# AW XT Wide Pickup Shoe Setup



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

I recently picked up six slightly used AW XT chassis via trade (5 with dot magnet). These chassis use the wide pickup shoes and wide front tires. I have been trying to tune them the best I can without replacing parts and I have really noticed how poor the QC is on these.

One thing I have noticed. Normally when you tune pickup shoes, you try to get the shoes adjusted so that the "nub" is in the center of the pickup shoe window when the car is on the track. On each of these chassis, the "nub" is all the way at the bottom and I see no way of adjusting the shoe to move it to the middle. What this means is there is no "spring" left in the shoe; it's as if the shoe is a solid part of the chassis. This leads to easier deslots as any imperfection in the track does not get absorbed by the pikcup shoe spring but rather is transferred directly to the chassis.

Any thoughts by you guys who have played extensively with these things?

Thanks...Joe


----------



## TeamMadMarsupial (Dec 23, 2012)

I tried messing around with these, thinking the wider shoe would help on those pesky 6" radius turns.

What I found out after a little too much time and a little too many four letter words......was that they make really good shims for tightening up magnets.

To the point, I could not get them to work. They were a big disappointment and I only use them on my run in cars now.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

I am beginning to agree. On one chassis, the adjustment seems to be so sensitive I find it hard to believe. I adjust the shoes and the car either won't run or runs sporatically because it keeps losing contact with the rails. I check them out and they appear to be lying flat all the way through the step - in fact the wear line goes right down the center of the step. But any little twist, etc. and they seem to lose all rail contact. It's really bizarre. I know adjusting the shoes is mandatory, but I have never seen shoes which stop working completely when they are just slightly less then perfect.

Joe


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

what type/brand track?
I don't race those chassis, but have run them on several tracks and I don't have that much trouble.
maybe bending the shoe hanger a tad down to allow a different fulcrum point for the shoe to pivot on?
do you think the wide shoes are thinner than others?


----------



## TeamMadMarsupial (Dec 23, 2012)

I basically only get track time at three places. My home track is a 18x4 Tomy, one of the club members has a 36x4 Tomy and the clubs track is a 32x4 lock and joiner.

We all run industrial power supplies liberated from some sort of production machinery where my buddy works and they are all set at 25 or 26 volts. I use mine for some practice and initial builds. Then I tune on my buddies track, as my little 18' front straight is not long enough to tune for our club track.

The two Tomy tracks have very few 6" inside turns, the club track has too many! My idea was the wider contact area would help when I drift the car a bit in the tight turns. I got them to work somewhat on everything but the gutter lanes. Needed to tweak the hanger a bit with the dremel and spend a few minutes with the shoe bender. They just did not seem to have the same conductivity as the NOS and those I get through Slot Car Central. Only tried them on the Magna-Tractions, where I like a flat shoe. Never tried them on the AFX cars as I almost exclusively use the short step shoes with braids.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

alpink said:


> what type/brand track?
> I don't race those chassis, but have run them on several tracks and I don't have that much trouble.
> maybe bending the shoe hanger a tad down to allow a different fulcrum point for the shoe to pivot on?
> do you think the wide shoes are thinner than others?


I am using Mattel track. Only one of the 6 AW chassis seemed to have this particular conductivity problem, but it was a tricky one to work out. It looks like I may have solved the problem by twisting the shoes so they laid flat not just front to back, but side to side. I cannot believe such a little bit off (and I mean a little - I need a magnifying glass to see) would cause the car not to run at all when placed on the track (it will run if you lift the back tires). I can say this, when it does run, it is very, very fast at 20v.

The problem of the nub/hanger lying at the bottom of the shoe window seems to be one which cannot be corrected with the existing shoe design. There does not appear to be a way to bend the shoes so that the step of the shoe lies on the track, yet the spring is not almost fully compressed.

While I was almost shocked at the speed of these chassis, the ease with which they deslotted seemed odd, especially since they have the extra magnet. But when you factor in the shoes being unable to ride up and down, it makes sense. On a routed track with no rail imperfections, you might not notice this problem. Although without spring in the shoes, they may tend to wear out very quickly.

