# AW Super III -- brighter pic



## 1976Cordoba

This pic was posted by TJet Racer in the other AW thread but I needed to brighten it up a bit to satisfy my own curiosity.














Behind the left front tire I can see an alternate axle mounting hole, so that is re-assuring (unless that has been deleted in the final production version).

Also visible is a little better wheel detail and the overall look of the chassis.


----------



## roadrner

Doba,
Good pic. I only hope it's not dust. :devil: 

Anyone know if they're chroming those wheels? :thumbsup: rr


----------



## AfxToo

Interesting. The metal bushing retainer in the picture doesn't even look like it's installed correctly. It looks to be behind the front bearing instead of on top of it.

I've never experienced a problem with a retainer on a P-car, even with the stock straight configuration. Most racers put a little gull wing bend in the retainer as added insurance. The newer versions of the Storm chassis has tiny bump stops on the bottom to keep the bottom of the retainer from moving back. At least this style metal retainer has no possibility of shorting the track rails if the car flips upside down without a body mounted.

The one thing that pops out about the SIII chassis is that it appears to be setup to mount open wheel bodies if the body clip is removed. 

In any case, in a few days all of the mysteries of the SIII will be revealed.


----------



## Montoya1

.

Here is a brightened and labelled picture of the proto that AW sent me 12-18 months ago (now lost  ) that shows the 4 wheels bases as lifted from my metal chassis design.


----------



## fastlap

*same on 'Doba's photo*

If you stare at the lightened photo 'Doba put up, you can see the same four axle holes. I can see the rear and the front for sure. So, I am assuming the second from rear holes are there also. Very encouraging if this is the case. Love the wheels AW has, as a long over due alternative to the crap choices out there.


----------



## Montoya1

So we need pictures of the final chassis. Frustrating that a couple of retailers have the chassis but have not posted pictures. Very unreasonable to expect us to wait a few days


----------



## fastlap

Agreed!!! You'd think it would help sell the product a little faster??? hhmmmm????? Where's the marketing gurus? Are they all on vacation?


----------



## Montoya1

Jeff tells me the chassis is unchanged.

Eeeek.


----------



## neorules

The model as pictured would never run (see gear mesh). Also the motor magnet look to need a retaining system or epoxy maybe to not come up on one side or pop in a crash. I understand this may be a prototype photo and all problems are fixed on the release. Should be interesting.


----------



## twolff

fastlap said:


> Agreed!!! You'd think it would help sell the product a little faster??? hhmmmm????? Where's the marketing gurus? Are they all on vacation?



Or it looks like crap and maybe a few people will buy some before that gets out??

Such a pessmist, I know.


----------



## Voxxer

*Things I Do Like!!*

Hi All:

After looking at the better picture I did notice two important features of the chassis that I noticed

First, look at the small box section area that holds the brush barrel and pick-up springs. The width is only as large as the width of the springs. On other racers the width is larger and the springs move from side to side. This should help keep the springs " Flat " and not have the pick-up shoes lean from side to side. The closer walls should help with this.

Second, if you remove the guide pin and the front wheels, you have a clean shot to the front and rear bushings. What I mean is that if you take out the magnets and arm, replace the busings and retaining clip, you have a clean way to aline the bushings. If the shaft of the arm is a #52 drill bit, from the front end " drill " or clean a straight path through the bushings while in place. This will give a parrallel " hole" for the shaft to ride in.

Thanks

Voxxer


----------



## 1976Cordoba

Montoya's pic brightness and contrast adjusted a little bit:


----------



## Hornet

Bob,that's to let the arm spool up to speed faster,then they turn on the neo mag to pull the arm backwards,thus engaging the crown gear,launches harder then a top fueler if the wheels don't disintergrate:woohoo::woohoo:


----------



## motorcitytoyz

*Super III Chassis - Production Image*































This is a image of the production version of the chassis, with everything attached except for body clip (to hold on the car's body to chassis).


----------



## Montoya1

Looks OK.

If the clip with the 2 holes in (legacy of my magnet idea) has nothing underneath, why is it there? Can it be removed?

Bags of potential, just concerned the shoes are too thick and too angled, but thats something to play with.

Th wheelbases seem to have survived from my chassis, in which case please AW, use them!!!


----------



## sped

I think the clip needs to be there. It looks like it helps hold the rear bushing and motor magnets in place.


----------



## Montoya1

Agreed it does that as well. I think there are two prongs that go down from the clip and do as you say. But the holes....

As for the wheelbases, I don't really care about the who and why as long as AW make use of them. Or people like Gary and Helen.


----------



## neorules

Any one ohm out the arm yet?


----------



## fastlap

Montoya1 said:


> As for the wheelbases, I don't really care about the who and why as long as AW make use of them. Or people like Gary and Helen.


Thanks Deane.:thumbsup: 

I hope the extended holes somewhat match up with the new AFX wheelbase. Then it would be nice for the casters like Helen and myself to give the public the choice of using either chassis. You know which chassis I will be leaning towards:woohoo:

The only thing I don't understand is with the beautiful wheels AW sports, the thought process behind knurling the front axle ends to hold on the front wheel hubs? LifeLike did this also on their last version of the "M"-chassis and the "T" chassis. Over 40 years of slotting and I don't remember having fitment issues with simple non-knueled front axle shafts. Maybe the AW people hired the LL designer to help with this new design....:freak: I hope Steve is watching this, and considers the simple design over this. I'm sure we are in for a different set of very nice wheel design on the new AFX chassis. 

Cheers, Gar


----------



## Montoya1

Gary,

I agree that you should focus on the new AFX chassis, but that is a way off so keep your hand in and make something for this chassis too! Maybe a version of your Nisaan or 956?


----------



## fastlap

Montoya1 said:


> Gary,
> 
> I agree that you should focus on the new AFX chassis, but that is a way off so keep your hand in and make something for this chassis too! Maybe a version of your Nisaan or 956?


Shouldn't be a problem for any of my stuff with the multiple wheelbases. The new AW stuff should be available at the Midwest Slot Car show I will attend in April. I will be picking up a few chassis to play with for the casting side. One positive thing I will say, is I like those wheels. Hope someone is selling chassis only. Those AW bodies are scary. Looks like Jeff has it on his schedule also.


----------



## vaBcHRog

I like the wheels too but those new style axles now thats scary 

Roger Corrie


----------



## sped

Kinda defeats having 4 different wheelbases to play with doesn't it? I mean why melt the wheels to the axle if you intend people to set it up differently?

