# Armature resistance



## lenny

What is the resistance of a stock Aurora T-Jet arm, and that of a stock Aurora slim line arm?

Thanks in advance.

Dan


----------



## martybauer31

The stock arms range from about 15 up to 21 ohms, not sure about the slim lines and if there is a difference there or not.

Marty


----------



## TJETDRAGRACER

*Go (A.G&G. HOBBY )*

He is the Armature guy to go to. ( [email protected] )


----------



## SwamperGene

Marty's right on the stock arms, though in my own experience less than 16 is few and far between. I have one, (1), uno little NOS slimline arm in the gearplate, it measures 8.1-8.2 @ 70° F. 
If you're testing potential product, IMO you should be sure the arms are at room temp and record that temp with the results. :thumbsup:


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> ...you should be sure the arms are at room temp and record that temp with the results. :thumbsup:


I'm doing exactly that...

So if you were developing a new 'stock' armature, what resistance would you make it, measured at 70 degrees...

Dan


----------



## martybauer31

I think it kind of depends on what you are going for....

Are you looking to replicate the feel on the original T-Jets? Run them at 18-20 volts? 12 volts? What kind of magnets? I would assume a new inline armature to be much more efficient that the older pancake arms, so if you wanted to match a 16 ohm pancake for instance, maybe look at an inline arm around 18 to 20 ohms? 

My guess would be you'll need to experiment until it "feels" right, if you know what I am saying.


----------



## SwamperGene

If I were designing a T-Jet chassis, I'd personally shoot for 16 on the finished armature. :thumbsup:


----------



## AfxToo

I've always thought that the ideal TJet arm would be in the 8-10 ohm range. TJets really need some torque to drive all the gears involved with its relatively primitive chassis layout. The 6 ohm arms are on the edge of being acceptable for use with race set power supplies, especially with more than one lane per power pack. The low resistance arms don't give you a lot of margin for error if you have heat issues. A nice set of polymer motor mags would alleviate some of the heat concern but the performance with wall warts may still be an issue. The original Tuff Ones had low resistance arms and weak magnets. Bad combination. They tended to run hot.

The 15-16 ohm arms work well with lower end power supplies but to bring them to life you need to take heroic measures in removing every bit of friction from the drivetrain because they are so lacking in bottom end torque. That's why folks like to run them at 20-24 volts. So something in the middle, 8-10 ohms, seems like a good compromise. The GJet serves as a good case in point for the viability of a middle of the road arm for a chassis that needs both a decent amount of torque and relatively modest power supply requirements. 

Whether or not a mid range arm would be commercially successful depends on the market. The Fray TJet purists, i.e., Order of the Gray Lams, would probably avoid anything that deviates from their narrow template, but those of us in the much larger buying population who are looking for a very decent all around arm would appreciate an engineered solution as opposed to what Aurora produced. If the arm is built with a better lamination material (thinner too, to allow for 3-4 lams with the same thickness and mass), higher temperature wire, flatter comm, better comm material, better balance, etc., it would be attractive to me. If you're going to make the effort to build something that's already been done, try to improve it and take advantage of the advances in technology and material science that have occurred in the nearly half century since the original TJet was designed.


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> If I were designing a T-Jet chassis, I'd personally shoot for 16 on the finished armature. :thumbsup:


...why?


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> I've always thought that the ideal TJet arm would be in the 8-10 ohm range. TJets really need some torque to drive all the gears involved with its relatively primitive chassis layout. The 6 ohm arms are on the edge of being acceptable for use with race set power supplies, especially with more than one lane per power pack. The low resistance arms don't give you a lot of margin for error if you have heat issues. A nice set of polymer motor mags would alleviate some of the heat concern but the performance with wall warts may still be an issue. The original Tuff Ones had low resistance arms and weak magnets. Bad combination. They tended to run hot.
> 
> The 15-16 ohm arms work well with lower end power supplies but to bring them to life you need to take heroic measures in removing every bit of friction from the drivetrain because they are so lacking in bottom end torque. That's why folks like to run them at 20-24 volts. So something in the middle, 8-10 ohms, seems like a good compromise. The GJet serves as a good case in point for the viability of a middle of the road arm for a chassis that needs both a decent amount of torque and relatively modest power supply requirements.
> 
> Whether or not a mid range arm would be commercially successful depends on the market. The Fray TJet purists, i.e., Order of the Gray Lams, would probably avoid anything that deviates from their narrow template, but those of us in the much larger buying population who are looking for a very decent all around arm would appreciate an engineered solution as opposed to what Aurora produced. If the arm is built with a better lamination material (thinner too, to allow for 3-4 lams with the same thickness and mass), higher temperature wire, flatter comm, better comm material, better balance, etc., it would be attractive to me. If you're going to make the effort to build something that's already been done, try to improve it and take advantage of the advances in technology and material science that have occurred in the nearly half century since the original TJet was designed.


I have 100 arms here that range from 2 ohm to 15 ohms. There are roughly a dozen of 7 different resistance levels. The magnets I had made are on par and possibly a bit stronger than the JL/AW mags. Even stronger magnets are in the works, especially for the lower ohm arms, and for the Dash version of the Magna-Traction chassis. 

The arms are currently tri-lam and the lams are made of silicone steel sheet. I've inquired about thinner/more lams. The number of laminations is meaningless if the material they are made of is garbage. The purpose of multiple laminations is to reduce what are called 'eddy currents'. Eddy currents reduce the efficiency of the motor by creating an opposing force to the magnetic field. Due to space constraints of the pancake design, 4 or 5 laminations are probably the upper limit. The comm is copper. 

Here is my plan so far.

Since this is the feedback I've been getting (and since the supply of original T-Jets is running out), the T-Jet was going to be recreated as close to the original as possible. There would be exceptions, like the magnets, which would be stronger. There would be armature and magnet 'upgrades' available. 

The shoes would be as close to Aurora original as possible. It seems the material and the shape of the shoes is 'ideal'. If this is a mistake, let me know. 

I would like input as to what the optimum material and shape would be for the brushes.

I've been told to keep the pinion gear at 9 teeth, instead of the JL/AW 14 tooth gear. I'd like pros and cons regarding the different gears, not just 'this is what it should be because that's the way Aurora did it'...

Seems brass gears are 'desirable'. Why? Low friction, light weight, durable Delrin or Nylatron gears seem to be better suited for this application. Do people just like the look of brass or is there a technical advantage that brass gives you? Brass gears weigh more, have greater friction and raise the center of gravity, which are all negatives. 


This is your chance to speak up. I'm not looking for a laundry list of everyones esoteric wishes, but I do want input backed by solid reasoning (if possible).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Dash Magna-Trac chassis would allow me to be more 'creative' and incorporate changes that might eventually find their way into the T-Jet. Like a snap in rear axle, poly mags (notched so they sit closer to the track), along with lower ohm arms...

The sleeper in this whole thing is the slimline. With decent magnets to go along with even the 'stock' 9 ohm arm, this platform could really take off! 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps I should open a separate thread or create a google discussion group for these chassis topics.


----------



## dtomol

*T jet Gears*

I firmly believe that the brass gear on the top of the gear plate will last a lot longer that the plastic ones. You can hog out the brass gears to make them lighter buy milling out pockets or make a big grove in one side of the gear. The CNC machined gears mesh much better, so the need to lap in the gears is not necessary. I understand is more expensive for this would make a great option along with different armature resistance’s and stronger magnets. While on this subject venting the side of the chassis to allow the heat to escape would be an excellent option like the Magnatraction chassis. Also domed brushes with a notch so they do not rotate are a good upgrade. Or my personnel favorite the Super II brush cups. Lower the gear plate into the chassis also helps handling as well. The Tjet purist will hate these Ideas. But in my opinion sorting through hundred of chassis to find the perfect set of matched components is so costly & time consuming. The same thing happened in stock class drag racing. That is what prompted Bracket racing. I very good friend of mine worked at Chrysler dealer he was racing a stock class Dodge Demon 340 CID. He ordered 10 set of cylinder heads head them flowed to see which ones out of the box flowed the best but he was able to send the rest back. If the parts are made to tighter tolerances from the begin it will reduce the cost to the racers & level the paying field.


----------



## rodstrguy

Dan, First, let me Thank You for all your efforts to this hobby. Second, let me warn you (not that you already do not know) that you will and cannot make everyone happy.
I only want to opine on the gears with the experiance of the JL/AW chassis and the Thunder+ chassis. I would rather have brass gears as they seem more durable as well as seem to be more concentric. Some of the plastic gears we have all seen have been pretty lop-sided, malformed, or just junk. If the quality of plastic gears was the same as the brass ones I wouldn't mind them, but would still rather have brass. 
Again, Thank You for all you are doing to further this hobby.


----------



## mking

*new T-jet*

sorry to hear your dropping the inline tjet. i would have bought lots, promise!

as for shoes, most of the people i know who race t-jets use aftermarket shoes. BSRT, Wizzard, and Slottech all make aftermarket shoes for T-jet. Those shoes are ski shoes, in that they do not have the step of the original shoe. no one at the fray (80 plus racers) used original shoes. 

i think high quality delrin gears would be fine. especfially if they were made from a different color so you could tell them apart frrom the crappy JL/AW plastic gears.


----------



## martybauer31

I will echo Mike Kings thoughts that it's too bad you're not doing the inline arms.

