0.032” Wire Framed Chassis, Parts 2 & 3 / 1229-Cc3 and 1233-Cc3

[CMF3]

1229-Cc3

Long-suffering readers may remember an earlier statement I made that the 1229 design would allow me to explore framing with wire diameters less than 0.047”. And the initial result of that was four 1229’s built using 0.039” wire. At that time I made another statement that I was pretty much done with the 1229 design, except for the odd possibility I might try to build one using 0.032” wire…

The original 0.032” wire framed chassis I built, the 1225-Ca3, was largely an attempt to see if a chassis framed using only 0.032” wire was even possible. As it turned out, from the construction aspect it was. And on the track it turned out to be a very fast chassis with the dramatic characteristic of almost exploding out of the slot when it reached its limits.

Over several months I ran this chassis some more, along with small set-up changes and a lot of poking, pushing, twisting, squeezing and other manual manipulations to try to visualize to some extent what this chassis was doing under load. Since I had 0.047” and 0.039” versions of the same chassis (1225-Ca and 1225-Ca2, respectively) it was easy to see where the chassis framing dynamics varied as the wire got smaller. It was kind of cool, but it is also true that I’m easily amused…

Some of the framing components that had been more greatly affected by my first 0.032” attempt were pretty easy to identify; for example, the Front Spanning Wire had a lot more bend and spring to it, while the Outer Perimeter Side “Pans” were almost as loose as if they were hinged. Other components, like the Front Spanning Up-Stop, were not so easily discerned. But I finally got to a point where I had a modicum of an idea of how I would change the building/structural process if I were to attempt another 0.032” wire framed chassis…

By this time there was a minor dilemma, as I had already moved from the 1229 design to the 1233 design (and was getting ready for the 1235 as well). While it is always really tempting to skip a couple steps, and jump right up to the next phase in scratchbuilding, this time I was able to hem-and-haw about it long enough to properly decide to build the 0.032” wire frames in the same sequence as was done with the 0.039” wire frames.

And so, first up, we now have the 1229-Cc3:












Yep, that’s a lot of wires…

Some of the changes that should be noted on this build (including those that were changes structurally from the 0.032” framed 1225-Ca3):

1) Front Spanning Wire – consists of four wires, keeping the center length 2x wires wide but increasing the angled lengths to 3x wires wide.

2) Rear-Lateral Static Pans – moved closer to the rear tires.

3) Outer Perimeter Side “Pans” – each consisting of six wires, making all sides 3x wires wide; the middle body mounting tubes have been raised onto 0.032” wires atop the Side “pan” framing wires, that run rearward to the spring wire mounting point for the rear body mount pin tubes.

4) Front Wing and Wheel Well Assembly – consisting of seven wires each.

5) Center-Guide Section – the forward-center length is 7x wires wide; the rear-angled lengths on each side are 3x wires wide.

6) Front Spanning Up-Stop – this element is now 3x wires wide solid-soldered together (on all previous builds this was a single wire).

7) Motor Box Extension - the forward-center length is 7x wires wide; the front and rear “V”-angled lengths on each side are 4x wires wide; the rear-lateral lengths (that attach to the adjacent Center-Guide wires) are also 4x wires wide each; the front-lateral lengths are 3x wires wide each.

8) Motor Box Reinforcing Wires (“Spines”) – these superstructure elements are 0.055” wire (on the 0.039” wire chassis, these spine wires are 0.047”).

9) Rear Front-Axle Spanning Upright – the attachment lengths of these wires run from approximately 0.25” behind the front axle to the rear of the chassis main framing (about 3.0” instead of only approximately 0.50”); each side is soldered along the same lengths as the Front Axle Rails are soldered together (not entire length).

Other changes that were made to other components (Front Axle Rails 4x wide; Indirect Main Rails are 2-2-2) are the same as those that were used to on the 1225-Ca3.