Joe


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Joe, you shoulda tried taller front tires to get more travel, no ? Also, were those XT chassis supposed to have the wide (4 gear style) front tires, ie- all my XT's have the narrow tires- which btw are TALLER.


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

PS- FWIW, My X-Tractions were the older- non Neo/traction magnet type. I have never had problems with the pick-ups, but the "nubs" do ride very low in the windows. As a matter of fact, I've never seen ANY Aurora A/FX or Magna Traction or JL/AW X-Traction ride with the nubs in the center of the windows. And from my limited experience, the racers who race these type Chassis and limit the shoe travel, they too set up their chassis with the nubs near the bottom of the window, i don't think there is much choice ? ....these ain't like T-Jets !


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

I grasp the concept of maximizing the amount of contact area the shoe has with the rail, but I think there's another way of looking at it. The object is to maintain the contact with the rail. Think for a minute in terms of PSI vs maximum contact. If the shoe has less contact area lengthwise, wouldn't that increase the shoe pressure on the rail, yielding an improved flow? Think in terms of women's shoes. Having a woman step on your foot with spike heels hurts way more than if she's wearing flats. The only downside to this concept is faster wearing shoes. Maintaining the pressure without lifting the front end off the track, and keeping the shoes square to the rail are all part of the shoe voodoo. Sometimes having a smaller contact area is beneficial.


----------



## TeamMadMarsupial (Dec 23, 2012)

Can't ague with the reasoning there on the contact patch vs maintaining contact. 

We ran into the same concept years back with the Quarter Midgets. Thought wider tire would equal more contact which would equal more traction. Did the exact opposite! The narrower tire allowed more pressure on a smaller area and actually provided more grip than the wider tires. Now granted, this was on dirt.

Only thing I'll throw out is that when I add a braid to a pick-up shoe, effectively increasing the contact area.....its like the car is on crack. So in the end, as always, I guess its a matter of finding the balance where both contact area and spring force meet that blissful symbiotic co-existence.....and then hoping it lasts for more than a lap or two??????


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

Ralphthe3rd said:


> Joe, you shoulda tried taller front tires to get more travel, no ? Also, were those XT chassis supposed to have the wide (4 gear style) front tires, ie- all my XT's have the narrow tires- which btw are TALLER.


The tires on these XT chassis are not quite as wide as those on the four gear chassis I just checked (John Force Dragsters), but they are much wider than the original Aurora and JL front tires. Kinda between the two. While you can replace these with the same O-Rings used on Aurora cars because the ID and OD seems about the same, the O-Rings do not fill the hub width-wise. So the answer to your question is these are stock tires.

In looking at the six chassis, it seems most of them have the left (passenger) shoe hanger almost all the way on the bottom of the window. The right shoe hanger seems a little higher. Odd, considering they should either be the same or the law of averages says you are going to get some of both.

In fact, with the car on the track, you cannot raise the shoe enough to clear the rail. When I checked my Aurora cars, most have the hanger either in the middle of the window, or just a shade to the low side.

As to exactly why the wide AW shoes cause the hanger to be at the bottom of the shoe window, the only design reason I can see is the part of the shoe just below the window. There is a small piece of the shoe which is bent at about a 45 degree angle between the window and the shoe step. This little area of 45 degrees does not touch the rail, but does have the net effect of making the step higher. And a higher step means more spring compression when the car is on the rails.

Joe


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

slotcarman12078 said:


> I grasp the concept of maximizing the amount of contact area the shoe has with the rail, but I think there's another way of looking at it. The object is to maintain the contact with the rail. Think for a minute in terms of PSI vs maximum contact. If the shoe has less contact area lengthwise, wouldn't that increase the shoe pressure on the rail, yielding an improved flow? Think in terms of women's shoes. Having a woman step on your foot with spike heels hurts way more than if she's wearing flats. The only downside to this concept is faster wearing shoes. Maintaining the pressure without lifting the front end off the track, and keeping the shoes square to the rail are all part of the shoe voodoo. Sometimes having a smaller contact area is beneficial.


Agreed. This comes into play when you start talking about using braid instead of steel rail. Because the braid is wider, it spreads the force out over a larger area thereby reducing the downward pressure of the shoes. This is one reason why most hard pickups don't work on braid. Even if the braid were raised to the same height as standard rail, I still think you would have the same problem.