That being said though, I think doing a new chassis that mimics the performance of the original would be a great thing, there are enough super fast cars out there. Those of us that don't have stockpiles of the originals to go through would love to get a hold of a chassis that is/has:

snap in rear axles, #1 in my book
straight every time (no #4 chassis equivalents  )
runs well out of the box
can interchange parts with the originals (bodies, arms, shoes, brushes, etc)
brass gears are great, but a high quality delrin would be good as well
I would vote to keep with the 9 tooth gear, not because it's the original, but because they just seem to run better


Overall it would just be nice to not have to spend a great deal of time matching the right top plate with the right chassis, gears, etc. Ideally it would be like the G-Jet, you put your stock parts together and know it's going to run well. That is something I would happily pay for.

Just some of my desires, I'm sure you'll do a great job whichever direction you go...


----------



## Bill Hall

*I got two words..."Eli Whitney"!*

Parts interchangeability with multiple gear ratios and a variety of axle settings is what made the T-jet great conceptually. Versatility and reliability were part of the original draft.

Coupled with some decent QC they are still rattling along with gusto. As said previously you wont be able to please everyone. We all have seen the second coming of the T-jet with applied voodoo economics. Needless to say they are well short of the mark.

Given the monsterous start up costs I would think that adhering tightly to the basic template would be the ticket. The target market is a very narrow window so it has to appeal to as many disciplines as possible. Be you a NOS putt putt guy, a NAS-FRAY racer, the average Joe gomer modeler type; the t-jet works. The t-jet is firmly plopped in the middle of the road. My concern would be that too much deviation in any one direction would leave odd men out. 

Crawl before ya walk and walk before ya run. Over time we saw the original design recieve many successful tweaks. It worked because it was a methodical progression based on a solid platform.

I would agree with AFX Too on the arms... in principle. A hair less than a Tuff ones wind...wild ones or speed wound would be my personal choice. However the inherent flaw is that it would deviate from the original template. A well made 16 is probably the ticket. There is no reason that in time one couldnt develop a speed part line of your own.

Plastic gears suck plain and simple. Pretty much a one use deal and toss them. The beauty of the brass gears was their potential for re-use and setting up multiple ratios. Coupled with some of the more modern high tooth count crowns the three available cluster ratios offered some huge variety. When you also start playing with tire profiles the tunability is myriad. IMHO the brass gears also provide the nifty flywheel effect that make a stock t-jet coast like an eight day clock because of their weight. Something that the spastic plastic pancakes lack. I would say start at nine teeth. Appeals to the Fray boyz and the idea that the fourteen tooth is arguably unuseable for most home/short tracks.

We could blather on indefinately on wishes and haystacks; but the bottom line is QC. Is it round? Is it straight? Is it square? Is it plumb? Answer yes to these questions and your well on your way to a winner.

Much fuss has been made over affordability and while it is a primary concern, I would gladly pony up for a solid contender in the t-jet realm. There is no way to appeal to "lil Johnny's gotta have it Mattel crowd" and the "grizzled and grumpy slot veteran". It's apples and oranges. 

I see no reason to guild the lily. We've all managed to cobble along with the originals. The point is that the NOS Aurora stuff is a finite resource. There's a mountain of aftermarket stuff available. Build a solid versatile platform and they will come.


----------



## lenny

mking said:


> sorry to hear your dropping the inline tjet. i would have bought lots, promise!


It's not being dropped, just pushed back...


----------



## lenny

mking said:


> no one at the fray (80 plus racers) used original shoes.


This is the problem. I'm not making this chassis for 80 guys. 

What's the best shoe for 95% of the people out there? 

What are the best brushes for 95% of the market? What is the best arm for this same 95%??

When the non-frayers buy an original T-Jet chassis, do they yank the Aurora shoes off because they're garbage? When a home racer buys a T-Jet chassis, do they replace the shoes and put on an aftermarket shoe? Do they pop out the brushes and put in something else? I'm not dissing the Fray people but they are a very small part of the market. If I build an arm at 16 ohms per pole, will it make the fray guys happy but alienate everyone else?

Are the AW brushes good or are they junk? The factory will charge me the same for a 16 ohm arm and a 2 ohm arm. Perhaps there will be different 'flavors' of the same basic platform but one will have stronger mags/lower arm. 

A snap in rear axle has to be just about the easiest mod to this chassis, but in doing so it would be deviating from the original. Is this a bad idea?


----------



## martybauer31

What's the best shoe for 95% of the people out there?

I think there are a few types that stand out, the slot techs are great, as are the American Lines, and the BSRTs, they all do the job quite nicely

What are the best brushes for 95% of the market? 

JB's and Wizzards are both pretty darn good

What is the best arm for this same 95%?? 

I'd say the standard gray lam arm that everyone is using now, not just the fray guys

When the non-frayers buy an original T-Jet chassis, do they yank the Aurora shoes off because they're garbage? 

No, it's just that some are better. That being said, those siler plated things on the AW and JL cars are just plain awful...

When a home racer buys a T-Jet chassis, do they replace the shoes and put on an aftermarket shoe? Do they pop out the brushes and put in something else? I'm not dissing the Fray people but they are a very small part of the market. If I build an arm at 16 ohms per pole, will it make the fray guys happy but alienate everyone else?

I would guess your typical home racer would do absolutely nothing, and if the car is a bad build quality, like some of the newer releases have been, they will run them around their Tomy track, get frustrated with them, and never buy them again. I agree that you shouldn't be building a car for fray guys to alienate everyone else, but you should probably be building them for groups like ours here on this board and for newer folks into the hobby. Make it so a new guy can throw it on the track and get some laps in and have fun with his kids, but also so a guy that wants to tweak the crap out of it can do so as well.

Are the AW brushes good or are they junk? The factory will charge me the same for a 16 ohm arm and a 2 ohm arm. Perhaps there will be different 'flavors' of the same basic platform but one will have stronger mags/lower arm.

A snap in rear axle has to be just about the easiest mod to this chassis, but in doing so it would be deviating from the original. Is this a bad idea?

No, it's a phenomenal idea, again, relate it for the masses. A new guy wants to try a new rear end set up, he clicks the old one out and pops in a new one.... no searching for the right tools to get everything out and then try to balance everything just right to get them back in. It's a bonus for the tweakers as we can have multiple setups for different tracks, lanes, you name it, that is a win-win for everyone. If you don't change anything else from the original, change the rear axle to a snap in.


----------



## vaBcHRog

Dan,

First a great big thanks for the chassis you are going to make.

As for the Slim-Line a 7-8ohm range is good. The magnets are the waekest link if you can double the strength on them you will be doing good. The chassis had one defect from the factory. Many had one pickup spring nub to big and it affected the pickup springs. A qick trim down to normal size fixed this. Ther other defect was either the chassis was too narrow on the rear axel inside area or the crown gear boss was too large. I believe it was the chassis as its the same crown gear used with the 12 Tooth hop up. Also some chassis had the alignment between the aramature top hole and bottom hole off. Not sure if this was a gear plate error or chassis.

Now as to the TJET aramatures. I would recommend you stay with the dual lam and 16 ohms or greater for your stock chassis so they will be legal for the existing major races across the country. 

You also might want to think about your own Dash-One TJET chassis with the 3 lam 8-10 Ohm aramature, stronger magnets and a 12 Tooth rear pinion and some cool new TJET wheels of your choice

Whatever you decide on I wish you the best of luck and great success

Roger Corrie


----------



## vaBcHRog

Dan one other thing I would consider if I was making the slimline would be two versions. One original and one longer sa up to 1.7 - 1.9 inch wheelbase. The number of bodies that would fit would almost be unlimited. Almost all the HOt Rods and American Muscle cars and all the Vintage NASCARs that are out there would fit. Not to mention all the Vintage Indy and Grand Prix cars 

Roger Corrie


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> ...why?


Bill pretty much said it all.

Some other thoughts:

Fray t-jet racing is hardly just "The Fray" anymore. This style of T-Jet racing is prominent across the country with little variations, especially in the chassis. While true Fray rules tend to be borderline psychotic, the madness has produced probably the finest variation of a basically stock Thunderjet chassis. A testament to this is that in open T-Jet racing, Fray-legal cars generally WIN. Against JL T-Jets and their 14-ohm arms and wild gearing, Fray legal cars generally WIN. There's half or better of your R&D right there.

Let's not forget VHORS, NITRO, and the others who run fined tuned originals.

From a business standpoint, again Fray "style" does come to mind. With the demise of the Aurora chassis, there will ultimately have to be a decision made to allow a replacement. That replacement does not have to be necessarily better (thus possibly costlier) than the original but consistency with the original will weigh heavily on it's wide acceptance. There is already chatter about legalizing JL/AW arms, if this happens I highly doubt a third choice would even be considered.


----------



## partspig

Lenny, If you are going to make a tjet, then by all means make a tjet. Critical factors will include parts interchangeability with older chassis and bodies, acceptance by racing groups is another factor to consider, plastic gears are just fine, as long as they are of good quality. Plastic gives you less weight on top and less rotating mass. They worked fine on my TYCO 440X-2's and others, and could be lapped with a Bic lighter. Plastic gears are a cheap upgrade that will give you more power. Plastic gears are one reason why most race groups ban Johnny Lightnings. Two other items to address are pick-up shoes and brushes. I favor the just a tad longer BSRT style pick-up shoes, reason; delivers more juice to the motor and is a cheap upgrade. The brushes I would recommend would be notched on one side so they will not spin, much like the old Faller? Another cheap upgrade for more power. I would offer snap in rear axle chassis, armatures with different ohm ratings and laminations, stronger magnets, silver electricals, etc, as after market parts, or hop-up upgrades. If you are going to make a chassis, support it with after market parts. Don't do like Tom Lowe and just make chassis. Support from racing groups will be weak because he is not providing replacement parts. Enough said.............


