[zig]

To Hack or Not To Hack? That is the Question.

When I start out to design a new Sprint Car Body for any given chassis, I have this idea in my head, but then always have to compromise something to make it fit the chassis.
Tyco did... The Racin' Outlaw is bigger scale and uses a turbo hopper chassis so that the bigger tires and longer wheelbase would make it look narrow.
Lifelike did too... The Renegade Racer... well you can see the results

I guess what I'm getting at is... I think that to make a sprint car body that is really HO, (About 1/60th)see thread...
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?p=1108413&highlight=scale#post1108413

You almost have to modify the chassis in some way to really get the look of a sprint car.



For example:
The majority of slot car racers,like to race pancake cars....
T-Jet: You have to work around the big square rear body post mount.
A/FX: You have the big side body mounts.

It would sure be a lot easier to make a body for both of these chassis if the problem areas could simply be removed :devil:

See what I mean? I have always thought that I had to make the body fit the chassis without modification, would anyone even want a body that you have to cut up an antique A/FX chassis to use.

What do you guys think about modifying chassis in general ???
ZIG

 

[Pete McKay]

This is a problem that I had to deal with on the cars I've done for the MT chassis, those "pot handle" body mounts. I chose to use them as a method for mounting although this doesn't look very real it also doesn't require anything to be removed except those two little pegs on either side of the chassis.

The T-Jet chassis isn't very wide but it is tall and boxy. This doesn't allow for a very sloping nose unless you incorporate a molded in wing. Mounting issues aren't a bit deal, a little 2-sided tape or velcro and you're good to go. Just throw on some MT wheels and tires and you have a decent sprinter.

The MT/XT chassis though, that's a much better car but the width is a slight problem. Many years ago I did a car with hollow body tubes, the body actually slipped over the tubes through holes in the side panels, and I then attached nerf bars into the hollow part of the tube. It looked pretty real but was a PITA when soldering the bars together.

I don't think I'd cut the body mounts off a MT type chassis. It's not an issue of age really, since the XT's are the same chassis they're replaceable now anyway. I think it's more of an issue of maybe structural integrity. How much torsional stiffness would you lose by removing those body mounts, and what would the flex to to performance? I've removed them in the past for much earlier versions of hand built sprinter bodies and they suffered for it. Yes, the gear plate locks into the chassis near the front axle but there is still a millimeter or two of flex with those mounts gone.

In short, modify the chassis only if the body can become a weight bearing member of the chassis or something such as an added nerf bar can be installed to recover the torsional stiffness.

 

[zig]

This is a problem that I had to deal with on the cars I've done for the MT chassis, those "pot handle" body mounts. I chose to use them as a method for mounting although this doesn't look very real it also doesn't require anything to be removed except those two little pegs on either side of the chassis...

In short, modify the chassis only if the body can become a weight bearing member of the chassis or something such as an added nerf bar can be installed to recover the torsional stiffness.

This is why I never made a sprint body for an A/FX chassis.
Years ago I bought one of each of 4 Sprint bodies from Tom Hiesters Miniature Cars for my collection of Sprint Cars, one of them was for A/FX and I had the hardest time figuring out whether or not I wanted to build it because you have to cut the "pot handles" off... well I did.
Now I'm scared to put it on the track.
ZIG

 

[Bill Hall]

Here goes. The main problem I see is the typically uptight rules and regs regarding chassis mods for sanctioned events. Often times some seem a bit arbitrary or at a minimum confusing. A classic example is the old cant do this cant do that to a Fray body, but it's OK to knock out the back window and hang the gearplate out. I'm not really knockin' it, but merely illustrating a small point. Many espouse that it's all about innovation and improving the breed, as long as you do it within the specified constraints. I've always found it somewhat contadictory from a purely philosophical point of view. It's just like 1:1 racing. Some one finds an edge, and the powers that be quickly dull it.

As for clearancing mods, I've never seen the what all the hubbbub is about, other than the obvious issue of lightening. Modifying the t-jet tail as Zig suggested should be a no brainer. Like wise is a bevel or planing of the front rails. Simple straight forward cuts. It's not bigtime voodoo, it's clearancing!

Regarding the basket handle mods to AFX/Magna/XT chassis. Big whoop! I mean really! What would be the harm in laying a straight, bevel ended gusset across the side vent to replace the cumbersome handle?

