Home Racing World

Peter,

Nice work!

I personally have yet to get a DSlot43 slot car but plan on getting one soon.

I vote for the chassis with the cut motor axle. If it all possible, it would be great if the chassis would accommodate a Carrera DIGITAL 143 decoder chip so the DSlot43 cars can run on a Carrera DIGITAL 143 track. The cut motor axle chassis has more room in front of the motor which should allow enough room for the decoder chip.

If the DSlot43 wheels can be put on and taken off reliably (still run true) and the wear of the chassis bushings in not a concern than I would vote for bearings included in the chassis. Otherwise, I would vote for the snap in design. For the snap in design option, you should consider using commonly available 3/32" bushings that are available from Slot It, Ninco and other manufacturers. The tolerance is most likely better on these bushings.

I would prefer a one piece chassis. A motor pod chassis does allow more some additional tuning to a wider variety of different track slot car tracks but feel the simpler design of a one piece chassis will still provide very good performance. You also may be able to manufacture the chassis in different hardness (medium & hard) to allow the end user pick the amount of chassis flex they need for a particular track. Generally, a medium flex chassis will provide for better performance on a plastic track and a hard chassis will provide better performance on a wood track. If you aren't able to manufacture the chassis in different types of plastic, then you could always reduce the ribs (bracing) on the chassis to create a chassis with more flex.

Best regards,
Brian

I'm OK with the axle through the chassis (no additional bearings), Peter.
I'm not a fan of "motor pods".
It appears this would not work for a magnet system, only non-mag. Is that correct?
It would be easy to modify it for D143, which would be terrific!
Overall.................... :banana-rock: :clap: :dance:

Peter, My personal preference would be the motor pod design with the cut axle, BUT it might depend somewhat on the car it's used for! The cut axle design would probably work more often then not, but I can see some designs (like LMP's) needing the motor somewhat forward for the low bodywork in the rear.

Actually, if I am totally upfront I would say, motor pod, BUT ditch the D-slot motor in favor of the Carrera motor. :banana-rock: Of course if you go with a motor pod design you can design a single (or very few) chassis with various motor pods to suit different motors or wheelbases. :dance:

If an alternate motor is an option for the chassis, I would much prefer the smaller Carrera GO motor.

Best regards,
Brian

Brian, by now, the design is only for the DSlots. Later it will be easier to change it to accept the Go!motor or motors of the same size, like RadioShack or SlotCarExpress.

From my point of the view, the wear of the "in chassis bearings" could be disregarded. The DSlots have axles with flatened ends, so the wheels can be only mounted in one position, so remounting will always be in the right position.
For the materail: I will upload the chassis to Shapeways, a 3D printing company. I already had some chassis printed for H0-motors and they worked great. But i always used the same material by now - strong, white and flexible. I think this one is the only one offered that will work for 1/43rd slotcar chassis.

Mas, by now this chassis is thought of as a replacement for the stock DSlot chassis, to use all the available parts if you buy a DSlot.

Chuck, i could easily add a magnet pocket right behind the motor "wall". I like the "no additional bearings" idea more than the stock DSlot bearings, as the play in the stock bearings is way to sloppy. I just checked the possibility for a magnet pocket - it would be possible on the "stock motor axle variant" but with the cut motor axle, there is simply no space for the pocket - the crown will collide with the magnet.

My personal options for the chassis by now:
Variant 1: motor pod, cut axle, bearings in chassis included.
Variant 2: fixed chassis, cut axle, snap-in axle
Variant 3: fixed chassis, stock axle, snap-in axle

Anyone vote for: motor pod, snap-in axle ??

Looking at the dimension, there is a variant that will not work: motor-pod with stock axle - front mount of the motor pod would be under the front axle.

I would prefer the fixed chassis with cut axle through the chassis.

My suggestion of the Go Motor stems from my own experiment to insert a smaller motor into the standard Kyosho motor pod. The shaft on the Carrera motor is more or less the same length as the Kyosho, while the RS and Compact motors have a much shorter shaft. It might be possible to design the motor pod to accept either the Kyosho or the Carrera motor, but I have not given much though to how that might work . . . . yet!

I am cool with bearings or bushings.

Peter,

Approximately, how much would you sell the one piece chassis for? Do you plan on offering a different chassis to match the wheelbase of each of the DSlot43 bodies? Also, is the DSlot43 crown gear a press fit to the axle or does the crown gear have a set screw to hold it to the axle?

I am very interested in your project since I feel that the DSlot43 chassis is over engineered and welcome a simpler chassis for the highly detailed DSlot43 bodies.

Best regards,
Brian

Brian, depending on the shapeways material costs, it will be around 10 to 11 euros. It will include a guide. The change of the wheelbase is only changing one measurement in the 3D-constructin software, then exporting the modell and uploading it to shapeways. Ready.
The DSlot crown is slip-on, no set screw, no knurled axle.
You can set up the shapeways modell to request measurements. The designer has to upload the changed modell. No problem to offer a chassis for each body.

Mas, a chassis for the go!motor is no problem, because only one sketch has to be changed. It´s maybe half an hour work to change the shown chassis to a FF030-motor design.

cheers,
Peter

It looks great Peter! I too, would prefer the FF-030 platform. :roll:

Peter,

Thanks for the information. Have you considered a snap in axle without the bushings option? This option would prevent having to remove the crown gear off the axle (as with the bearings in the chassis option) and eliminate the play of the fit of the bushings to the axle (since the bushings wouldn't be used). I have seen that a snap in rear axle has worked for years with modern HO slot cars.

On the front axle holders, you may consider making them oval shaped with a hole on the bottom and the top of each one to accommodate M2 set screws. This would allow the front axle height to be adjusted along with the amount of float of the front axle. I wouldn't think that this would add much if any to the cost of the chassis but would allow for more tuning possibilities of the car to a particular track.

Best regards,
Brian

Brian,
to be honest, i don´t like the snap-in of the axle without bearings. In 1/43rd, the push-through worked great by now, so i think the choice between snap-in with bearings and push-through is enough.
For the front axle adjustment - personally i don´t like oval holes for the front axle. The axles are always rattling inside the oval holes, causing vibration and noise. The only thing that could work for front axle height adjustment is to use a brass tube over between the wheels that can be height adjusted by screws like you described above. In this way, the axle can run smooth and you get adjustment. But this would be to complicated IMO.

Chuck, i ´ll do a FF030 version later.

cheers,
Peter

Peter,

I have seen 1/32 slot car manufacturers use M2 set screws top and bottom on each front axle holder to adjust the ride height and the amount (if any) of axle float. The front axle rides on the ends of the M2 set screws. In this case, you wouldn't need a brass tube and the axle wouldn't rattle if the amount of front axle float is minimized. Being able to set the front ride height is helpful since some race on plastic track and others on wood tracks.

Best regards,
Brian

I vote for snap in with bearings.

Randy