The lo-down on this ho-down:

All framing wire is 0.032”, except as noted: Outer side pan movement restrictors are 0.055” wire in 1/8” square brass tube; also, the two VSWT bracing wires (“VSWT spines”) are 0.055” wire. The foremost wire of the center-guide section is 0.039” wire. Center-guide spring wires, front indirect main rail spring wires, inner side pan / rear indirect main rail spring wires, and rear pin tube mounts are 0.024” wire. The “pans” (2x flanking center-guide section and 2x inner side pan) are 0.032” wire outer frame with 0.024” inner support wires. The four motor box assembly static pans (two forward, two lateral) are 0.010” brass sheet. Guide tongue is a narrowed Slick 7 (S7-25) mounted on a 0.025” brass plate above the center-guide section framing wires. Motor bracket is a modified JK (JK-D3F122) and is mounted at an angle to achieve a non-hypoid gear mesh, but keeping the motor mass as low as possible.

As with the other “-Cc” designs, wheelbase is 3.875”, RAX-GPC is 4.875” (with resulting guide lead of 1.00”).

Now we get to the interesting part. The roller pictured here weighs 69.3 grams… which is 0.5 gram heavier than the 0.039” wire 1229-Cc2 roller… While this might seem odd at first, it begins to make a lot more sense when you look at the two chassis side-by-side:




1229-Cc2 (left; 0.039”) and 1229-Cc3 (right; 0.032”)

It becomes apparent that while the 1229-Cc3 may have smaller diameter wire, there is a lot more of it (and the solder that holds it together) taking up a greater percentage of the area of the plane of the chassis; this is especially noticeable in the center of the chassis; in other words, there is much less “open area” on the 1229-Cc3 frame than there is on the 1229-Cc2. Add in a few “beefed-up” superstructure elements and it is not very hard to see why the 0.032” chassis weighs as much as the 0.039” chassis. Since this was not an exercise in decreasing overall mass, but the wire diameter being used, this isn’t a consideration, much less a problem. The RTR car totaled 104.6 grams.

Moving right along…

[CMF3]

1233-Cc3

Tex is right… an awful lot of words… a necessary evil, unfortunately, required for an accurate description of what is by any perception a convoluted mish-mash… Anyone so utterly bored can just look at the pictures, honestly, I won’t take offense.

The 1233 may be similar in appearance in many ways to the 1229, but inherently it is a much different design both structurally and functionally, so the 1233’s construction using 0.032” wire cannot follow all of the same adaptations used to build its 0.032” wire framed 1229 brethren chassis. Of particular note:

1) Front Spanning Up-Stop – this element is 2x wires wide solid-soldered together (on 1229-Cc3 this was a preferred 3x wire structural element), due to space limitations with adjacent chassis components.

2) Rear Front-Axle Spanning Upright – the attachment lengths of these wires run from approximately 0.25” behind the front axle for about 0.90” atop the Front Axle Rails, where they terminate so as not to cause interference with the superstructural struts extending from the Motor Box Extension (on the 1229-Cc3 the Rear Upright extends to the rear of the chassis main framing). This deviation necessitated the change noted below in item # 3;

3) Front Axle Rails – the 4x wires comprising the FAX Rails are now soldered together along their entire length.

And so the 1233-Cc3 came out looking like this:












As with the 1229-Cc3, the 1233-Cc3 also has a lot of wires that take up a greater percentage of the chassis plane area. However…

The upshot on this rot:

All framing wire is 0.032”, except as noted: Outer side pan movement restrictors are 0.055” wire in 1/8” square brass tube; also, the two VSWT bracing wires (“VSWT spines”) are 0.055” wire. The foremost wire of the center-guide section is 0.039” wire. Center-guide spring wire, center-guide flanking pan rail spring wires, front and rear indirect main rail spring wires, inner side pan rail spring wires, and inner side pan spring wires are 0.024” wire. The moving “pans” (2x center-guide flanking pans and 2x inner side pan) are 0.032” wire outer frame with 0.024” inner support wires. The four motor box assembly static pans (two forward, two lateral) are 0.010” brass sheet. Guide tongue is a narrowed Slick 7 (S7-25) mounted on a 0.025” brass plate above the center-guide section framing wires. Motor bracket is a modified JK (JK-D3F122) and is mounted at an angle to achieve a non-hypoid gear mesh, but keeping the motor mass as low as possible.

Just as before, since it is a “-Cc” designs, wheelbase is 3.875”, RAX-GPC is 4.875” (with resulting guide lead of 1.00”).