As I said before I may pick one up, but having 4 wheelbases won't necessarily make me want to cast bodies for it. Its still pretty darn tall, and the rear is too square and tall to fit under bodies most people want. Unfortunately the carry over of the adjustable magnets is what made the rear so bulky..... That's why my money is on the AFX chassis for sure. As for the wheels - not a big fan - the 5 spoke wheels from BSRT are much nicer IMO. I am sure once people start prying them off for use, they'll be upset as no doubt they'll be ruined.

Just my 2 cents....

R. Picard
www.slotcarinnovations.com


----------



## Dragula

OI got 2 of these as freebies today to test.Dogs out of the box,and also afx/mag chassis will NOT fit these bodies.Terribly slow on the dragstrip.
DRAGjet


----------



## 1976Cordoba

Dragula said:


> OI got 2 of these as freebies today to test.Dogs out of the box,and also afx/mag chassis will NOT fit these bodies.Terribly slow on the dragstrip.
> DRAGjet


Hey Chris -- can you post a pic of the issue with mounting the Magnatrac / Xtrac chassis? Which bodies did you end up with? Does this nix the Turbo / SRT / SG+ family of chassis also, as I would assume?

Thanks.


----------



## Dragula

I got the 07,70 Mustangs,they came in the same wheelbase as AFX chassis,but the mount clips are too far forward to fit.havent checked any indy cars or anything,but the turbo and super G chassis fit afx bodies,so there ya go.
DRAGjet


----------



## Dragula

The gear mesh is also not the greatest.
DRAGjet


----------



## 1976Cordoba

Dragula said:


> I got the 07,70 Mustangs,they came in the same wheelbase as AFX chassis,but the mount clips are too far forward to fit.havent checked any indy cars or anything,but the turbo and super G chassis fit afx bodies,so there ya go.
> DRAGjet


Wow -- I won't be buying a single one then.


----------



## Dragula

No joke!I hate to be negative,but the whole chassis just seems like an afterthought.
JMHO.
DRAGjet
p.s.We had a STOCK t-jet that had Wiz brushes and matched magnets..BEAT the car on the dragstrip.proofs in the pudding Doba.Save your $.


----------



## sped

This is disappointing, but honestly its not surprising.....at least to me. Its a shame that the "Super 3" moniker has to be associated with it - of course the first AFX super II was never quite what it was hyped to be either.... maybe in 30 years we'll all wish we had them ....

R. Picard 
www.slotcarinnovations.com


----------



## Dragula

neorules said:


> Any one ohm out the arm yet?


6.1
DRAGjet


----------



## Bill Hall

Chris, Dont apologize for any imagined negativity. Just the facts, straight up...We expect nothing less from you. Thanx for the early intel and observations.


----------



## Jimmy49098

here is a side shot of the mustang from the bay...
a bit bummed at the review of these so far, but I'm sure somebody here can figure out what needs to be tweaked or swapped out on the new chassis, J


----------



## Montoya1

Yeeeeuch.


----------



## neorules

Thanks for the info on the arm. Putting a 6.1 arm in this magnet set-up tells me Tom L's advisors were not that educated on matching speed to downforce. Learn from the LL t-chassis please. Having a SS legal arm in a car thats illegal because of magnets was not well thought out. If ceramics were used it would make sense. The choice made was wrong on many levels.


----------



## Montoya1

I'm not sure AW aimed this car at SS, or even know what it is.


----------



## neorules

Montoya--- I know one person that had input into this car. He raced Ufhora and HOPRA regularly. He's young and had a couple good Ideas but they were rejected. Experience is not necessarily tapped into at the manufacturing level. I do know the new Tomy car does have an experienced racer and creator working with Steve Russell. I expect it will be considerably better. The Aw car is not necessarily a lost cause if you want to put an aftermarket arm in.


----------



## Montoya1

I'm sure that the S3 will undergo lots of improvements in the hands of hard core guys like us but AW should have done some of that upfront.

More than anything I would love to have a body that uses that longest wheelbase as part of release one,


----------



## Slott V

Looks like a toy car to me. >for kids. :hat:


----------



## vaBcHRog

So Chris what is the measurement from the rear axle hole to the longest axle hole? It would be nice to know how much longer it is. Is it as long as a TYCO pan chassis?

Roger Corrie


----------



## Montoya1

Yeah, what are the four wheelbases?


----------



## Bill Hall

*Bulbous*

Ouch!

Hadnt seen a full on side view yet. 

I find the styling very disproportionate. Given the chosen length to height ratio this model lacks the graceful stretch of the original. 

Check the angle on that tunnel rammed dual quad setup! Better fix those sacked out motor mounts. At that angle I'd say the fan has already "slurrpied" the radiator or at a minimum the fan shroud has been tuna canned.


----------



## Montoya1

I really makes no sense, there is a lovely long maximum wheelbase and they did not use it.


----------



## sped

I was hoping this 'stang would be nice.. funny how the tjet boss mustang seemed to be spot on in terms of scale. Even the tampos on the front of this grille look so inferior to the Tjet car that JL released. Its almost as though the pattern maker and manufacturing plant are completely different...Plus - is there a reason the rear track is so wide? (how wide is it anyway?)

In response to this being a "toy" - IMHO it is. The original JL cars were well received for the bodies mostly, and the chassis was a nice thing to have, as it allowed people easier access to these pancake chassis that otherwise would have to be sought out at shows or on epay. 

Honestly, venturing into an inline was a move to put more sets out there that kids could enjoy. Any inline trying to be a serious performer without pro racer input is just a toy, or an attempt to secure more of the entry market. 

On the other hand, anything associated with the Russell family has always had top input. 

Once these are out there I imagine that Bud will create a "buddyclip" that will enable the body to be used on other chassis...... Just out of curiousity, how would thee mustang look sitting on top of an SG+ chassis without the body clip?


----------



## fastlap

What happened to all these beautiful bodies? Although, the Mustang looks squat in that photo also. Look at the 'tang pic, and you can see the rear tires sticking out too. And, no COT Nascar, only the version they came out with.


----------



## Montoya1

We have to give AW the benefit of the doubt and assume they will use the longer wheelbases at some point.

Has anyone got a theory on why the pickup shoes are so thick (if they still are)? Come to think about it, what do we do about spare shoes axles etc? Are any available?


----------



## Bill Hall

I was noticing the huge amount of travel in the pick ups when viewed in the unloaded position. Looks like a clutch pedal on a VW bug!