----------



## slotking

from a marketing stand point, here is How I look at.

Many folks run VHORS or FRAY or STOCK aurora t-jets.
That rule is (1 think) is 16ohm, so I would shoot for 16.2ohm 2 lam arm to cover the variance. make it look as close to the AURORA gray lam arm as possible so that groups include the arm in their rules instead of trying to tech it. 

make the chassis the same as aurora, parts can interchange willy nilly
use the same metal gear plate gears. 

The closer it is to the original aurora, the better it will fill the need of the t-jet'ers

Yes there are those who want improvements, but thats the magnatraction, and SG+:wave:



If you looking at the magnatracion type car, then go with the mean green type arm. ie 5.6 to 6ohms. So people can add the hot arm to their t-jet if needed. 

Starting off on a project like this, you do not want to spread yourself to thin.
You need bang for your buck!
A t-jet clone will give you that.


----------



## dtomol

*New Tjet Chassis*

Her is an intresting mod to A Tjet. http://www.howorld.net/archives/howto/conversions/tj_chmod/chassmod.html Maybe at least two versions of the Tjet one stock on a hotter version with a lower ohm arm stronger magnets vented chassis brush cups etc.


----------



## slotrod65

My thought are this: Don't try to please everyone: do your best to stay true to the stock original solid rivet T-jet chassis. The original T-jet design was a good design that was durable, and highly adaptable. Brass gears, brass metal contacts and brass shoes are all must. Plastic gears are often warped an are less modifiable as compared to brass. A 16 ohm arm is the best "stock" ohm rating, lower ohm ratings are not for everyone. 14 tooth gears make a car too twitchy for a home set. I avoid the JL chasis because of the gearing. Stock T-jet brushes were admittedly a weak point. The point is that everyone will make their own changes and part swaps. The most important thing is that the chassis work straight our of the box on Aurora lock and joiner and AFX track, with no more tweaking than a little lubricant. Quality non-warped parts, that interchange from chassis to chassis are also a must. 

Phred


----------



## dtomol

*New Tjet Chassis*

I would be interested in testing some of the lower OHM arms & your magnets. I have some AG arms to compare them too along with Super Two arms as well. Besides track testing using a chassis Dyno would also help.


----------



## bearsox

Boy O boy with all the wants and desires i can think of ... the best thing in my opinion is to run ! Run as fast as you can away from this whole idea . I say that half serious and half joking. Truth is while i love the tjet , it has been the downfall of many an idealist who thought he could build a better mouse trap ! OK so you just gotta make it right ? Ok then do yourself the biggest favor you can and make it EXACTLY like the original period . Then do what all the others did not do and oversee the project from start to finish like no other before you. 
Harrison learned the lesson of not being there and trusting that the prototype would be what he had for the end product. Well we seen the disasterous results that had. JL came along and decided the better mouse trap was the way to go. Again we seen how that went when QC was left behind and they went on the cheap for materials. AW was next and while the jury is still out on some aspects , they too decided to go with the burgerKing approach and have it thier way with less than stellar results ! You still wanna try this project ? Well then the formulary Aurora followed as old and antequeted as it is still worked enough to keep all us old kids begging for more 40+ years later. Make the chassis as original as possible in every aspect then offer your up grades. That would give the baseline guys what they want and give the racers / builders what they want since ALL parts could be interchangable ! You got a pretty good dialog going here for aftermarket items , upgrades and hop up items so a suggestion would be to focus in 2 distinct and separate areas. 1st the ORIGINAL DUPLICATE chassis where discussion should be DONE and second the after market items / options. Not only will that get the guys buying but i would suspect you would get the high praise that others had hoped for just by following a 40 year old formula.

Good luck , Dennis Rutherford Road Rage HO


----------



## dreese

My take on a new chassis would be start with what works. I would want to see an arm ranging from 15-18 ohms with complete parts interchangeability. The only major change I would want is the quick change rear axle. I play with my cars, but seldom race them in competition. I want four cars that run will together, and if the arms and magnets are in the standard NOS Tjet range, the easier it is to make them into IROC type sets.


----------



## Marty

My $.02 worth.

Make it as close to the original as possible. It is a good work horse that responds well to modifications. The heavier, more friction brass gears are the tradeoff for the poor quality and low life expectancy of plastic gears. If you can find a material that is durable and can easily be made consistantly good, go for it!! Again follow Aurora's lead. Make a standard T-Jet and later upgrade to a Tuff-Ones version.

I don't want to offend anyone here, this is my opinion only!! I don't care for Fray style cars at all!! In my opinion they are plain ugly. I would not make a chassis that meets their secifications, let them do that themselves.

If you make a base T-Jet chassis it can be fun for a lot of people. Fun for the guys like me that want a car to run decent right out of the box. Add some slip on silicones and go! When I was into modifying cars for racing, it was a ball tinkering with them to get the best performance. Taking the stock chassis and making it my own.

Dan,
Let me echo the statement that I appreciate your efforts and the nergy you put into our hobby.

MOO
Marty


----------



## lenny

slotrod65 said:


> My thought are this: Don't try to please everyone: do your best to stay true to the stock original solid rivet T-jet chassis. The original T-jet design was a good design that was durable, and highly adaptable. Brass gears, brass metal contacts and brass shoes are all must. Plastic gears are often warped an are less modifiable as compared to brass. A 16 ohm arm is the best "stock" ohm rating, lower ohm ratings are not for everyone. 14 tooth gears make a car too twitchy for a home set. I avoid the JL chasis because of the gearing. Stock T-jet brushes were admittedly a weak point. The point is that everyone will make their own changes and part swaps. The most important thing is that the chassis work straight our of the box on Aurora lock and joiner and AFX track, with no more tweaking than a little lubricant. Quality non-warped parts, that interchange from chassis to chassis are also a must.
> 
> Phred


If I don't use solid rivets will I be ostracized?


----------



## TheRockinator

I agree with all who want a purely original, as in stock Aurora, chassis. With one exception. I also agree with Marty Bauer about the snap in rear axle. The biggest pain in working on a t-jet is removing the rear end to fit a new gear, add spacers, or even just change the sili/sponge tires a lot of us use. Have you ever managed to push a brass spacer through the rear axle hole? I've done it and now a good racing chassis is a shelf queen holder. Heck, if you ONLY built a quality stock replacement chassis with the snap in axle option I would by MANY.

Later, The former Fray racer and Seattle Fray team Captain Rockinator


----------



## SwamperGene

Marty said:


> I would not make a chassis that meets their secifications, let them do that themselves.


Under that...."look"....and except for the magnets is very much a stock Aurora chassis, again, it's a shining example of how far you can go with a stock configuration. You could probably apply 90% of the fray chassis rules to box stock T-Jet racing. So a stock type chassis would work for you and them. :thumbsup:

Fray racing isn't for everyone, but every T-Jet racer can learn from it.


----------



## tomhocars

Gene,I'll bring some to you the next time I'm out your way.I don't want to have to borrow one of Bill's junkers.Tom


----------



## AfxToo

> I also agree with Marty Bauer about the snap in rear axle


Absolutely fabulous idea. This alone would eliminate one of the most tedious impediments to testing & tuning TJets. Brush cups w/springs would be high on my list as well.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> If I don't use solid rivets will I be ostracized?


I don't see why you would be, it certainly doesn't "make a winner". I don't see how they could create any difference electrically or mechanically. As an argument, hollow rivets do provide a ventilation path _through_ the motor box.


----------



## SwamperGene

tomhocars said:


> Gene,I'll bring some to you the next time I'm out your way.I don't want to have to borrow one of Bill's junkers.Tom


----------



## martybauer31

lenny said:


> If I don't use solid rivets will I be ostracized?


No way, I have just as many good open rivet t-jets as I do solid ones, I don't think for a second that the solid rivets is what makes the t-jet great.

I do also like AFXToo's recommendation for the brush cups....


----------



## thunderjetgene

Hey Dan - Make a real TJet replacement, please! I'd like to see between 15-17 ohms, and a hop-up arm similar to the Wild Ones arms, though I'm not sure off the top of my head what that would be. I have a couple Wild Ones cars from my youth that have both Mean Green and Tuff Ones Speedwind arms - so, around 6 ohms and 7-8 ohms respectively? My guess...

Gene Hedden


----------



## '65 Nova

$9.99 and everyone
will buy them...


----------



## lenny

TheRockinator said:


> I agree with all who want a purely original, as in stock Aurora, chassis. With one exception. I also agree with Marty Bauer about the snap in rear axle. The biggest pain in working on a t-jet is removing the rear end to fit a new gear, add spacers, or even just change the sili/sponge tires a lot of us use. Have you ever managed to push a brass spacer through the rear axle hole? I've done it and now a good racing chassis is a shelf queen holder. Heck, if you ONLY built a quality stock replacement chassis with the snap in axle option I would by MANY.
> 
> Later, The former Fray racer and Seattle Fray team Captain Rockinator


Would a snap in rear axle get FRAY approval?


