the traction magnets is much smaller. I don't notice any less magnetic pull but haven't done and true testing. Too busy trying to solve the shoe issue.
Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!