Noted that they are once again nose heavy out of the box. Check the wear pattern on the pic with the inverted view. They also appear to be kinda delicate and unprotected on the backside where they disappear up into the brush barrels. Probably a non factor... just caught my eye.


----------



## Dragula

Trying to adjust these shoes takes a bit of effort,there as tough as nails to bend,but I got my sons car running good on his track.I wanted to ad 1 thing,all you inline guys have managed to tweak and tune every inline car out there with great success<maybe not Marchon??>I have no doubt when you guys are done..this chassis will be a racer,good luck guys and god speed.
DRAGjet


----------



## Jimmy49098

Does your son like it? In other words, does it stick good to the track?...comparable magnetic downforce to a ...?


----------



## Dragula

I bought him a big tyco set with the adjustable speed controllers,if he runs the car at the mid setting for long,it heats up something fierce!The tycos and super g's dont get hot.So the downforce is very strong!He seems to love racing it though,he calls it his prize
DRAGjet


----------



## Slott V

*10 minutes in Photoshop...*

Actually if you remove the chassis, the dual quads, thin out the A pillar, take some off under the door, shorten the front bumper, chop the front grille area and add the lower valance missing, you could end up with a pretty cool looking Boss 302: (even though the back end got back ended)

BEFORE:









AFTER:









Now find yourself some Western Superlite wheels (I know those are around) and get the stance on the chassis right and you're almost there! :dude:


----------



## neorules

In reply to the question regarding the pick-up shoes hanging down quite a bit. I would say it is because of the BIG front tires. Kind of turbohopperish.


----------



## T-Jet Racer

Slott V said:


> Actually if you remove the chassis, the dual quads, thin out the A pillar, take some off under the door, shorten the front bumper, chop the front grille area and add the lower valance missing, you could end up with a pretty cool looking Boss 302: (even though the back end got back ended)
> 
> BEFORE:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now find yourself some Western Superlite wheels (I know those are around) and get the stance on the chassis right and you're almost there! :dude:



They need you there to look it over before production. Your edited car looks pretty good! 

I think I'll wait for Super 4 to come out!


----------



## Dragula

The pickup shoe window in the front is .234 to be exact.That would almost clear the rear tires!lol
DRAGjet


----------



## AfxToo

Got my SIIIs yesterday - in the middle of a 24 hour blackout so have not had them on a track yet. A couple of observations:

1) As earlier posted, the distance between the body mount and the rear axle is the critical factor in determining that the SIII chassis *will not* mount AFX/MT/XT bodies regardless of the front wheelbase setting. It also means (sorry folks) that SIII bodies (at least the stock car ones) *will not* mount on AFX/MT/XT chassis.

2) The bodies are longer than they look in pictures. The stock car bodies sort of remind me of a cross breed between the old Rokar/early LL "long and thins" and the later LL "short and wides." They are both long and wide in the middle. In fact, the stock car bodies exceed the 3" maximum allowed by most major racing organizations. The upside of this for Mustang fans is that its body looks well proportioned on the real car, not stubby. I think the Mustangs look great, definitely the pick of the litter.

3) The SIII chassis definitely mimics some of the design aspects of earlier Wizzard HP products but unfortunately does so in a way that casts off much of the sound engineering and thoughtful design that went into the WHP products in favor of something far less well thought out and less well executed. Any notion that WHP had a input into this design (which they did not) should be quickly dispelled by looking at the SIII.

3a) The shoe spring is much narrower, negating the ability to use double wound springs designed for WHP and Tyco products. If AW makes these kinds of service parts readily available, no problem. But not being able to tap into an already existing supply channel is a bit disappointing because the design is close, but not close enough. I think the shoe spring may be too short, but I'll have to wait and see how adjustable it turns out to be. I'm used to having a shoe spring that sits on the flat part of the shoe instead of right at the bend. 

3b) Same as 3a, except for the shoes. No can do on using standard WHP shoes on your SIII.

3b) The detent that is supposed to restrict vertical movement of the shoe where it goes over the brush tube is way too short and does not engage with the shoe. This is why everyone is seeing excessive shoe travel and will be a source of power loss if the shoe is not making good electrical contact with the brush tube. I can imagine bending the part of the shoe that hangs down below the back of the brush tube to get it to engage with the detent properly. A little rear facing L bend there should do the trick as long as the shoe takes kindly to bending. *[Update: Yes, this does work quite nicely.]* The shoe tension on the SIII in my hand is way, way off the mark, but until the shoe hanger is properly working there's little use in trying to adjust the tension.

4) The magnet clip is mostly there to secure the rear bushing and the rear of the motor magnets. I could not tell from the picture whether it actually did anything for the motor magnets. But it does overlap a thin part of the motor magnets. It plays no role in the operation of the traction magnet. The retainer is far slimmer and less chunky looking in real life and has nice ventilation holes. Like the WHP car, the motor magnets can be inserted and removed without removing the arm. I swapped mine to get the same arm rotation as my WHP cars. (Which requires reversing the axle mounting too.)

5) The rear axle gear boss is not spaced correctly off the gear and basically serves no purpose. The backside of the crown gear still rubs the chassis. I can't tell if the gear and boss are one unit. Adding a small spacer probably a 0.005" one on the other side of the crown should cure this problem. 

6) The rear wheels are set too wide and need to be squeezed in to fit through a tech block, if you care. On Tomy track running these side by side will induce plenty of rubbing. Thank you AW for not using balloon style tires like on the Tomy SG+ and stock Wizzard cars. Yay, I can use slip-ons!

7) The brushes have not been broken at all in on the cars before they are shipped. I suggest oiling the motor bushings, removing the rear end and replacing it with an axle without a gear (I use rear end from the JL pullbacks), and running the car on break-in track 6V for 15 or 20 minutes to seat the brushes before putting the car on a track under full power. Listen during the break-in for any signs of squealing and re-oil if needed. Clean the comm with a comm cleaner when done. The best comm cleaners are the smallest sized (2 mm) fiberglass "scratch brushes" that Micro Mark sells. (These tools work well for all cars with accessible comms.)

8) The brush screws have a screw head, not a hex head. I don't like this but it's a personal preference.

Overall, the chassis looks like it will respond to performance tweaks that work well for WHP and Tyco cars. When I get my power back on and have some free time I will go through and tune an SIII to see what it can do with the right tweaks and possibly a few upgraded parts. I will keep you posted.


----------



## Montoya1

Nice review.