----------



## martybauer31

I tell you what, they get made straight every time, with a snap in rear axle and I can swap old t-jet stuff in and out, I'd pay double that....


----------



## martybauer31

lenny said:


> Would a snap in rear axle get FRAY approval?


It would eventually, like everything else, it took time for the BSRT shoes to get approved but they did. The RTHO gears got approved among others. There are only a finite amount of these old chassis left, they will definitely need to allow something new. If they don't, then they will die off just like everything else that doesn't want to change, and something new will come in. But the great thing about the fray is that they are using the 40 year old chassis as a platform and using some newer technologies to enable them to go faster. The majority of us that don't have the overstock, would be enough pressure I think to make changes to just about anything...


----------



## TJetJunkster

Please replicate the original T-Jet chassis as close as is humanly possible! It is a unique piece of work with unique qualities for the hobbiest. Improve only the motor brushes and possibly the quality of the arms. The rest is perfect. Let the aftermarket parts makers take care of all the preferred racing needs. When we run out of the originals we will wish they were back in their original form. Thanks.
Tjetjunkster


----------



## slotking

I agree,
if they want snap in axles, run a inline:freak::woohoo:
:roll::roll:

again, if it is a tech headache for those that run the org t-jet, it will be accepted faster.

If they want snap in axle, they can cut the chassis


----------



## slotking

lenny said:


> If I don't use solid rivets will I be ostracized?


Nope
we run both solid and open.
I think the solid rivet chassis is like because it was an earlier mold, so it worked better (in general).


----------



## slotking

Shoes

take a look at the slottech shoe.
It works the best for me.


----------



## oddrods

I am for a stock spec Tjet with better brushes. While the brush cups are a cool idea its just another part I have to get. While I am not a fan of a snap in axle I can see it as a plus. I think that top gears made from better quality plastics would be a plus as long as they are still interchangable with NOS gears. I think the biggest insurance for acceptance and success is quality control which to date has been great on all your other products. Myself, I can't wait for a slimline replacement! Again using quality and materials equil to or better than the origonals.


----------



## SwamperGene

Hey Mike :wave:



slotking said:


> Shoes
> 
> take a look at the slottech shoe.
> It works the best for me.


Me too. :thumbsup:

But for a rolling product I'd make the window taller, the Slottech shoe's natural restriction can be a problem with stock-size tires and low rails.


----------



## Jetracer

*New chassis*

I would say that sticking close to the original would be the best bet. Arms in the 16-20 range. Axle spacing, topplates, all shafts, gear center spacing. Chassis is useful right out of the box, good or not. Offer upgrades down the road. A quadralam would be nice down the road also.
Making sure that parts are interchangable with the original would also be wise. It doesnt matter if you're a dedicated racer or collector, most into tjets tinker to an extent and mixing and matching parts is a big part of it. 
Perfect example of what not to do is the Thunderplus chassis, it doesnt interchange, wasnt very good, so they never became useful other than to collect dust. If everything had interchanged then it wouldnt have been as much of a failure. It was of good quality (the arms sucked!), noone was able to do much with them due to lack of interchange with the original.
There are several different forms in which these chassis are used and all the purveyors of the different uses will try to sway you to what they think is the best way to produce them. Just remember, the original started it all, and everything else was developed from there. Build the base (and do it well), hop it up from there. Smart business also.


----------



## afxgns

If I was serious about this project, I would test the waters before I jumped in head first.

If you're going to do this, try making only a gearplate. This a VERY simple mold, so tooling costs would be minimized. If you get good responses to that, then try the chassis. This a MUCH more complicated mold, and much more pricey. (but you probably already know that.)

Then there is the electrical components. You will need to find a good Multi-slide shop or tool and die shop to produce these tools. Remember that copper is at an all time high and will continue to go up.

You need to optimize all of your tooling costs, so I would think about offering a "Rebuild Kit" This would include the new electricals, rivets and instructions to replace the electrics on an original t-jet. This would give at least some of your tools a second life and more options for ROI.

When it comes to being legal for the FRAY?
I would'nt count on anything. They have no sense of the amount of money it takes to produce this stuff. When BSRT pruduced their t-jet shoe, they were'nt legal for three years. A pure copy would be the only shure way.
Just keep asking yourself, "would I buy this" and you should be fine.

I would be happy to design any tooling you require, or help in any way I could.

Tim Leppert
journeyman tool and die maker (22 years)


----------



## afxgns

lenny said:


> Would a snap in rear axle get FRAY approval?


*NEVER*


----------



## RACERMAN

*New Tjet Chassis*

Lenny,make the chassis same as the NOS and watch the QC,thats been proven to make or break you.Make sure that all parts are interchangable with the originals.Make 2 setups, one for stock with a 16-18 ohm range and JL type magnets, the other with a hotter wind about 12-14 ohm and a stronger magnet.If you make a stronger magnet make sure its marked like Aurora did their blue and yellow magnets maybe with 2 marks.Don't make the chassis with a cheap plastic like JL did, they tend to warp easily with heat.Gear it with a 9 tooth gear and the hotter version with a 14 tooth like they did the tough ones.The top gears should be brass unless you use quality plastic not the cheap just to save on a few pennies.They will pay extra for the quality gears .On the hotter version maybe a plastic gear in the middle or all plastic, that use to be a hop up trick years ago.The original pickup shoes were good and lasted a long time because they were thick and great for home track racing.The pickup shoes should be like the bsrt type but 2 times as thick and would be competive with different racing clubs.They could be a tad longer.Make sure you have parts you can buy seperately.That was part of JL'S downfall.I would not make the slip in axle until you have perfected the tjet.After that,I would come out with a slip axle and maybe add another wheelbase hole in the front for an upgrade.On the magnatraction make sure the bottom of chassis is flat and not with a bulge underneath to drag on. Make the front wheels smaller so that the body will sit lower and handle better.As far as the slim line,They disappointed me because they ran hot but ask Roger Corrie on how improve them, he's the expert .I know you won't satisfy everyone but as long as you build an exact you will have something to build on.
Gary


----------



## lenny

RACERMAN said:


> ...and watch the QC,thats been proven to make or break you.


??????


----------



## Bill Hall

Jetracer said:


> ...snip....
> There are several different forms in which these chassis are used and all the purveyors of the different uses will try to sway you to what they think is the best way to produce them. Just remember, the original started it all, and everything else was developed from there. Build the base (and do it well), hop it up from there. Smart business also.


Well put.

Ooooh the big bad rear axle got the best of me!.....????

Gas is on the right grampa...now get off the side walk!

So ya want an original T-jet chassis with snap axle. NOT HAPPENING unless the chassis plastic is radically altered. Been there and done that about two years ago. The nylatron is TOO SOFT to survive more that a few snaps without distorting the axle hole....PERIOD!


----------



## Jetracer

An electrical rebuild kit would be a very good idea. How many of us have junk chassis just waiting for something like this to come along.


----------



## frhoracer

*new arms designs*

Greetings!
I will try to comment rather than lecture:
I agree with others that the quality needs to be high; or you will sell lots of cars to the racers that are looking for the gears that might work together... that's too much expense all around. 
The Aurora armatures are many different generations of design and the most common seem to be the last gasp of stock that never left the factory: red or gold wire 16-17 ohms, we racers look through for the nice ones.
The qualities of a good arm are freaks of the process unfortunately, I am not sure anyone would go to the cost of producing a high performance arm. My suggestions there are to make them a replacement part so that anyone can drop it in a tjet chassis and go: that defines a lot of specs right there. The places to improve vs. cost of course, are the more laminations the better and use a phenolic or aluminum commutator plate to keep them flat; maybe review the crimping of the comm to eliminate the dish effect most of them have. 
You may want to have a distinctive color on the poles just to identify who made it and what model they are. questions? I can do the lecture but I think few would read it! cheers!


----------



## bearsox

*snap in rears*

Bill ,
your dead right about the nylatron chassis material being too soft for snap in axles hence guys using boiling blocks to straighten the chassis. That would point towards making the chassis out of another material in order to use a snap in rear. And so it begins..... the changes to the chassis that is . Once you make that change how easy is it to tell yourself that another change now should be done . Then another and another and soon this chassis too becomes the abortion others became ! At the risk or repeating myself and others CLONE THE ORIGINAL right down the line and that includes arms , magnets , brushes etc ! Then make all the after market hop up stuff . That ensures your base product AND guys can pick and choose the hop up items that work best for them as you now have a new full line of products to offer. This from a business side makes the most sense as you get added sales across the board every time you introduce a new hope up item. Not to mention the buzz each time one gets to market. 

Later , Dennis /COLOR]


----------



## martybauer31

Bill Hall said:


> Well put.
> 
> Ooooh the big bad rear axle got the best of me!.....????
> 
> Gas is on the right grampa...now get off the side walk!
> 
> So ya want an original T-jet chassis with snap axle. NOT HAPPENING unless the chassis plastic is radically altered. Been there and done that about two years ago. The nylatron is TOO SOFT to survive more that a few snaps without distorting the axle hole....PERIOD!


Totally agree with you on that one Bill.... but why would you make it out of that and not something that can handle the frequent axle change? The G3 chassis works just fine as does the super G+ and I would assume the material used by Wizzard and slot tech would work as well.

Kinda seems like a non issue as long as you choose the right material.


