Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Tips and tricks about building a car. painting it a making it run smooth.
Nor Cal Mike
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri 21. Dec 2012 22:22

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by Nor Cal Mike » Fri 1. Jan 2016 17:53

At least two to three out of the five bodies shown above will not fit the chassis with its existing battery in its present configuration. The chassis is simply too wide to fit most scale sized cars except really wide ones such as modern Group C or large saloons such as Nascar.

rex craemer
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu 4. Dec 2014 09:53
Location: cologne

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by rex craemer » Fri 1. Jan 2016 18:21

the smallest wide with cuted original chassi and changed + pole magnet is 50mm.

Ned
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun 13. Apr 2014 01:02
Location: Sedona, AZ USA

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by Ned » Fri 1. Jan 2016 18:37

Nor Cal Mike wrote:At least two to three out of the five bodies shown above will not fit the chassis with its existing battery in its present configuration. The chassis is simply too wide to fit most scale sized cars except really wide ones such as modern Group C or large saloons such as Nascar.
I have already married the 1967 Chaparral 2F and the 2007 Porsche 911 to a hand modified chassis and they both run very well. A chassis for the narrower 1965 Chaparral 2C body needs more modification than what I want to do by hand. The 2 other bodies are big and easy to fit to a modified chassis. The chassis I'm designing will fit the 2C except perhaps the front track will be too wide, in which case I may have to open the front wheel wells just a little. My new chassis will be 2.000" wide compared to the stock chassis which is 2.135" wide.

My 1:32 scale 2" wide chassis is the equivalent of 64" at 1:1. The 1965 Chaparral 2C is 68" wide. Like I say, I'll get it to fit with the possible exception of the front wheels, which can be rectified by raising the nose of the car slightly, opening the front wheel wells slightly, and/or using wheels which are not as wide. Reducing the front track is the most difficult design problem given no change in the steering coil or the printed circuit board. A smaller PCB would make it much easier to reduce the front track.

Stay tuned to see how it's done. :)

rex craemer
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu 4. Dec 2014 09:53
Location: cologne

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by rex craemer » Fri 1. Jan 2016 18:44

Image

rex craemer
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu 4. Dec 2014 09:53
Location: cologne

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by rex craemer » Fri 1. Jan 2016 18:46

correction , its 48mm

rex craemer
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu 4. Dec 2014 09:53
Location: cologne

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by rex craemer » Fri 1. Jan 2016 19:09

Image

rex craemer
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu 4. Dec 2014 09:53
Location: cologne

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by rex craemer » Fri 1. Jan 2016 19:10

Image

Ned
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun 13. Apr 2014 01:02
Location: Sedona, AZ USA

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by Ned » Sun 3. Jan 2016 23:06

Stock mag cars, even when new, exhibit quite a bit of front end shimmy (oscillation of the entire front end) at high speeds. This is very noticeable on my track which has a long straight. The shimmy makes lane changing unreliable.

The front wheels also wobble a lot on the stub axles. Perhaps reducing the wobble would reduce the front end shimmy. What do you think?

Should a newly designed chassis also include newly designed front stub axles and wheels, perhaps with bearings to reduce front end shimmy? The current stub axle is about .415” (10.5 mm) long and 0.625” (1.6 mm) in diameter. The length of the hub in a stock front wheel is currently about 0.15” (3.8 mm).

The photo below shows the current stub axle carrier & stub axle, along with black screw.
Perhaps if the front wheel had a bearing in it, a small screw like the one in the photo below would make for a better stub axle. What do you think?

Image

Ned
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun 13. Apr 2014 01:02
Location: Sedona, AZ USA

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by Ned » Mon 4. Jan 2016 00:06

Should the front end be designed with a little bit of positive toe (toe in), perhaps to reduce front end shimmy?

What about camber? A little negative? Negative camber would tend to put the force exerted against the stub axle carrier more nearly under the stub axle carrier. It would have the effect somewhat like running o rings for front tires mounted near the inside rim of a wheel.

What do you guys recommend? You have a lot more experience with this than I do, in full size as well as slot and mag cars. Would toe & camber make any difference in such a small car?

goatdope
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 28. Jan 2014 19:53
Location: Lansing, Illinois, USA

Re: Suggestions Sought for New Chassis Design

Post by goatdope » Mon 25. Jan 2016 00:23

Yes , the chassis WB being adjustable is most desirable. Also rotate the battery box 90 degrees so narrow bodies can be used. good job. Ken.

Post Reply