This was my favourite bit:



AfxToo said:


> The retainer is far slimmer and less chunky looking in real life and has nice ventilation holes


I think we know that is not what they are/were but I had to laugh

Looking forward to your findings in testing


----------



## Dragula

We tweaked the spring bressure and got max rpm from brush adjustment,and installed a set of TALL afx drag height rear silicones to help out the stump puller gear ratio and the strong downforce..car was still a dog.Just callin it like I see it.To bad,could have been a great new platform for you inline guys.
DRAGjet


----------



## Dragula

p.s. we tested the car at drag voltage,25 volts.
DRAGjet


----------



## fastlap

*question for those who have*

Chris and AFX,

Can either of you measure the four front axle locations from the rear axle center so we can get an idea of the wheelbase lengths? 

Thanks!!!!!:thumbsup:

Gar


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> 1) As earlier posted, the distance between the body mount and the rear axle is the critical factor in determining that the SIII chassis *will not* mount AFX/MT/XT bodies regardless of the front wheelbase setting. It also means (sorry folks) that SIII bodies (at least the stock car ones) *will not* mount on AFX/MT/XT chassis.


Will a regular TOMY body clip fit on this chassis? If so, is the offset different from the AW S3 clip and will that allow the use of AFX bodies?


----------



## Slott V

Reading early reviews of this car kind of makes one wonder just who they actually consulted in the design of this chassis. One would imagine nobody with any real knowledge or experience in HO cars had any hand in the design and functionality. I wonder how they go about drawing the line in the production meetings? Is "just good enough" their motto at the new AW? I mean, was their goal to simply produce another slot car chassis with their name on it or did they set out to do something better?

Seems like they missed the mark calling this chassis the "Super III" considering the legacy of the names' predecessor. Just going by what I'm reading lately.


----------



## Montoya1

Does it make any difference turning the clip around?


----------



## AfxToo

Will measure the wheelbase later tonight. The body mounting issue I mentioned is a consequence of the location of the body clip tabs. It's possible that someone could fabricate a clip to allow AFX/MT/XT bodies to be mounted. However, I think more folks are interested in using the SIII bodies like the Mustang and upcoming 'Vette on a AFX/MT/XT/G3 chassis. That will require another type of clip (although I haven't checked to see how close the AW clip models the AFX clip).

I do think these will respond to tuning once the performance impediments are all identified and resolved. The way the shoe interfaces with the brush barrel is a big factor, as is the fact that the brushes are not seated properly out of the package. The motor magnets do not appear to be polymer based on "finger pull" gauge, or if they are it is a low grade polymer. Sorry to say, but you're not getting a $40 pair of polymer motor magnets with these cars.

Speaking of package, these come in a whole new packaging scheme that negates the need for those awful metal twisties. Thanks again to AutoWorld for getting rid of those wires. There is also no extra guidepin included with the car.


----------



## Montoya1

Do you think a wizz or tyco arm will pop in?


----------



## AfxToo

> makes one wonder just who they actually consulted in the design of this chassis


I've asked the very same thing about the JLTO and JLXT. I know it sounds very pompous to say it, but I don't think they are getting the best practical and pragmatic advice from whomever they are consulting. There's no value in Monday morning QB'ing either, so all we do is be diplomatic and subtly ask for changes through the right channels. I think if we keep it positive and work with AW they will tweak what they can tweak in their process to get the product closer to our collective expectations.


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> ...However, I think more folks are interested in using the SIII bodies like the Mustang and upcoming 'Vette on a AFX/MT/XT/G3 chassis.


I strongly disagree. I think many folks were hoping that this was going to be a 'Wizzard' equivalent at a more attractive price point, one that would allow you to run AFX XT bodies on it. Perhaps creating a new class of inline hardbody racing, which the BSRT G3 and TOMY guys have enjoyed for quite awhile.


----------



## Montoya1

lenny said:


> I strongly disagree. I think many folks were hoping that this was going to be a 'Wizzard' equivalent at a more attractive price point, one that would allow you to run AFX XT bodies on it. Perhaps creating a new class of inline hardbody racing, which the BSRT G3 and TOMY guys have enjoyed for quite awhile.


I was more hoping it would keep with a LL 'T' or an SRT - and maybe one day it will.


----------



## Dragula

I think they really hurt themselves by making there chassis proprietary to there body.All the original afx bodies,dash,even my repros.just doesnt seem like a very smart business move,especially with the horrid proportions of the bodies they make.JMHO
DRAGjet
p.s.Dan,check out the Henry J I did in the custom thread,you might like it.
(my shameless suck up for the day.)


----------



## Montoya1

which wheelbase of the four do these bodies use?

If they use the longest or second longest sometime soon then maybe the decision to make their chassis proprietary to their own bodies will be forgiven.


----------



## Dragula

they run the short wheelbase.
DRAGjet


----------



## Montoya1

Blimey.

What the longest wheelbase? I think Tyco pan stuff such as the Porsche 956 is 1.7'' or so.


----------



## fordcowboy

Iam going to glue poles in my car and put t-jet chassis under them.:thumbsup:


----------



## AfxToo

> I think many folks were hoping that this was going to be a 'Wizzard' equivalent at a more attractive price point, one that would allow you to run AFX XT bodies on it.


I personally was hoping for a Tyco 440X2 equivalent at around the XT price point. I was really surprised when early prototypes showed up with looking so much like a Patriot. The resemblance to the Patriot is unmistakable at first glance. However, a closer look reveals a few differences.

WHP P3S / *AW SIII*

Overall Chassis Length: 2.082" / *2.174"*
Width at Front Axle: 0.811" / *0.750"*
Width at Center: 0.819" / *0.751"*
Width at Rear Axle: 0.620" / *0.600"*
Short Wheelbase: 1.4" / *1.4"* 
Long Wheelbase 1: 1.5" / *1.5"*
Long Wheelbase 2: n/a / *1.6"* 
Long Wheelbase 3: n/a / *1.7"*

Both use a 0.059" rear axle, 0.047" front axle. The SIII motor magnets do appear to be a lower grade polymer and are quite a bit smaller than the WHP motor mags.

All in all, the SIII is longer and narrower than the P3S. From what I can tell at this point, the only parts that "appear" to be interchangeable between the two chassis without disassembling the SIII appear to be the brushes, brush springs, armature, and pinion gear. The SIII appears to have a 7/25 gear ratio. The SIII wheels are 0.266" diameter, front and rear and the stock tires are around 0.400" front and 0.480" rear. The Taurus body is around 3.096" long.