----------



## martybauer31

afxgns said:


> *NEVER*


Whoa! Dare I ask why Tim?


----------



## blubyu

Please don't Copy!


----------



## LDThomas

*Great news about a new T-Jet out there...*

I have been reading along with much attention and joy. A new toy is always welcome as far as I am concerned. With this many responses, nearly all the possibilities have already been covered. I just thought I would put my 2-cents worth in so that another racer's opinion would be put into the fray (small "f"  ).

The most important element in a successful T-Jet entry will be reverse compatibility. The new chassis has to dimensionally interchangeable with the original. The same bodies have to fit. The consumables (pickup shoes, brushes, etc.) have to fit. And interchangeable gear plates would be a huge plus.

As for the armature's resistance, doesn't matter. The racing groups out there will probably keep their existing rules for some time regardless of what your new arm is like. Who knows, a different arm/magnet combo may very well spawn a whole new series of T-Jet racing and that would be good for the entire industry. If you already have several versions sitting on your desk, you can see that the options out there are limitless. Offering a couple of different arms would be one of the pluses that you can bring to the racing table.

In closing, I hope you are able to make some sense out of all these comments for all these guys that love playing with toys and I hope you are successful in bringing yet another great toy to market. I am certainly looking forward to it.

Thanks.

Larry


----------



## Bill Hall

*Stick in the mud*



martybauer31 said:


> Totally agree with you on that one Bill.... but why would you make it out of that and not something that can handle the frequent axle change? The G3 chassis works just fine as does the super G+ and I would assume the material used by Wizzard and slot tech would work as well.
> 
> Kinda seems like a non issue as long as you choose the right material.


Round and round we go! LOL. 

...Cuz then it wouldnt really be a t-jet... now would it.

Sorry Marty, I just cant get behind a bunch of changes for Dan's chassis debut. Call me stodgy and conservative, but the big void in the marketplace is a comfortable supply of NOS t-jets, not a hybridized version specifically geared to only one end of the target market. Dash needs all the numbers they can get.

So far it's fate and disasster 2....re-birth t-jets.... 0

....sure would be nice to get a small win for everyone.


----------



## martybauer31

Bill Hall said:


> Round and round we go! LOL.
> 
> ...Cuz then it wouldnt really be a t-jet... now would it.
> 
> Sorry Marty, I just cant get behind a bunch of changes for Dan's chassis debut. Call me stodgy and conservative, but the big void in the marketplace is a comfortable supply of NOS t-jets, not a hybridized version specifically geared to only one end of the target market. Dash needs all the numbers they can get.
> 
> So far it's fate and disasster 2....re-birth t-jets.... 0
> 
> ....sure would be nice to get a small win for everyone.


So what I hear is... you're a little bit country, and I'm a little bit rock and roll? 

Maybe I don't have the same memories of t-jets, they're pretty new to me, I grew up on magna-tractions...

I totally get the "they don't make 'em like they used to" argument, I do really love the old stuff, but the old stuff has been done, why not try to improve on it here and there? And by improvement, I don't mean make it faster, just more efficient and a bit easier to work on. I still want the ass end to kick out and slide in the corners, I just don't want to have to go through 300 parts to get a couple nice runners.

I just fail to see how a snap in axle destroys all you old guys dreams of how the t-jet should be. 

That all being said, if an exact replica of the original was made, and made to be straight and true right out of the box, I'd still be jumping up and down with the rest of you, I promise. It would just be cool to see some improvements on the original.


----------



## tjd241

*Me neither...*



Bill Hall said:


> I just cant get behind a bunch of changes for Dan's chassis debut.


I'll fall into this camp myself. I think the first toe into the water should be a conservative dunk. Most of what was available on NOS chassis got gobbled up bigtime when it became clear they were a finite resource (and what seems to be left now sells for a premium). So I think you'll have no trouble selling a quality remake of the tjet. If you debut it along with a hop-up kit (wheels/mags/gearplate/maybe an axle swap-out *if* the plastic allows it) you'll pretty much fill a pretty big hole in the market. Make it straight, axle holes correctly sized, smooth *BRASS* gear mesh, and interchangeable with most of what's out there (bods/ wheels/speed parts/etc), and the NOS buyers will become DNS buyers (*D*ash *N*ew *S*tock). The interchangeable aspect is huge though. As Dan pointed out himself, making a new item that is proprietary in nature is just plain inexcusable. nd

_BTW: Is there no way to make sure the factory delivers what you spec and give them as a prototype? Too bad you can't tie consumer sales into the production contract. If you order one thing yet they deliver something less... they should be paid accordingly or perhaps not at all._


----------



## bearsox

The closest way to TRY and ensure that the factory copies the prototype the way it is intended would be to use what is called a right of refusal. In this senario the factory makes the 1st short run and sends random chassis to the buyer for testing and evaluation. If the buyer says everything is ok then the run continues to the end. If there is a problem the run is stopped and the problem is either fixed at the factory's expense or the deal is dead at the buyers option. At that time the buyer is required to pay only the initial tool costs for the prototype. This whole concept is widely used to varying degrees in the orient but is negotiated in many ways so it is up to the buyer to get all the consessions he can. 
Otherwise you can use a pull order which allows you to have the line pull chassis in a run dictated by the buyer. These then also would be inspected but you would need to work on a spot fix . If one cannot be done the buyer is still on the hook for the full run costs. By far it is best to be as hands on as possible so if that requires you to have a stay near the factory then it would be a good idea.

Dennis:wave:


----------



## SplitPoster

Enjoying the discussion very much..... 

So, the original was so "good" that the debate is whether to make any mods at all..... so the origninal sounds like the obvious place to start? A myriad of aftermarket hop ups and mods for those who want them..... 

My only question: why does everyone assume all this has to be done in China? A friend manufactures relatively low-volume specialty equipment for hunting and commercial applications. With the high cost of fuel and shipping, and with the weaker dollar, he can have work done in the US for similar cost - he actually got a lower bid here for his most recent project, with quicker delivery and far less in freight cost. Certainly better opportunity for oversight.


----------



## tjd241

*We can make stuff?*



SplitPoster said:


> My only question: why does everyone assume all this has to be done in China?


If so, just another plus for a "new" tjet chassis. hmmm... Made in the USA... Kinda has a nice ring to it. nd


----------



## Grandcheapskate

lenny said:


> If I don't use solid rivets will I be ostracized?


Dan,
I really don't think anyone will turn you into an ostrich. ...Well, I thought it was funny.

I am not a racer nor someone who understands all the factors that go into the electricals (ex. relationship of arm resistance to magnet strength). And there are some obvious improvements which could be made (such as a hole in the chassis to allow heat to escape, i.e. AFX chassis, or the snap-in rear axle), but every change takes you away from the original and that, in my opinion, would be a mistake. 

My two cents worth:

1. Except for minor, commonly replaceable things (like pickup shoe shape), copy the original exactly and make all parts interchangeable.

2. Go for just one part first, but make it a part that fills an already existing need (gears, armature, springs, wheels, bare chassis, axles, etc.) and will be bought quickly, as replacement parts, by those with original Aurora chassis. That way you can get feedback on that part before going to the next step. Once that part is good, move to another part until you have manufactured all the necessary components. Once you know all the parts are good, hopefully the fully assembled product will be good.

3. Think about contracting with a third party that already makes a "better" something; don't reinvent the wheel. For example, if someone already makes a great replacement pickup shoe, maybe you should use that. If somebody already makes better brushes, use them. They have already been tested and approved. But change nothing that alters the basic characteristic or interchangability of the original. For instance, there's really no reason to make exact copies of the pickup shoes that then have to be modified to restrict travel. I would not consider different (better?) shoes or brushes to be a character changing modification, just a common sense improvement/upgrade which you could always/easily "downgrade". There is no reason to make a "junk/throwaway" part just to make an exact copy.

4. Understand your marketplace. Unlike the 1960s/1970s, not every kid on the block has a slot car set. The understanding, learning and experiance necessary to tune a pancake car and really make it enjoyable is not as readily available to a kid as it was when we were going up 40 years ago. If a kid gets a slot car set, he is probably pretty much on his own except for the internet; and that is not "hands on" with your friend sitting next to you. Do kids today have the same patience and attention span with their toys that we had? The pancake chassis is primarily directed at the 40, 50, 60+ year olds who grew up with them. For those just starting out, the copy of the Tyco HP-7 which you are contemplating would be my introductory chassis of choice.

5. Quality control is job #1.

Joe


----------



## Grandcheapskate

However, if I was going to change something on the T-Jet chassis, I would want the wheels to thread onto the axles, and have the rear axle slide into the crown gear (the axle would have splines like it does now and the inside of the crown gear would have matching splines) rather than have to be pressed on. That way, you wouldn't need a snap-in rear axle. Just unscrew your wheels and slip the axle out from the crown gear.

I don't see this as being a characteristic changer either. It just removes a couple press-on parts and allows them to be reused over and over again.

Joe


----------



## frhoracer

*rivets*

For manufacturing it used to be the eyelets were a little cheaper than rivets and require less energy to 'set' them.
BTW
I had to reply just to unconfuse the choir; it bugs me to see all the misnamed parts on eBay, but this one especially:
rivets are in the early era chassis and eyelets came later. 
And eyelets are not 'open rivets' or rivits or rivots...
that's just a too weird terminology for me.