Joe


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Of all the AFX/MAGNA/Xtraction shoes I've messed with, the best performing were the smallest stepped. I only had one pair of them, and cannot recall where I got them, but the car they were on never gave me any grief. The step was a mere 1/4", and they were narrow like a skinny ski shoe. Maybe they were tweaked by someone, or maybe they were made that way. All i know is they worked great!


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

*small step Aurora*



slotcarman12078 said:


> Of all the AFX/MAGNA/Xtraction shoes I've messed with, the best performing were the smallest stepped. I only had one pair of them, and cannot recall where I got them, but the car they were on never gave me any grief. The step was a mere 1/4", and they were narrow like a skinny ski shoe. Maybe they were tweaked by someone, or maybe they were made that way. All i know is they worked great!


 Joe, those WERE one of the *three style of factory shoes, installed by Aurora on AFX cars. And I've noticed alot of guys prefer those, and when up for sale as NOS- they Go FAST !







small step

*The other two styles were large step, and ski.


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Yeah, they're sledding; like yer childhood yankee clipper hitting a patch of open pavement.

It's the lost knowledge syndrome Joe. Maxed out travel in yer AFX clone hanger windows. Goofed up shoe hook geometry on Tuff Ones clones. Yer talking about a manufacturer that corrected crooked wheels and lumpy tires with lopsided magnetic drag. 

Like running the 440 yard dash in army boots. Just cuz they made them doesnt mean they had a clue.


----------



## rholmesr (Oct 8, 2010)

Are we talking about the AW XT pickup shoe setup with the leaf springs instead of the coil springs so that they're basically not adjustable at all? That's not a good design. I have just one of them and had to pack a bunch of silly putty in the nose of the car just to get it to go around the track. It's just in the 'kiddy beater cars' box so it's not a car I care about - I'm just baffled how they came up with such a poor setup. It's gotta cost more than the little coil springs and it works worse.


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

*Huh ?*



rholmesr said:


> Are we talking about the AW XT pickup shoe setup with the leaf springs instead of the coil springs so that they're basically not adjustable at all? That's not a good design. I have just one of them and had to pack a bunch of silly putty in the nose of the car just to get it to go around the track. It's just in the 'kiddy beater cars' box so it's not a car I care about - I'm just baffled how they came up with such a poor setup. It's gotta cost more than the little coil springs and it works worse.


Ahhh, what are You talking about ? Pick-Up shoes here.... Not comm Brush springs ! All pancake chassis use coil springs under the pick-up shoes.


----------



## rholmesr (Oct 8, 2010)

Ralphthe3rd said:


> Ahhh, what are You talking about ? Pick-Up shoes here.... Not comm Brush springs ! All pancake chassis use coil springs under the pick-up shoes.


Nope. I'm talking about the pickup shoes. If I get a minute tonight, I'll snap a picture of the car so you can see what I mean.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

holmes, are you talking about Auto Worlds only attempt at an inline chassis, the SUPER III?
otherwise, I would like to see a picture of a pancake car with other than coil springs for the pick up shoes.


----------



## rholmesr (Oct 8, 2010)

*AW XT pickup shoe leaf spring picture*

Here's a picture. Sorry my camera is a little blurry.

It's a lighted autoworld GT40. The basic chassis is x-traction. The extra traction magnet did not come with the car (at least I'm pretty sure it didn't), but there's a spot for it in the chassis.

The headlight (gow bulb) is wired to the leaf springs which load the pickup shoes in the place of normal coil springs.

The leaf springs appear to be very non-linear. The front wheels would not even touch the track with the car as it came out of the box even after I packed the nose of the body with silly putty. So I started cutting back the leaf springs a little bit until the front wheels do touch. 

The car does not run very good so it's just a car in the beater box that I let the neighborhood kids run when they stop by to race.

If I cared about the car I'd probably just solder the bulb wires to the hanger plates and just add the normal coil springs.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

holmes, where did you get that chassis?
it was modified by someone, that is not factory.
see the spring cups are still there for the coils springs?