I build cars, not rules; so I'm fairly free with the blade. I try not kill collectable items. So far the the open rivet NOS t-jets are still plentiful enough. The collecters should be happy. Every time I shave one, their's go up in value.

Later basket handle chassis', are still affordable, and AW keeps building cars. All the better.

Chassis mods and whittling are one of the constants in the long history of the hobby. Hell, Aurora even encouraged it in the old "hop up hints" booklets.
I always laugh when I see the little pictogram of the hobby knife carving on the body, chunks-o-flyin'.

I'm thinkin' the greatest obstacle for your sprints and modified bodies will be rule constraints and the persnickity creators there of.

 

[zig]

Chassis mods and whittling are one of the constants in the long history of the hobby. Hell, Aurora even encouraged it in the old "hop up hints" booklets.
I always laugh when I see the little pictogram of the hobby knife carving on the body, chunks-o-flyin'.

Hello Bill,
Didn't the old Auto World catalogs even have a page or two about drilling cooling holes and stuff like that?

I've made 440's with so many holes they looked like swiss cheese and stuff like that to, and I don't have any of them anymore because if you cut too much away they break.
ZIG

 

[afxgns]

Why not go with the the "Rattler" design, or better yet, a "Brass wars" concept. Simply tell folks what can motor they must use, Wheelbase, and width. Then, let the market decide.
As far as the pancake design goes, there is nothing wrong with the T-jet or the JL or for that matter, the slimline.Just use a little bigger dia wheels and tires.
I will try to post some pics of lexans I have done for M/Ts and T-jets.I think they look fine.

Tim Leppert

 

[Pete McKay]

In the CCRA we allowed all kinds of chassis modifications, some of the chassis were pretty well boned out:

Despite all of the allowable modifications we've always restricted the body mounts to be intact. Not for anything more than to be what they are: a body mount. You can remove them, put a gusset on the side over the airvent slot, make a weight bearing nerf bar...whatever you have to do put that stiffness back into the chassis.

Our chassis mods allowed for a lot of things, bringing the magnets closer to the track, closer to the armature, and removing grams of weight from the chassis. Sometimes weight is an advantage, but to be able to remove weight from one area and put it where you want it and still make the minimum weight some rules have is the clear advantage, especially in oval track racing.

 

[Bill Hall]

Hello Bill,
Didn't the old Auto World catalogs even have a page or two about drilling cooling holes and stuff like that?

I've made 440's with so many holes they looked like swiss cheese and stuff like that to, and I don't have any of them anymore because if you cut too much away they break.
ZIG

Hi Zig, Yup! I remember most of the publicized techniques from the stone age.

Every time I think I've seen it all. I get another batch of culls that usually contain some form of gruesome Harry High School engineering. Most are just poorly executed versions of the standard mods. On occasion there is a real blue ribbon example of the concept gone awry that makes me chuckle.

I initially save them all as guinea pigs for the developement of my customs.
They are actually a vital part of my program. A great R&D tool!

Even all the ravaged bodies are either repaired, sectioned for parts, or melted down into liquid repair putty. I'm like a buzzard. Very little goes to waste and my scrap is truly unusable.

As long as chassis mods can be simply executed by the user with the blade and or dremel. I think people will want the bods. Even if the mods are unilaterally vetoed by sanctioning bodies, people have a funny way of breaking away and forming their own new groups. It is after all still America.

 

[scratch]

Hi,

Has diddly to do with what you're after. Remember when I messed a little with HO in the past. Took a Tyco motor and made a mini brass chassi for it. Actually worked very well.

Cheers,
Jas

 

[zig]

T-jet Test

While flipping back and forth between the IRL and NASCAR races today I did a little chassis whittling on a JLTO and found out that by removing most of the rear body post mount.... My 440x2 Winged Sprint body fits it

I know it's hard to see anything since the body is still invisible, but I think it demonstrates what I was talking about how much easier it would be to make a more realistic t-jet sprint.
Without the rear post mount I could finally make one with the itty bitty 24 gallon tail tank... :thumbsup:
Remember,this is a SHORT WHEELBASE with small STOCK wheels.
ZIG

 

[Bill Hall]

Yeah Zig! Looks like a pretty big difference.

Everyone always talks dremel.

I'm far deadlier with the good ole #2 blade. It's my weapon of choice!

I never met a chassis I coudnt whittle. Wadda they gonna do? Take away my birthday!

Bill