And if you're splitting hairs 
as racers are prone to do,
the rivets are heavier than eyelets and lower the CG of the chassis a bit.
any extra mass below the axle line is a great thing!


Sparky
Hi Tim!


----------



## lenny

SplitPoster said:


> My only question: why does everyone assume all this has to be done in China? A friend manufactures relatively low-volume specialty equipment for hunting and commercial applications. With the high cost of fuel and shipping, and with the weaker dollar, he can have work done in the US for similar cost - he actually got a lower bid here for his most recent project, with quicker delivery and far less in freight cost. Certainly better opportunity for oversight.



It's not an assumption, it's a fact. Even with the weaker dollar and whatever advantages seem to be swinging back in favor of US, there is absolutely no way that this can be done in the US for a competitive price. I've actually bid out magnets and armatures in the past to US manufacturers and it couldn't touch having it done overseas. As for injection molding tooling for chassis parts and stamping metal parts, the cost overseas is easily 1/5 of what it is in the US. 

And I don't think having the factory here gives you better oversight for QC. If there is any advantage, it's that there is no language barrier.

And here is another little very annoying fact regarding overseas vs here. I don't know why this is, but domestic companies have been awful at communicating and getting back to me regarding quotes. It's happened time and again where I've had to send 3 or 4 emails just to get a response. I don't have that problem with overseas companies. I don't know why that is...


----------



## bearsox

Folks ,
Here is an example of one of the types of letters i recieved when working a deal for a product overseas. It is a short version of what i refered to earlier. Dan i hope this helps if you were not aware of this type of dealing in the past .
Dennis :wave:

Dennis, 

As I mentioned on the phone, if you decide to order these products , you can request a “1st Article” for testing. Upon your approval, the balance of the order would be produced. You would be required to pay the One-Time Partial Tooling Fee up front. If the parts are not to your specification, and if we could not get within your specifications, then the Tooling Fee would be refunded. The only drawback to this is the time delay from production of the “1st Article” to the actual production of the parts. The Production Run would not be completed until the 1st Article has been approved by you. 


Attached for your review is the print we had quoted from. 

looking forward to a solid relationship , Haung Xsing


----------



## lenny

bearsox said:


> Folks ,
> Here is an example of one of the types of letters i recieved when working a deal for a product overseas. It is a short version of what i refered to earlier. Dan i hope this helps if you were not aware of this type of dealing in the past .
> Dennis :wave:
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> As I mentioned on the phone, if you decide to order these products , you can request a “1st Article” for testing. Upon your approval, the balance of the order would be produced. You would be required to pay the One-Time Partial Tooling Fee up front. If the parts are not to your specification, and if we could not get within your specifications, then the Tooling Fee would be refunded. The only drawback to this is the time delay from production of the “1st Article” to the actual production of the parts. The Production Run would not be completed until the 1st Article has been approved by you.


This is pretty standard stuff. And I'm sure that it's standard in the US as well. Very rarely is tooling ready the first time.


----------



## T-Jet Racer

ooooooops


----------



## T-Jet Racer

I would stick with a stock type chassis, no snap in axel. I would increase the copper thickness so you can adjust the brushes and not break the copper off, not like the model motoring thunder plus they just snap right off. A silght height change just after the rivet too, so you can push the spring back up after its been pulled down. I would also not use a seperate plate to hang the pickup, I would use 1 piece of copper from the brush to the hanger and add a bend at the hanger to fit the shoe on ( fray legal? I dunno.). Even the slotless style of chassis electricals, they look like a magna traction. I forget what they call them xcellerators? I agree that 100 % interchangeability with the Aurora chassis, this would give both fray, and customizer, drag racers the ability to do what they want with already avail. aftermarket parts


----------



## lenny

T-Jet Racer said:


> I would increase the copper thickness so you can adjust the brushes and not break the copper off, not like the model motoring thunder plus they just snap right off.


I had this conversation the other night with Swamper Gene. Using a thicker gauge in this area would help tremendously with brush tension.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> I had this conversation the other night with Swamper Gene. Using a thicker gauge in this area would help tremendously with brush tension.


And as a bonus it'll add just a hair of extra mass, so you won't have to worry if you use open riv....err....eyelets. :freak:


----------



## AfxToo

Brush cups or a magnatraction brush design would seem to solve a lot of the chassis electricals and spring bending issues. I can see the potential issues with snap-in in axle durability, but this issue seems to have been universally solved on every brand of magnet car, in a much more strenuous application, so it appears that there is a formula for success in this area.

Hey Dan, if you are going to invest your money it really comes down to what do you need to build to recoup your investment and turn a healthy profit. We can opine all we'd like but the bottom line is the bottom line $$$ for you. Where the numbers come from in this market is beyond my level of insight into the hobby. I'm not looking for you to divulge your bottom line production numbers needed to make a profit. I'm just leery of over weighting limited data. For example:

Does Fray compatibility really matter? That's a once a year race with how many attendees? I know that a number of local groups emulate Fray rules even if they never send anyone to the actual yearly race. If you need to sell 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 complete chassis to turn a profit will the Fray faithful alone be able to deliver on those numbers? How many chassis would they snap up and at what price? 

I would venture a guess that most hard core Fray racers, the ones who actually compete in the race (using remnants of complete Aurora NOS rolling chassis), have enough of a stash of genuine Aurora NOS chassis set aside to keep them going for many more Frays to come. If that were not the case the search would already be on for a replacement chassis or at least the JL/AW chassis that is dirt cheap and readily available would be up for consideration.

If you are going to make a complete chassis I assume it would also be targeted for use under your own bodies so you can sell complete cars. Shouldn't your primary consideration be to produce a complete ready to run car that can compete price wise and quality wise with the other current offerings on the market? You'll have to put axles, wheels, tires, magnets, brushes, and gears in the chassis, all the things that Fray racers paying $10-$12 for an Aurora NOS chassis promptly pop out and discard. 

So Fray racers are actually paying $10-$12 for a bare chassis with an outside chance of getting a decent arm. So my point is, if Fray is the primary target then they would best be served by you investing the same amount of money (in terms of your cost) into just in the parts that Fray people really care about so they get exactly what they need for the $10-$12 they spend? If that's the case the challenge is where to invest the remainder of your money to be able to sell a high quality, complete car at a competitive price because you have to pay to make the parts that the Fray people are going to throw away. 

My point, which echos an earlier one about just making a gearplate, is that you don't even have to build a complete rolling chassis to serve the needs of the Fraysters. A well engineered bare chassis (top and bottom) and a decent arm is all they really care about. The Fray racers are quality and performance driven, not price driven. So yeah, you could take some money off of other people's plates by delivering more of the quality pieces like precision gears, but why would you want to do so in a way that would leave more money on the table than you know the market can bear? I see makers like Wizzard and Slottech being more in tune with specialized production of precision parts for the racing market. If the Fray crowd was really concerned about cost and availability they would have already embraced the JL/AW chassis. You could spend a million bucks on engineering a mathematically verifiable "Perfect TJet" and the Fray race directors could still say "NO" for any reason they choose. Any reason. Then you'd be hard pressed to get run of the mill hobbyists who just want a roller to slap under their Dash body to pay the price for the precision engineered perfection. 

Do what's best for you and your product whole vision. If your chassis endeavors are anything like your body business I'm sure we'll all be very satisfied with the results. 

Good luck!


----------



## SwamperGene

AFXToo I think that point is pretty well understood by those looking to see a faithful reproduction, and Dan has already established a price goal. I don't think this venture is as much about a new chassis design as it is about filling a coming void in the market. As I said to Dan the other night, if the Thunderplus would have been a success this discussion probably wouldn't even be taking place.

Of course it would be foolish for any manufacturer to build to any given "set of rules". Many of us are very aware of the havoc thaat line of thinking has wreaked on the mag car market. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be paying attention to what is going on trackside though. As I said there is no Fray chassis, a Fray car starts out as the same cheapo toy that we might throw under our Dash bodies. What has to be remembered is that ruleset like Fray and VHORS have garnered the attention of racers nationwide whether in a local group or in their basement, so I'd thing smart business sense will consider backwards compatibility pretty heavily. This is an issue that hurt the JL T-Jet, racers largely ignored the car because it wasn't compatible with what they are already using. This isn't technically a problem as it simply made a new class to enjoy, but it does make it pretty clear that if you want to build and market a T-Jet, make it a T-jet. Sure brush cups and snap-in axles would be cool on a new class of pancake chassis...but then you've just cut out a chunk of your potential market, most importantly the sector of current racers that could be out there promoting your product. 

The X-Traction is a great example of how well a compatible chassis can blend into the market. Many groups allow it to compete alongside AFX cars because they are so close mechanically. And it still satisfies the casual enthusiast because it's still a cheap toy car. The unfortunate thing is that we don't have the pleasure of having the manufacturer listening to us for feedback...and thanks to Dan for doing just that. :thumbsup:

The short of it all is, right now at this point in HO history, I think the first person to mass produce a good, affordable, faithful reproduction of the Aurora Thunderjet stands to become a cornerstone in the industry. Anything else might as well be......AutoWorld.


----------



## Jetracer

*Well put!*

"The short of it all is, right now at this point in HO history, I think the first person to mass produce a good, affordable, faithful reproduction of the Aurora Thunderjet stands to become a cornerstone in the industry. Anything else might as well be......AutoWorld."

I cant agree more!