----------



## tomhocars

Welll not that it means anything but here is my experience with the new Super 111.
I actually used the AW stocker to make it see m more official.I took it out of the box,no wire ties,thats a plus,cleaned the tires and drove a couple of slow warm up laps.This was done on a 106' routed track.I started to go faster and faster.I was actually impressed,at first.I called Bob Beers to tell him how it was.He was surprised that I seemed to like it.I'm not a big fan of the AW chassis.I think with the technology available now all the AW/JL chassis should be better.I'm sure they are working on it.I hope.Not as quick as a new Tomy but close.I told Bob I had to go,he said have fun and that was the jinx.Going down the back straight,not pushing it,all of a sudden it slows down and stops.I thought I had to clean the track.NO.I put the car back on,it started to move and I had to call 911.SMOKE UM.I would like to think I was the first to cook a Super 111.I checked everything ,no binding ,just torched the commutator.So anyway it's dead.I figured I'd use the body to set up some other bodies,no good.You can adjust the front wheelbase but the distance from the center of the mounting tab to the rear axle centerline is longer than than the x-traction even if you reverse the clip.I tried a X-traction 57 Corvette and a Dash Motorsports 55 and it just won't work.The wheelbase can be made the same as an x-traction but it won't line up in rear wheelwells.What were they thinking. Tom


----------



## SwamperGene

All the talk of heat and now burning up does not sound good at all, these things are likely to end up in the hands of alot of kids.

:freak:


----------



## lenny

tomhocars said:


> I'm not a big fan of the AW chassis.I think with the technology available now all the AW/JL chassis should be better.I'm sure they are working on it.I hope.


I doubt it... It only took them 6 *YEARS* to fix the slop in the front wheels of the XT...


----------



## AfxToo

Bummer about the smoked SIII. 

If you are not going to send it back, put a stock Tyco arm in it, break in the brushes as I described earlier, and give it another try. You can be the first to post an article about "Rebuilding the Super III." I hope your experience is a random event.

These cars do have a lot of downforce, which means they have the potential to generate a lot of heat. To AW's credit the cars that I've unpacked feel nice and loose, so they got the brush tension in the ballpark. To properly setup the brush tension on these type of cars you really need an adjustable power supply and an ammeter, or at least a good 6V power supply or a lantern battery and an ammeter. Little Johnny and Mom & Pop are going to be seriously tested with the long term care and feeding of this type of car versus say a Turbo, SRT, or LL T car. At least the packaging says 14+ rather than a lower age. 

The guidepin mounting looks flimsy in the pictures. It is. The pin is a bit wobbly and there's no apparent way to tighten it up, short of gluing it in. It comes mounted as far back as it can go, which still has 40% of the pin exposed. Not good for a car that has major boogie potential. I cannot figure why they chose to have such a shallow recess for the pin other than to eliminate a few microcents worth of plastic from the front of the chassis. The pin is also quite long (0.215"). Part of this is because the pin needed to be longer because it is mounted higher off the track than on a P3. _If you have Tyco or MM track the pin bottoms out in the slot._ Make sure you check it on your track. The combination of a long pin and an insecure mounting means one thing: a lot of lost pins. I will glue mine in. The pin is about the same thickness as a P3 pin (0.050") which is thicker than a Tomy pin. 

Someone asked about trying a Tomy body clip, reversing the SIII body clip, etc. The Tomy body clip does not fit, the tabs don't mate with the slots. Even if it fit the slots it would not help. Reversing the SIII clip doesn't fit and would not help. The bottom line is that the SIII body mounting points are more than 1/8" forward of the body mounting points on the AFX/MT/XT. The only way you are going to mount an SIII body on anything other than an SIII chassis is with some sort of special clip that does not yet exist, or do some plastic surgery on the body. The same holds for mounting other brand bodies on the SIII, you'll need a special adapter.

Don't forget that these are a 1.0 release so there will be things that need to be worked out.


----------



## neorules

To TOMHOCARS---- Now that the first official smoke out has begun on the AWIII there could be residual side effects that need to be checked. The motor brush springs-- did they compress? Meaning lose the springability? Also the motor magnets could now be dead and might need to be rezapped. My take without seeing the car is that a good quality 36--361/2 or 37 rewind arm will give these cars speed to match the handling better and prove to be a fun and functional combo if you have a decent power supply. If a rewind is used please update to high temp springs for the motor brushes and get a .360-.365 dia arm to give a little more air gap. Also anyone know the motor brush diameter?


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> Bummer about the smoked SIII. ...
> Don't forget that these are a 1.0 release so there will be things that need to be worked out.


'Production testing'... That's when you leave it up to the consumer to find and fix your problems AFTER the product is released to the public. What happened to all those experienced racers that were consulting on this project? This is over a year in the making and this is what's released?

Model Motoring all over again...


----------



## Montoya1

I found this list of wheelbases a few years ago:

Tyco 440X2 narrow 1.480''
Tyco 440X2 pan 1.480''
Turbo/SRT wide1.484'’
Tomy SG+ 1.484''
Marchon 1.510''
Turbo/SRT narrow 1.60'' 
Tomy SG+ 1.625'' 
Marchon 1.677'' 
Tyco 440X2 pan 1.690''

It would appear that AW have covered all these so one assumes they will at some point take advantage of the fact. Personally I would have done so with release 1.


----------



## tomhocars

I understand all about testing and trial and error when building a race motor,but your everyday consumer doesn't want to hear that.They want to open the case and fly without havng to fix it right away or put a new arm in it.Maybe mine was built on a monday or after lunch on a friday.


----------



## mking

*AW S III Testing*

Talbot Hills 4 lane 16 foot Maxtrax. Trackamte timing

AW SIII Ave lap 4.65 seconds. Hot lap 4.37 seconds. No body

Build observations: poor gear mesh, the teeth on the crown are really sharp and pointy! needs to be broken in. otherwise the chassis look sharp
Driving observations: a bit sluggish. i did not break in the brushes or adjust the brush spring tension. i dont know how 

Comparison:

Tomy Turbo w/ super tires: Ave Lap 4.17 seconds Hot lap 3.92 second
Super G ploy mod Ave lap 2.75 Hot lap 2.29

I am sure these can be tuned, but my tunings skills are pretty much limited to pancake cares.


