Very nice job, Ken. I like a lot of the details. I had noticed your posting a week or so ago, but was waiting for an update.
I also like the idea of the concealed guide keel, being placed behind the front axle. (I have long been thinking of using that placement on a few 30’s vintage cars, 50’s GP’s such as the Talbot Lago, and Hot Rods, in both scales.) You had mentioned that you were testing the idea. Have you had a chance to compare how that placement performs under race conditions?
I’ve often wondered if there is a ‘golden triangle for slot racing’ (like the golden rectangle in Classical Architecture). That is, is there an optimal ratio of the perpendicular distance from the guide post to the rear axle, divided by the rear spur? (For discussion, let’s call this the ‘keel ratio’.) Placing the guide behind the front axle also changes the ratio. Is there a value of this ratio that would give the best overall performance for the car?
I’ve searched far and wide for an answer, even consulting a few of the life-long scale racing gurus in Europe, but have not found an answer. Like the wheelbase factor, perhaps it depends on the type of track (how curvy?) and size of the track. (Some of their tracks are literally larger than our hockey rinks!)
Most 24’th scale chassis have a separate guide holder that is adjustable (see photo below). I know that the competitive racers use different guide post positions along with different gear ratios, depending on the track they are running at. This indicates that there must be an optimal guide position for any given track. The only related evidence I recall personally is that Carrera Evolution-series F1 cars have the guide post behind the front axle and they handled very well. So I wonder if you’ve had an opportunity to test your idea; how is this car handling during a race, compared to your other cars with the guide in front of the front axle?
Adjustable guide holder. (One of my 24’th scale chassis. Initial test setup, still need lots of adjustments.)
You’ve done a great job all around Ken. But something has to be done about all the exposed hardware! Most of the chassis and much of the motor are clearly visible from the sides, as in your photos above. No fault of your own, since you are working in the confines of the rule set for Hot Rods. (In 1/24’th scale club series or international meets, a key rule is that ‘No part of the chassis shall be visible when the finished car sits on the tech block and is viewed at eye level.’ ; a very sensible rule, though we don’t necessarily need to go to that extent here.) I know that you don’t want to cut into the inner body since you’ve already removed the fenders. Of course the chassis exposure can be reduced, though not fully, by shortening the rear uprights/bearing holders, but that would result in an even higher centre of mass for the whole car. The limiting factor seems to be the overall width, the 50.8 mm rear ‘spur’, so that’s probably where the best solution lies. If we allow for an increased width, it may allow you to drop the body, as well as to add some wide rear tires as on many Hot Rods. (It looks like some of the other Hot Rods on the track may have run into the same problem due to the width restriction?) Certainly many Hot Rods retained the narrow tires of the original 1930’s cars but many, like some in your photos above, were built with widened fenders, and even with large dragster slicks.
‘Bucket-T Hot Rod’
Anyway, just a few ideas.
Felix.
I used to be one of the sharpest tools in the shed; now I’m just a slot-head!