----------



## frhoracer

*copper parts*

I would stay with the separate parts for spring and shoe hangers. The spring value of the Phosphor-Bronze is critical for brush tension and the thin material is probably too thin for also being the pickup shoe hanger, so stay with the two pieces. I would rely on the prior engineering work of Aurora for some guidance there. 
Also, in our race club the BSRT504 is our standard shoe; AFX full length style are outlawed, as a sideways car will short out the rails(and with a 50A power supply turned up, it makes a scar on the rail as well as making the other drivers jumpy!)


cheers!,
Sparky


----------



## medic57

> And I don't think having the factory here gives you better oversight for QC. If there is any advantage, *it's that there is no language barrier.*


You haven't been to New York or New Oleans have you?


----------



## frhoracer

*Fray legal?*

Does Fray compatibility really matter? That's a once a year race with how many attendees? I know that a number of local groups emulate Fray rules even if they never send anyone to the actual yearly race. If you need to sell 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 complete chassis to turn a profit will the Fray faithful alone be able to deliver on those numbers? How many chassis would they snap up and at what price? 

I would venture a guess that most hard core Fray racers, the ones who actually compete in the race (using remnants of complete Aurora NOS rolling chassis), have enough of a stash of genuine Aurora NOS chassis set aside to keep them going for many more Frays to come. If that were not the case the search would already be on for a replacement chassis or at least the JL/AW chassis that is dirt cheap and readily available would be up for consideration.

Do what's best for you and your product whole vision. If your chassis endeavors are anything like your body business I'm sure we'll all be very satisfied with the results. 

Good luck![/QUOTE]


I have mixed review with the value and influence of the Fray event and the rules they follow. If they don't put some control on the political and cheating issues, more racers will just stay away. On the other hand, it's been a long time since there was even a little National interest in a standard. Along with that is the large asterisk of the tracks: we have two Buck Scorpions in the club and enjoy comparing our performance to other racers' times and efforts. Some of us have traveled to the national events and it's a big investment to do so, and the cost of a competitive car becomes a small % of the bottom line; except for the value of one's time and effort. 

I don't know how to call it but to say make more of the same and test some of the "improvements" before committing.
My marketing 'guesstimates' are: we are about 1000 racers of various levels and about 5000 collectors. I am guessing here also but they are about even in number of units bought citing interest of oddities vs. performance.
I used to buy a case of JL cars to get one or two complete ones that performed well. I'd like to not do that effort for racing but I still expect to buy a case and display the ones that weren't going to be run!
If you come up with a new version of the Tjet, I believe we would include it in all the classes we run: Fray, stock, GT and even one for the 'makes' like we have for the JL called SPEC. We sometimes run classes in the same heats like SCCA does just so everyone can run the races. We rotate the classes for a season so that all can run.


Someone mentioned a slot or hole added for the armature cooling; not a good idea, as it will certainly cool the arm a bit but it will also introduce turbulence and slow down the speed of the arm and add back a little heat from the airstream friction. ben ther dun that!


cheers!,
Sparky


----------



## AfxToo

Why the constant cracks against AutoWorld? They've delivered so much to the market over the past several years, it's amazing. They've also done something that 99.99% of the people in this hobby will never do, invest their own time, money, and credibility to build and deliver a relatively huge volume of new products for a hobby that 99.99% of the population either doesn't know exists, or if they do, they don't give a rip about. To slap them in the face and bite the hand that fed us with new product for so long is very petty. If you don't like the products they sell, don't buy them. When you have done one-one hundredth of what they have already done for the hobby, hey maybe then you can take some comfort in knowing you are so much better than them and you can sit on your butt for the rest of the life and live off the royalties from your vastly superior accomplishments. 

If something comes out less than perfect with Dan's new chassis, or if he has to significantly raise how price (you mean we don't get to set this?), are we going to turn on him just like we've turned on Tom Lowe? Or since Dan solicited our free advice up front, which Tom never did (how dare him!), will we be totally forgiving, to the point of bailing him out financially by purchasing his less than perfect product at full price? I think the answer is pretty clear: Take our advice but don't you dare fail us in any way, Dan, or you will be toast.


----------



## Bill Hall

*From whence it came*



SwamperGene said:


> ... snip..... I don't think this venture is as much about a new chassis design as it is about filling a coming void in the market.......
> 
> :thumbsup::thumbsup:.....
> 
> Dunno which direction the tide is flowing behind the scenes, but it would appear that the "recreate a dead nuts original idea" is ahead by a few lengths.
> 
> I've noticed that there hasnt been any discussion regarding what gear plate and chassis numbers should be prototyped for production. As we all know, they werent all created equally.
> 
> The eyelet/bobin question is a no brainer from my point of view. There's a reason that the old bobin chassis held together better than the piggly wiggly eyelet chassis that were falling apart in the box before you opened them. IMHO the hanger and comm-spring assembly should at least match or exceed the early version.
> 
> If one really studies ....say.... a first generation chassis...an end of the line chassis.....and an AW chassis.... one can clearly see where and how the pennies were shaved to cut costs.
> 
> Over the years....a thousandth here a thousandth there...a little change in metalurgy... a little more floor sweepins in the plastic...and voila' !.... you've got a product that has been scrimped down to the ragged edge.
> 
> Perhaps all this is obvious, but it is reflective of the decline of the line.


----------



## win43

Guess I should put my 2 cents (now worth about 1 1/2) in too. I grew up on the Aurora vibrator cars, graduated to Tjets (still going after 40 plus years), then to AFX and stayed with the Tjet. I don't claim to know any of the technical stuff. I'm just an "older" kid (in my 50s) that still loves to play with his Tjets. I am in favor of an almost re-pop of the original Tjet chassis. Some changes would be good (I think), such as, better (thicker) material for adjusting brush tension and maybe even a different pick-up shoe, brushes. Not sure how I feel about the snap in axle. I think offering after-market parts is a good idea. If you want it to go faster, change the gearing, magnets, armatures, etc. If you wanna race fray with it, change what you need to make it fray legal. But I think starting with an almost same as before chassis is the place to start. I think whatever you start with, the slotheads are gonna change want they want to suit their needs anyway. Not knocking the club racers, but I think a bigger market is just the normal slothead. I know I would probably buy 2 or 3 of the new Tjet chassis (that's hundred).

Jerry
Just my 1 1/2 cents.


----------



## martybauer31

Bill Hall said:


> I've noticed that there hasnt been any discussion regarding what gear plate and chassis numbers should be prototyped for production. As we all know, they werent all created equally.
> 
> The eyelet/bobin question is a no brainer from my point of view. There's a reason that the old bobin chassis held together better than the piggly wiggly eyelet chassis that were falling apart in the box before you opened them. IMHO the hanger and comm-spring assembly should at least match or exceed the early version.


Yep, the closed rivet chassis with a straight post squared off top plate would be the ticket I think...

Some interesting info to look at:

http://frhoracing.com/hop-up-hints/Thunderjet-500-tjet-Secret-Chassis-Combo.asp


----------



## AfxToo

> I don't think this venture is as much about a new chassis design as it is about filling a coming void in the market.......


Maybe .... and maybe not. 

The age factor may just catch up with us. The majority of "newbies" I see in HO are those returning after year away from the hobby. As time goes by I've been seeing more and more in this category who never were part of the TJet generation. I was on the tail end of the TJet's heydey as it was slowly declining. I see new people now who started post Magnatraction era, into G-Plus and Tyco 440s. 

At some point there should be an influx of Tjet chassis via estate sales... :freak:

On the other hand there are more and more in betweeners who started with magnet cars and with declining reflexes and eyesight have returned to the slower cars. The GJet/Thunderstorm/PJet cars are definitely getting some attention with these guys.

No doubt that the Fray attracted a ton of attention due in large part to the quality, neutrality, and grass roots level promotion of the event itself. I don't believe that the equipment is the essential reason for its success. I believe that any event that brings the right mix together would be equally successful. The mainstream magnet cars and their brass cousins are unfortunately burdened with baggage that makes it difficult to near impossible to capture the total package that the Fray provides. Any reasonably available and neutral chassis would do. Maybe the next big thing (The Rumble in Racine) will be based on Tyco 440X2s.


----------



## Bill Hall

*Thats "Too" fer flinching*



AfxToo said:


> Why the constant cracks against AutoWorld? They've delivered so much to the market over the past several years, it's amazing. They've also done something that 99.99% of the people in this hobby will never do, invest their own time, money, and credibility to build and deliver a relatively huge volume of new products for a hobby that 99.99% of the population either doesn't know exists, or if they do, they don't give a rip about. To slap them in the face and bite the hand that fed us with new product for so long is very petty. If you don't like the products they sell, don't buy them. When you have done one-one hundredth of what they have already done for the hobby, hey maybe then you can take some comfort in knowing you are so much better than them and you can sit on your butt for the rest of the life and live off the royalties from your vastly superior accomplishments.
> 
> If something comes out less than perfect with Dan's new chassis, or if he has to significantly raise how price (you mean we don't get to set this?), are we going to turn on him just like we've turned on Tom Lowe? Or since Dan solicited our free advice up front, which Tom never did (how dare him!), will we be totally forgiving, to the point of bailing him out financially by purchasing his less than perfect product at full price? I think the answer is pretty clear: Take our advice but don't you dare fail us in any way, Dan, or you will be toast.


Cuz it was always about quality not quantity :freak:... the nugget they failed to find. 