----------



## Dragula

I am taking precautions with my son racing his,they should call these thing super III fireballs.
DRAGjet


----------



## twolff

Dragula said:


> I am taking precautions with my son racing his,they should call these thing super III fireballs.
> DRAGjet


Flamethrowers was already taken


----------



## Bill Hall

*Spontaneous Combustion*



tomhocars said:


> I understand all about testing and trial and error when building a race motor,but your everyday consumer doesn't want to hear that.They want to open the case and fly without havng to fix it right away or put a new arm in it.Maybe mine was built on a monday or after lunch on a friday.


Trial by fire is an unsettling thing for any consumer. The tuning or lack of it is not gonna make John L. Customer happy either. I fear the QC issues of the past may have pole vaulted into the present.

Tom makes an excellent point here. For the same coin one can purchase a Rasemasters product and be cutting some serious drywall after some minor break in and a tire scuff. 

We are blessed to have our slot family with all it's benefits. John L Customer is basically on his own and twisting in the wind.


----------



## Dragula

Where the hell was R&D??These things are like turning kids loose with soldering irons.
DRAGjet


----------



## JordanZ870

Dragula said:


> Where the hell was R&D??These things are like turning kids loose with soldering irons.
> DRAGjet



I thought I read "14 years and up"?? Guess a 14 yr old will only lick the bottom once?


----------



## AfxToo

It will be valuable to hear if anyone else experiences a blown motor right out of the box. I've had the sudden, smoky, sizzling of slot car thing happen with several brands of slot cars that I've owned, but none so far has been a common characteristic of the brand.

I think I'll break one of these down and see what's happening under the hood.


----------



## Jimmy49098

The problem may be with this AW company...is that Tom Lowe is not a slot car guy, I really doubt he has a home track. Does he? Does anybody know if he is a slot car guy?
Does anybody here remember when a long time ago somebody here asked him something like "why didn't they make their tuff one chassis an exact copy of the aurora tuff ones chassis?...refering to the gear plates not being interchangable and magnets not being the same, and TL said "I thought it was".
I really doubt he is a slot car guy, and really wonder who these slot car people are who are advising him. J


----------



## T-Jet Racer

lenny said:


> I doubt it... It only took them 6 *YEARS* to fix the slop in the front wheels of the XT...


they are still trying to tackle that one...


----------



## RacerDave

Now that's progress! Maybe in another 5 or 6 years they will get close to the quality Aurora was putting out 35 years ago. Dave.


----------



## 22tall

Careful guys, the last time there was a thread with this many negatives HE came down from Olympus to chastise us.

I do enjoy the fact that people are speaking up about the problems in the new release. I almost considered getting some. Tuning is fine. Replacing defective parts is not.


----------



## AfxToo

My opinion thus far on the Super III is that they are, like their AutoWorld TJet500 and XT brethren, a car that requires some definite knowledge of the tuning and maintenance needs of the type of car they are. None of these cars is a true plug & play toy-grade product intended for kids. But frankly, this is characteristic of *hobby-grade* products in general. They require care and maintenance and a certain amount of skill to get the most out of. 

Contrast the SIII with the current Life-Like T-car. The LL lists for the same price but comes with a chassis that is basically a throw away item once the brushes wear out. The T car does not have a front axle so mounting aftermarket hubs and variable sized and various compound tires to adjust handling is not possible. The LL has an off sized arm shaft, which makes mounting aftermarket pinions impossible without an adapter. 

The Super III is tunable, repairable, and capable of taking on a wider variety of aftermarket parts. Not as many as I'd like due to the chassis geometry but more than the LL by a long shot. Is the Super III in the same ballpark as a Wizzard P3 that it somewhat resembles? Heck no. But it is clearly a better hobby-grade chassis than the current Life-Like chassis. And as much as I like the performance of the SG+, working on an SG+ or any car with separate bulkheads and loose parts that need to be deftly coerced into place in what is best characterized as a "3-handed maneuver," is extremely daunting for little Johnny and Mom & Pop. 

I think AutoWorld took a calculated risk with the Super III to make it more appealing to hard core hobbyists at the expense of the entry level and "kids playing with race toys crowd." If they had pressed the Easy Button their chassis would look very much like a Tomy Turbo or any one of the many variations on the Turbo that have appeared over the years. I'm glad they did what they did with the Super III. I know that I can tune it and service it and make it work well. Despite some of the shortcomings, like the guide pin, I like what I'm seeing with the Super III so far.

By the way, if you bend the tail of the shoe that hangs down over the back of the brush tube up at an angle approaching ~90 degrees the rear of the shoe will no longer be able to be pushed up out of the recess that it sits in. I put the bend at the halfway point in the tail. Overall the shoes are huge and need a lot of tuning to get at least a part of the shoe sitting flat on the rail. Even though the shoes look like they have a long contact patch only the toe of the shoe is actually on the rail. You'll need to form a little step at the front of the shoe to get more than a single contact point. I was able to get about a 0.25" to 0.27" contact patch on the rail with the stock front end. I found that squaring off the front of the shoe helps too because it has a big gradual curve. They put a lot of copper in these shoes but much of it is just along for the ride.


----------



## twolff

In my world Hobby Grade is a noticable quality improvment over Toy Grade.....

The history of the JL/AW slot car chassis shows a consistent lack QUALITY CONTROL. If you are not willing to travel to the factory and kick them hard enough to manufacture the product to specification you damn well better be willing to delay the product's release, send them back to China, and tell the factory to try again. (and risk getting the same container of crap you sent back for your trouble).

I'm not buying that the entire line (TJ-500, XT, Super III) of chassis was this poorly designed. I can believe that we are being sold whatever crap comes off the container ship and it easer to ignore a bunch of "whiney" slotcar guys than to force the factory to manufacture them as designed.

At least the bulk of the TJ-500 and XT bodies look decent and fit a real Aurora chassis.


----------



## neorules

Afx--- I don't have a AWIII yet so can't side by side compare, but my guess is that the LL-t chassis is far superior for speed and handling match-up.Also to address the wear out the brushes issue-- I have never seen one wear out--even then to put a new can motor in is a 5 minute deal with minor soldering. One guy in our group has raced the same car for five years and still wins races with it.I see no need for any other pinion when you can run crowns from 27-15 with no heat. I have also put in a independent front end by cutting off the front wheels that come with it and drilling a hole on each side just behind them. The problem is that you really don't want to go too much lower than stock in the front. I doesn't increase handling that much and you can create a short or heat problem.


----------



## Crimnick

Gee..we all know how reputable the chineese are....surely they wouldnt hoodwink an American businessman with a bait and switch...I mean really...it's not like they would put lead paint on toys to be chewed on by American Children......nah...