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

*As delivered*



Ralphthe3rd said:


> Ahhh, what are You talking about ? Pick-Up shoes here.... Not comm Brush springs ! All pancake chassis use coil springs under the pick-up shoes.


No sirs, (Ralph and Al) as terrifying as it might seem....:freak: 

.... in a failed attempt to send slot cars back to a time before the wheel was invented; there was a series of AW lame throwers that used lever springs for the pick ups. They also had some horrendous solder globs ...er...jobs for current supply.

I remember the day specifically because I felt my IQ drop just looking at the pictures.


----------



## alpink (Aug 22, 2010)

aha, thanx Bill. I never bought any of the LameThrowers, so I am ignorant of those modifications. the pic that holmes posted sure looks like a rough rig job though!


----------



## rholmesr (Oct 8, 2010)

Bill's right it's a flamethrower -- I found the box it came in - *auto world Xtraction release 4 #22 '05 ford GT*. And al's right - it's a rough rig job - _from the factory_!!

I guess these fall into the category of _adult collectible_ because they sure aren't _raceable_


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

slotcarman12078 said:


> Of all the AFX/MAGNA/Xtraction shoes I've messed with, the best performing were the smallest stepped. I only had one pair of them, and cannot recall where I got them, but the car they were on never gave me any grief. The step was a mere 1/4", and they were narrow like a skinny ski shoe. Maybe they were tweaked by someone, or maybe they were made that way. All i know is they worked great!


Take a look at this thread from a while back...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=286695

I was just discussing the quality (or lack thereof) of the JL/AW XTs tonight with someone when the subject of the Flamethrower pickup springs came up. My friend's solution was to remove the coil spring completely leaving only the leaf spring. I have not played with them myself, but from his description it sounded as if there are two set of springs on these cars.

Let me also lay out another problem I was having and a solution I discovered. These are posts I left at SCI (I believe it is against the TOS to post a link). Other responses have been left out.

Post #1:
I have been reading for years about the poor quality of the JL and AW chassis. Since I am mainly a collector and already have more than enough runners, all the JL and AW cars I have bought end up on display only. I only have three T-Jet and three XTs (all R1 JL chassis) that I have run - up until a few days ago. They needed a little work, but those six cars all run well. In fact, one of the T-Jets may be the smoothest and quietest I own. I never saw the really bad, hard to fix problems others complain about.

Then sometime last year I bought the remains of a collection. In it, there were four JL cars with bodies from F&F release 1 so I assume the chassis are from that release - they are clearly marked as JL chassis. The cars appear new and unrun.

Two of these ran fairly well before I did any work, the other two were badly bound up. As I looked at the first one, I finally saw what others had been complaining about. The comm plate is warped as badly as possible. It looks like the center of the plate was pushed up way too much, making the comm plate wavy - the solder tabs are closer to the stacks than the little "arms" that hold the plate in place. On top of this, to my naked eye it appears the armature shaft, when the chassis is assembled, is not perpendicular to the chassis and gear plate. So when you rotate the armature, you can see the pinion gear is at a slight angle to the other gears. It appears the gear plate needs to be shifted slightly forward for the arm shaft to be straight. When the chassis is assembled without the idler gear, the arm spins freely. When the idler is put in, the whole drive drive gets very tight, although the gears spin very freely if you spin them before putting them into the chassis..

So two main questions for those who have worked on these chassis:

1. Is there any way to "help" the comm plate into better shape?

2. Do you ever shave any plastic off the gear plate to allow it to slide slightly either forward or back to better align the arm shaft with the armature shaft hole?

Post #2:
First of all, there is no fix I can do to the comm plate. It was manufactured with poor QC and is either used this way or chucked.

What I reasoned was if I could shift the gearplate slightly forward, the armature shaft would move closer to perperdicular to the chassis bottom. I then discovered if I did not seat the front tabs on the gearplate into the chassis, the armature shaft was fairly straight and the armature spun freely. The chassis actually runs great without the front tabs locked in place. If you do lock in the front tabs, then the gearplate get forced slightly backwards and becomes misaligned. So I have filed down the front tabs but still need to do a bit more.