....which is also somewhat the under current this thread's topic of discusion. Whether Dan chooses to wallow in the sty with us slot tards or climb into an Ivory tower is irrelavent.

A pot shot at AW is no less annoying than the chronic pounding of the rah rah drums...all depends on what side of the lookin glass yer on.:freak: Kansas or Oz

Why prop them up into the stratosphere like they invented sliced bread, when there's an alarming amount of evidence to the contrary. There are those of us negative Nelly's who feel the the coattails were ridden to tatters and the line's quality was pimped to a mere shadow of itself. 

Dont want to start a riot "Too" but you flinched again. I like to agree to disagree but you did ask, and there ya have it. 

So in the greater scheme of things AW short comings are relevant to the discussion whether or not they were submitted in what you presume to be the correct fashion.

I have few worries about Dan, he's proven many times that he has the psyche to knock knuckles with slot-tards.


----------



## AfxToo

Bill, If I could read between the lines I might get it, but alas, I don't.


----------



## SwamperGene

AfxToo said:


> Why the constant cracks against AutoWorld?


If you're refering to my comment, it isn't a crack. I agree that they have contributed a great deal to this hobby and enjoy every one of their HO products, so much so as to be called a "TL Lover" quite recently . This fact doesn't make them golden nor does it mean they shouldn't be listening to the HO community at large.

Relative to the discussion at hand, their attempt at a T-Jet reproduction, while a very fun car in it's own right, is nothing close to the recently deceased original T-Jet.


----------



## vaBcHRog

My 2 cents one area where Dan can change things with no complaints is the slim-line chassis. Everyone whould accept a decent slim lineno matter what the changes. And besides all the cool Indy and Grand Prix bodies Dan could make, just think of all the Hot Rods and Fat Fenders from the 40's and 50's. A fourth axel hole like the front axel hole on the TYCO Pan chassis whould make even more options available. A good looking line of Vintage Grand Prix would open up lots of racing possibilities across the country.

Roger Corrie


----------



## lenny

vaBcHRog said:


> My 2 cents one area where Dan can change things with no complaints is the slim-line chassis. Everyone whould accept a decent slim lineno matter what the changes. .....
> 
> Roger Corrie


this is true. Or the Magna Trac, or non-Magna-Trac. There is little 'legacy' to support and expectations (and disappointments) would be lessened. Maybe see how some of these changes work in the non-T-Jet platform and migrate them eventually to the T-Jet.


----------



## tjd241

*This Moral Highground Is Subjective....*



AfxToo said:


> Why the constant cracks against AutoWorld? They've delivered so much to the market over the past several years, it's amazing. They've also done something that 99.99% of the people in this hobby will never do, invest their own time, money, and credibility to build and deliver a relatively huge volume of new products for a hobby that 99.99% of the population either doesn't know exists, or if they do, they don't give a rip about. To slap them in the face and bite the hand that fed us with new product for so long is very petty. If you don't like the products they sell, don't buy them. When you have done one-one hundredth of what they have already done for the hobby, hey maybe then you can take some comfort in knowing you are so much better than them and you can sit on your butt for the rest of the life and live off the royalties from your vastly superior accomplishments.
> 
> If something comes out less than perfect with Dan's new chassis, or if he has to significantly raise how price (you mean we don't get to set this?), are we going to turn on him just like we've turned on Tom Lowe? Or since Dan solicited our free advice up front, which Tom never did (how dare him!), will we be totally forgiving, to the point of bailing him out financially by purchasing his less than perfect product at full price? I think the answer is pretty clear: Take our advice but don't you dare fail us in any way, Dan, or you will be toast.


This post is so offensive... I hardly know where to start. Dan is embarking on something which interests many of us for many reasons. Making comparisons to old products and new... and then providing feedback ?.... We're entitled (as are you), so please stop scolding people... it's ridiculous. I suggest you practice what you preach in terms of purchasing products, contributing to the hobby, and resting on your laurels. "Everyone" was *not* fed by the proverbial "hand" you mention and with the prospect of this new chassis and now the opportunity to have the manufacturer's ear??... Well maybe it's time we were allowed to take a bite. nd


----------



## AfxToo

Wow, tjd241, I'm at a total loss to see what could be construed in any way as "offensive" in my post. I've been 100% behind Dan's initiatives and have been supportive of Dan in many ways. 

My only concern here is that at one point in time we were all giddy about the JL/AW slot cars as well. They stumbled, made some corrections which we requested, tried some new product lines, ran into some quality issues, made more corrections, etc. But the bottom line is that they still delivered well over 100 new cars to the hobby at a time when other brands were scaling back (remember Tyco?) and faltering (recall LL turtle cars?) and sold them at a very fair price and generally injected a lot of interest at the low end of the hobby, at least on the collector side. For a lot of collectors who didn't have the cash or foresight to stash away their original TJets the quantity of offerings from JL was awesome. So forgive me if I step up and defend them when I see AutoWorld repeatedly cast in the light as the poster child for a company that can't get things right. Yes, that's my opinion and yours may differ. I truly appreciate every company that takes a shot at this mostly forgotten hobby. 

With the JL/AutoWorld history in mind the last thing I want to see is people turning on Dan if he has to deal with the same kinds of problems that JL/AW encountered with their venture. Do I think he will give it the TLC needed to achieve a better outcome? Yes, but I realize it won't be easy and the burden will fall squarely on his shoulders. 

There's nothing I've written that conveys morality. If you want to accuse me of anything, it should be loyalty. I appreciate that some people still care about this hobby to make the big time financial investment to bring us ... new toys. Yes, new toys to fill our idle pastime. Anyone who is on the production side and contributing is going to get my loyalty.


----------



## T-Jet Racer

I think the bottom line is what Dan will be comfortable producing, there is no possible way to make everybody happy. Whatever the final decision is, I hope Dan will make "Quality" the #1 most important of all. I like the Autoworld stuff, however the quality is an exceptable level vs. cost of the toy. I hope that Dan's product will be a higher quality hobbyist product not a mass produced low end product. Just to verify I am NOT taking shots at anyone.


----------



## coach61

My two cents...Dan make what ya need to make and I'll take 2 dozen to start.. I am such a slot....lol...

Dave


----------



## resinmonger

*Get the Message*



AfxToo said:


> Why the constant cracks against AutoWorld? They've delivered so much to the market over the past several years, it's amazing. They've also done something that 99.99% of the people in this hobby will never do, invest their own time, money, and credibility to build and deliver a relatively huge volume of new products for a hobby that 99.99% of the population either doesn't know exists, or if they do, they don't give a rip about. To slap them in the face and bite the hand that fed us with new product for so long is very petty. If you don't like the products they sell, don't buy them. When you have done one-one hundredth of what they have already done for the hobby, hey maybe then you can take some comfort in knowing you are so much better than them and you can sit on your butt for the rest of the life and live off the royalties from your vastly superior accomplishments.
> 
> If something comes out less than perfect with Dan's new chassis, or if he has to significantly raise how price (you mean we don't get to set this?), are we going to turn on him just like we've turned on Tom Lowe? Or since Dan solicited our free advice up front, which Tom never did (how dare him!), will we be totally forgiving, to the point of bailing him out financially by purchasing his less than perfect product at full price? I think the answer is pretty clear: Take our advice but don't you dare fail us in any way, Dan, or you will be toast.



Too, a lot of the posts have been reinforcing the high importance of quality control/repeatability to Dan. In doing so, the quality issues of both Model Motoring and JL/AW were pointed out. The repeatability issues of NOS chassis were also discussed (ie., picking from 100 cases to get the optimal arm). From reading this entire thread, I believe the point was not to bash either company but to show Dan that their missteps are lessons learned for what not to do in a future project. People are just trying to help the guy avoid tanking his investment. 

In the end, the market will vote. If Dan delivers a higher quallity product, he will be very competitive against JL/AW. The market can only be helped by the offering of a choice of cost vs quality.


----------



## lenny

*I think I'll start with the slimline...*

then the non-magna traction and the magnatraction. The T-Jet will be last on the list, if I do it at all. It's one of those 'damned if you don't, totally screwed if you do', scenarios. 


If there are things that I do to the slimline and magna chassis that people like and want to see migrated to the T-Jet, they can contract with whatever domestic or foreign sources they like to get their 'ultimate' t-Jet made. There are just too many strong opinions and too many points of failure in pursuing the t-jet.

With the slimline and magna chassis, I don't have the 40 year old history of the T-Jet to live up to, or die by. I have more freedom to pretty much do as I damn please, and I will. The non-magna traction chassis might be converted to a screw-on; we'll see. Maybe this will spawn a new 'generation' of the T-Jet. Actually, whether it does or not, it doesn't matter. There will still be the purists who will hate it and the new generation people who will see that it didn't go far enough.

I want to thank everyone for their opinions whether I agree with them or not. The T-Jet is obviously a passionate topic, and as such it should probably be left alone since the passion is strong on both sides of the fence.

I'm going to ask that this topic be closed. I certainly have enough information regarding what should and shouldn't be done. Nothing more really needs to be said; further debate really serves no useful purpose other than to piss people off.

Look for the slimline pickup and indy cars in the fall. Also some Hot Rods, as Roger Corrie predicted... Also look for a Dash version of the magna traction and non-magna traction chassis in the fall, sporting some new bodies and some kick-butt magnets and arms.

Thank you again. 

Dan


----------