Why does everyone assume that this is the state these cars are suppossed to be in?

Why would tom invest all this time and MONEY in an obvious dog?

The problems seem to be related mostly to the armature.....but we have no proof that that arm is the one slated for the original prototypes...


----------



## 1976Cordoba

The fact that this Super 3 chassis and related bodies do not interchange with the older Xtrac chassis and bodies is *inexcusable* given that they use the same mounting system.

I don't know if that's Tom's fault or not, but he approves the designs, signs the invoice and pays the bills, so . . . .

I know if it was my company, it dang sure would work with the older stuff. Seems obvious.


----------



## fordcowboy

Would someone please pull the traction magnets out of these damn cars and see if that could be causing the cars to heat up? I know they're not very strong, but it probably wouldn't take much because they're so low. This way we can eliminate the magnets and go to something else. I think Super Three Fireball is a good name for them or just Fireball.
--FCB


----------



## Montoya1

They are strong though, if our collective assumption that they are neodymium is correct.


----------



## LDThomas

Just a short note about the two I have:

The arm has no spacers on the rear. Quite literally, the stacks of the arm rub against the chassis to limit the arm movement.

The gear mesh is WAY too loose. The crown gear won't last very long before the tips of the teeth are eaten alive.

Every detail of the car is close yet somehow they managed to miss every one...


----------



## Montoya1

Can Tyco gears be used?


----------



## mking

*more testing*

ok so i was freaked out when the first car i opened seemed like such a dog. i figured i didnt want the whole case so listed all but four for sale

i opened a second car today. it runs alot better than the first one i opened.

i managed 4.15 second Ave laps and 3.95 hot laps, about what i run with one of my best Tomy Turbos.

the second car was fun to drive. so i am not as unhappy as i was at first, and i may decide to keep 6 instead of 4, so i can have a better chance at getting four good running nascars for IROC. i sold all the mustangs. 

i wonder if AW will send me a replacement chassis for the dog?

anyone want to post some tips for tuning the brush tension on these? i never learned how to do this on wizzard cars. no one i know races them

mike


----------



## AfxToo

Neo, I have no doubt that a skilled hobbyist with soldering skills can replace a LL motor, which I imagine would have to be scavenged from another car as I have not seen the T motors being sold as a service part. The T is definately a fast car due in large part to having a 4 ohm arm and very strong motor magnets. 

Back to the Super III, the first thing I would do is to oil the car and break in the brushes by running the car without the rear axle in place at 6 volts for 15 minutes. I prefer to do this with an axle and tires in place with no gear, just so the car is not sitting flat on the track.

I adjust the brushes using a variable power supply and ammeter. The top shelf way is to get a small power supply with built in voltmeter and ammeter. Lacking that, any 6 VDC power source and a multimeter will suffice. 

1) Remove the rear axle and connect the car to the power supply. The ammeter must be connected in series with one of the power feeds going to the car.

2) Set the ammeter range to measure current in the 50 mA to 2A range. Most cheap multimeters like the $3.00 ones sold by Harbor Freight have a 10A current scale that requires you to use the third socket on the front of the meter.

3) Assuming the brushes are broken in, you'll want to adjust the brush screws to get the motor current in the 150-220 mA range, which will readout as 0.150 to 0.220 on your ammeter. I like to get it right around 180 mA (0.180 A) with a 6 ohm arm. There will be variances between arms but anything running steady above 220 mA makes me worry. (Lower resistance arms, say a 2.9 ohm Poly Mod arm, will draw more current because the resistance of the arm is lower.) 

4) When adjusting the brushes I prefer to set the passenger (right side when looking at the car from the rear and top as if you were in the car) side to a fixed setting and only adjust the driver side screw. I wish I could say what this relates to in screw turns or depth, but I just don't know with the Super III.

5) Make sure you get the target setting to read steady at 6V. If it is jumping all over the place try adding more tension, the brush may be bouncing. Brushes that are not broken in will result in current jumping all over the place too. If you can't get the current to be steady you may have to break in the brushes some more. I actually break in brushes with the ammeter in place. This helps tell you when the brushes are seated, i.e., when the current reading settles to one value or jumps between a few close values. 

6) If the current is high and steady, say 0.250 or higher) you must back off the brush tension.

7) As a final step, and if I have a variable power supply available, I jack up the voltage to 12V and then 18V. The current may increase a little, but it should not increase a lot. If it does, I go back to 6V and add or remove a little tension while trying to keep the current as close to the target as possible. The repeat the 12V and 18V test and see if the increase is more or less than before. You want the increase to be as small as possible. 

8) While not specifically brush related, put the axle back in and run the car with the wheels off the track at 6V. If you see a large increase in current you will want to check to see if something is binding or rubbing. Some common problem areas are the back of the crown gear rubbing the side of the chassis, the pinion rubbing the gear boss, and (especially with Slottech crowns) the end of the pinion (the little nipple) rubbing the flange on the gear. Really bad gear mesh can also cause binding. 

Bottom line is that anything causing friction in the driveline will make its presence known in the form of increased motor current. And because the power dissipated as heat is proportional to the square of the current, any constant current increase can lead to serious heat build up. This holds for any car. The only major difference between the Wizzard and Super III type of cars and other brands like Tyco, SG+, G3, etc., is the manner in which you adjust brush tension. The Wizzard and Super III cars have adjustable screws, other cars (SG+, G3, etc.) have a bendable metal spring arm, others (like Tyco and LL M-car) just have the brush springs that can be stretched or replaced, and some people trim the brushes to vary the brush tension against the commutator. And they all benefit greatly from proper break-in and adjustment and they all suffer bad consequences if the adjustment is way off the mark or if something is rubbing in the drivetrain.


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> ...If they had pressed the Easy Button their chassis would look very much like a Tomy Turbo or any one of the many variations on the Turbo that have appeared over the years.


seeing that a stock TOMY Turbo is beating these out of the box, the 'Easy Button' doesn't seem like such a bad move. Is it right to expect the consumer to test and debug your product and to fiddle-fart with these until you can get them to run? No, it's not. A responsible company does not release a product like this to the public. I don't remember a Wizzard, G3, Turbo or Tyco car needing this much work out of the box.

The car is sick and needs help. It can't beat a *STOCK* Tomy Turbo without a major amount of work. The bodies are proprietary, which is ignorant. Not building this car to accept other AFX bodies is just plain stupid.

You're cutting AW way too much slack on this, and I wonder why. Did you consult with AW on this project?