Having done this, it makes me wonder how many more XT chassis might benefit from filing down the front tabs on the gearplate and allowing the gearplate to "float" a little. I wonder if the front tabs are needed at all. After all, a T-Jet gearplate is not held down by anything other than the gear clamp.

Post #3:
... I also played with the rear pocket on the chassis. In the couple XTs I have opened and used, it seems like the left (when looking from the rear of the chassis) side of the gearplate sits higher than the right - as if it is not seated well into the rear pocket. This could be an optical illusion or because the crown gear is located on that side of the chassis (and therefore in contact with the rear pinion gear).

I opened up the pocket slightly so the rear plate tab has more room in the pocket. although it still seems to want to sit higher than the right side. I did not open it up to allow the gear plate to shift forward, although that might be an option if just working with the front tabs does not solve the problem.

However, from the playing around I did with this chassis, and the result I got while still using a really badly warped comm plate, it makes me wonder whether the front tabs are really necessary. Especially if the quality of the parts are in question and the gearplate/chassis fit is not "spot on". Allowing the gearplate to have a bit of float does not seem like a bad idea. It is a matter of whether or not a floating gearplate finds it's "true center" while running or whether it moves constantly thereby giving no consistant performance.

And finally, Post #4:

After putting the gearplate in place, I noticed that I could move the front of the gearplate slighly from left to right. I am guessing the front tabs, in addition to holding down the front of the gearplate, were also designed to prevent the gearplate from moving side to side. Unfortunately the poor meshing qualities of the gearplate and chassis do not provide a secure locking position - at least not on this chassis.

If you look real closely at the front gearplate tabs, you will see a small ridge on the underside - my guess is this ridge is supposed to sit of the inside of the chassis pockets preventing side to side movement. On this chassis, both of them are not in that position and even if I force them there, they pop out.

So here are my thoughts. The front locking tabs (and the front pockets on the chassis) need to be really accurate to produce the support they were designed to provide without also producing some problems. When the fit isn't great, bad things can happen. For this particular chassis, it seems because the front gearplate tabs do not fully seat into the pockets, the gearplate gets kinda "bowed" because the front tabs "push" the gearplate back but the rear tabs hold it in place. With nowhere to go, the gearplate needs to warp. And then you get misalighed gears and an armature shaft no longer perpendicular to the gearplate and chassis.

By not hooking in the front tabs, I relieved the pressure on the gearplate allowing the gears to align and the arm shaft to straighten out (not perfect but very close). Because the tabs are still in place and sitting atop the pockets, the gearplate is raised in the front, thereby slightly raising the armature. This seemed to have the effect of freeing the armature even more as now it was not being pressed against the bottom of the chassis (I could see the beginnings of marks inside the chassis). As long as the comm plate makes contact with the brushes, this seems advantagous.

Although the chassis now runs great, I think a litle more tuning of the front tabs is in order, although I am almost afraid to touch it now the way it's running. But it will be a modification I need to contemplate further and experiment the next time I get a really messed up chassis.


----------



## Ralphthe3rd (Feb 24, 2011)

Bill Hall said:


> No sirs, (Ralph and Al) as terrifying as it might seem....:freak:
> 
> .... in a failed attempt to send slot cars back to a time before the wheel was invented; there was a series of AW lame throwers that used lever springs for the pick ups. They also had some horrendous solder globs ...er...jobs for current supply.
> 
> I remember the day specifically because I felt my IQ drop just looking at the pictures.


 OMG ! I Cannot BELIEVE MY EYES ! WTF was AW THINKING !?


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

Makes me wonder what happened to all the money Junior's parents paid to that engineering school. Someone was obviously sleeping in class. 

The fubar doesn't end there, by the way. The whole nose of the cars glow so well, they'd make Rudolph blush.


----------



## TeamMadMarsupial (Dec 23, 2012)

Speaking of pick-up shoes, wide pick-up shoes, has anybody seen these before?

If memory serves me correct, I snagged this picture off an e-bay auction and they may have been identified as an AJ's product? So, anybody remember these, or were they possibly a home made set?

I found them very intriguing and thought they may help with the drifting/power sliding with an old AFX chassis.