So, this gets us back to that whole mass thing again… The roller pictured here of the 1233-Cc3 weighs 73.2 grams… in this case that is 3.2 grams lighter than the 0.039” wire 1233-Cc2 roller… In the case of the 1233’s, increased surface area of wire in the plane of the chassis on the 0.032” wire version is only slightly greater than the 0.039” version (where it was much greater on the 1229’s). The RTR car weighs in at 107.4 grams.

Only one thing left to do at this point…

[CMF3]

1229-Cc3 and 1233-Cc3; On Hold:

And that one thing left to do is wait… All the raceways on the FL central west coast have closed. There is a track down in Fort Myers, but that’s a 2-hour drive from Tampatown (at least, that’s by the way I drive…). So, until I get back down there or make the even-longer drive over to one of the raceways on the east-side of the state…

Which got me thinking… not very soundly, but thinking nonetheless… If I’m going to be driving all this distance to test these things out, I could just as easily drive up to the Thomasville GA to the Viper Pit and test these out on the King and the Engelman…

Hmmmmmmm…

Rick

[CMF3]

1229-Cc3 and 1233-Cc3; Test Runs:

Prologue (or “cooking”):

Logic is a funny thing… mostly because the majority of the time what we imagine as “logic” is largely devoid of any objective analysis, and becomes merely postulated pandering for our subjective illogic…

Case in point: I had no trouble justifying driving 3 to 4 times longer than the number of hours that I would actually be playing with… oops… I mean, testing the new slot cars... picture of an idiot in action. Well, regardless of possibly scaring the beejeezers out of other motorists on I-75, I had fun doing it, and logic can kiss my patoot.

So, yes, I made a “day-trip” to the Viper Pit in Thomasville GA yesterday to shake out these two new 0.032” wire chassis. I started on the Engelman and then moved over to the King. Though I ran other chassis/cars as well, the main comparisons were the 0.039” wire chassis, the 1229-Cc2 and 1233-Cc2, versus these new 0.032” wire chassis pictured in this thread, the 1229-Cc3 and 1233-Cc3.

For reference, so you don’t have to search back through the other threads (unless you’re some sort of masochist, in which case, go for it…): The 1229-Cc2 was the last chassis I used for racing purposes. Subsequently I built the 1233-Cc2 and initial test runs showed it to be as fast as or faster than the 1229-Cc2 even with obviously slower motors (this situation is no longer the case).

In A Nutshell (or “the meat”):

1) Neither the 1229-Cc3 nor 1233-Cc3 exhibited the previous 0.032” 1225-Ca3’s propensity for unexpectedly launching itself out of the slot at high cornering speeds.

2) The 0.032” 1229-Cc3 was an improvement over the 0.039” 1229-Cc2, and could turn laps as fast as the 0.039” 1233-Cc2; however, the 1233-Cc2 can turn those fast times more readily and consistently (as found with previous runs, the 1233 is just a better design than the 1229…).

3) The 0.032” 1233-Cc3 is an improvement over the 0.039” 1233-Cc2; just as stable, more forgiving, and flat-out faster.

All results noted above were the same for both the Engelman and the King, and on any lane used (purple, orange and red on both tracks).

1229’s, Side Note (or “side-dish”):

For those keeping track back when I made the four 1229’s with various WB / RAX-GPC / GL dimensions, the 1229-Cd2 (3.75” / 4.875” / 1.125”) appeared to be better suited to the Engelman than the 1229-Cc2 (3.875” / 4.875” / 1.0”) or the 1229-Ca2 (4.0” / 5.0” / 1.0”). If I get the time at the races in two weeks, I'll run these and the 1229-Cb2 (3.75” / 4.75” / 1.0”) on the Engelman some more to see if it was a fluke or has any merit…

Conclusions (or “food coma”):

What does it all mean? Nothing, really. C’mon, we’re talking toy cars here. But it sure was a lot of fun. Admittedly, after seeing the results with the 1233’s, I am really chomping-at-the-bit to start building the 1235; but logic says to do more analysis and design research… Yeah… Right… We’ll see how well that works out…

In the meantime, I need to get this junk of mine into race-trim for the “Southern Showdown” coming up on June 27 and 28 at the Viper Pit. Hope to see y’all there!

Rick