----------



## FOSTBITTEN (Aug 1, 2013)

TeamMadMarsupial said:


> Speaking of pick-up shoes, wide pick-up shoes, has anybody seen these before?
> 
> If memory serves me correct, I snagged this picture off an e-bay auction and they may have been identified as an AJ's product? So, anybody remember these, or were they possibly a home made set?
> 
> I found them very intriguing and thought they may help with the drifting/power sliding with an old AFX chassis.


Now that is a set of p/u shoes!! Unless it is the angle of the pic. Those front wheels are a little toed out wow!

Anyway my thought on tuning these p/u shoes. Try flipping the guide flag to the pin side & see if that helps some. I have 1 or 2 maybe that handle turns a lot better by doing this! Just a little change but it works for some chassis' so I do not question it.


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

Bill Hall said:


> .... there was a series of AW lame throwers that used lever springs for the pick ups.


Correction, Bill. "...*is* a series...". I just bought a Ford GT Flamethrower at Hobby Lobby two weeks ago. The box says "Release 11," which is the latest release of X-Tractions listed on the AW website. 

It has the same pickup setup. Bronze strips run from the bulb connections rearward to the pickup shoe cups. The cups have conventional coil springs for the shoes. My guess is that the bronze strips were not designed to be leaf springs, but just contacts to get track-power from the hanger to the lightbulb. 

I am assuming the side with the hanger-and-cup piece *not* radically dimpled by the rivet and warped away from the plastic chassis is the way it was designed to be. On that side, the bronze strip is constantly in contact with the *hanger* just in front of the spring cup, and *barely* makes contact with the *shoe* (maybe not at all) when the shoe is brought up to running position. It's just on the goobered side that the bronze strip is levered up by the warped cup and exerts constant pressure on the shoe. 

So junior's days at engineering school may not have been _completely_ wasted. But the factory personnel who set up or worked the assembly machinery definitely need a stern talking-to. And the QC guy should be canned, if, in post-Mao China, you can no longer just take him behind the dumpster and shoot him.

-- D


----------



## slotcarman12078 (Oct 3, 2008)

The earlier release flame throwers used the bronze strips as leaf springs. There were no coil springs in the hanger cups. Evidently, they reconfigured the concept for release 11. I thought the Xtraction racing rigs used a different set up though... Very strange!! :freak:


----------



## Dslot (Sep 2, 2007)

slotcarman12078 said:


> The earlier release flame throwers used the bronze strips as leaf springs. There were no coil springs in the hanger cups. Evidently, they reconfigured the concept for release 11.


Thanks for the correction, Joe. :wave: I just assumed that the GT in the earlier pic had lost its coil spring when the previous owner fiddled with it. Apparently not. My error.

-- D


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

".....And the QC guy should be canned, if, in post-Mao China, you can no longer just take him behind the dumpster and shoot him."

What is the world coming too?


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

I seem to have found that the Aurora long step shoe works better on JL XTs than the ski shoes supplied with the car. Maybe it is just that the JL ski shoes are junk, or something about the geometry of the XT chassis makes the long step a better shoe choice.

I've tried bending the JL ski shoes to mimick a long step shoe and I've gotten close. But I am worndering if others have found the long step a better choice on the JL XTs? These would of course be pre-dot magnet chassis.

Thanks...Joe


----------



## copperhead71 (Aug 2, 2007)

I have around 450 non-and magnatraction/jl/aw/afx chassis and I only have 1 pair of j.l skinny shoes on a car.I throw those in the garbage if they come on the car I buy(the jl skinny shoes).But me having a large amount of afx short step,long step, and afx ski shoes plays a role in the jl skinny shoes going in the garbage.I also discard the aw wide shoes right in my junk box.The aw chassis with that rear traction magnet goes in the junk box two! (But not the white chassis stuff)In general i part all j.l.and A.w cars for the springs,magnets,top gear clamps,front wheels if they are straight,tires and brushes.But if I lived somewhere I hade no place to get parts,cars or whole cars for cheap to part.($7.00 for a dirty duke is worth the parts I need) I shore as heck would not be throwing anything in the garbage if I didn't have a source(s)to replace it.j.l ski shoes are very thin and skinny to me and the afx seem more workable.:wave:


----------