Bob Lincoln and Gary Beedle must be laughing their collective butts off...


----------



## Dragula

Bob Lincoln and Gary Beedle must be laughing their collective butts off...

All the way to the bank.
DRAGjet


----------



## 22tall

AfxToo, I think your post on brush tension shows why you can be more tolerant about the chassis. It is way beyond us average guys. You know too much :thumbsup:!


----------



## tjd241

*Hobby Grade?*

Not _*MY*_ hobby. You know what would be great? A new slot car that would be a blast to own and drive and if it ran and looked like what you just paid for it. Who is gonna take that step forward and release a new chassis that's smooth right out of the box, can be easily tuned to go even faster (if you want), and is reliable?... Something that is compatible with at least some other bodies?... What is wrong with a true to the name "Hobby Grade" slot car that doesn't require one to have attended several semesters at Rensselaer Polytech in order to maintain and run it around a dinky little home track?? I want *fun* not more of the same old fussy toil. It doesn't have to be a missle either (I'd prefer it wasn't)... I just wanna say holy crap this is a great slot car right after the very first lap. Until that happens you will simply not separate me from my hard earned cash (or my tjets). :dude:

nd


----------



## MarkB

*super 3's*

heres my $100 (.02 cents) worth on the super 3's I was going to wait to see what the deal was with these new super 3s I'm mostly a tjet and old afx kinda guy so no big hurry to buy a car that is not in those classes as all new things have bugs for the most part I did think there was a chance that they may have some issues but I had some extra money so I went ahead and bought 5 new super 3's 3 nascar type 1 of each ford,chevy,dodge a boss and a new mustang 
well I received them today upon opening them up 2 have serious rear axle issues very bent so bent that the wheels throw the car off the track maybe I can fix ? will see so I moved on to the other 3 of which 2 ran well and fairly quick but my tomy afx gt40 is faster and sticks better so thats the results only a few laps no lemans testing as of yet
anyway the 3rd car was a lemon I put it on the track lifted the rear wheels for a test and rev , rev , stop and dead took the body off where the brushes come in contact with the copper the copper seems to be flawed too big of a gap in it ? low grade copper? not sure but as I gave gas it had a glow to it and some smoke and would have gone up in flames like the Hindenburg had I not let off the gas well maybe not but it seemed like it so there are some issues hopefully they will make good on them if it can be done but 1 major flaw that I really don't care for is the tires are so wide that there is little to no room to run 2 of them side by side without issues at least on tomy afx track I guess that I will wait for some new tjets of afx releases I actually got to where I like the ultra g's


----------



## AfxToo

> You're cutting AW way too much slack on this, and I wonder why. Did you consult with AW on this project?


No, not at all. If I were spending my money on a new slot car for the average enthusiast who doesn't want to wrench on the car I would keep the Easy Button in clear sight at all times. Hello Turbo. AutoWorld took a big chance with these by trying to emulate a design that WHP has had four major iterations to refine besides the fact that WHP is driven by someone with immeasurable knowledge about how slot cars really work and how they should perform under strenuous conditions. I don't know who AutoWorld consulted but even if the design were perfect, if the execution of the component pieces is not, it would still all come crumbling down in short order. 

I hope that what I've presented is an explanation of how to deal with the challenges that these cars present in their current form. I am finding out more as I try them out, like the fact that the crown gear slips and the rear wheels can't easily be adjusted using a wheel puller and press. I will keep providing feedback on the technical details that I discover. But these are just another one of several available products on the market and buyers like us are free to pick and choose what we buy to satisfy our hobby interests. When I ordered these I also ordered a bunch of Life-Like cars that were being sold at discount, so I'm still playing with whatever is out there and the Super III is a new product that I just had to try.


----------



## Montoya1

AFXToo,

Thanks for all the data you have posted here. Could you post pictures of the shoes and brush work you have done for those of use less familair with those kinds of changes?

What do you think would happen to lap times if you swapped in a Tyco armarture and axles?


----------



## Rawafx

I bought a complete set of the Super III's(they are on the self on display) and also brought one of the Ford stock cars and a black Mustang home from the hobby shop to "try them out". As some of you may recall, my track is 27' by 5' and 108 feet per lap. I ran the NASCAR stocker first. It was not impressive at all, it got to the the backstretch on the second lap and started to slow down, so much in fact that it by the time it hit the "pit straight" the car was crawling. A quick look at the underside of the chassis revealed one of the motor brush adjusting screws had backed WAY out of the barrel. A quick re-install got the car back running but again only lasted about two laps(200 ft) with the same results. So I took the body off, took the rear axle assembly out, and proceeded to adjust the brush spring screws. This REALLY brought the car to life. A quick reassembly and it was off and running....for about 3 laps. The same thing had happened again. So, it was time for a quick swap over to the Mustang. This car was smoother and perkier right out of the box, but guess what??? It didn't make it 150 feet and it had virtually stopped, too. Any guesses to what this car's problem was??? That's right, one of the motor brush barrel adjusting screws had backed WAY out. I pulled the body and rear axle and proceeded to do a barrel adjustment. The screws ran way in, as if there was a very short brush inside. But the car did run pretty well......for about four laps(a victory in itself!!!). The same re-occuring problem. Today I am going to take one of the chassis and go through it to see what adjustments I can do to make it reliable.
So far, from what I can tell out of the box, to the average Joe these cars will be a BIG disapointment out of the box. But the potential may be there, just buried under the usual lack of quality control we can come to expect from Auto World.

Bob Weichbrodt
"Rawafx"
W-S, NC


----------



## AfxToo

One of the big problems with the brush system is that the brushes are way too short, by about one-third. The brushes in these cars are right about at a length where I would replace them on a racer. That's why the brush screws are so far in. The springs and screws look okay lengthwise. The brush screw is very loose and will back out. When that happens the power drops like a rock and the arcing on the comm can cause major damage. I suspect the brushes were shortened up in an attempt to make the screws sit deeper in the brush tube.

What to do? The best solution (don't shoot me) is to put in a set of standard length brushes for a Tyco/Patriot AND put a tiny drop of VibraTite on one side of the screw threads so it can still hang out of the barrel a bit without falling out or loosening. Then go through the brush setup procedure.

In the interim, lacking a new set of brushes and jar of VirbraTite, once you get the brush adjusted where you think the car runs well, put a *tiny* drop of nail polish on the end of the brush screw to lock it in place. Just enough to keep it from moving. Do NOT use a hard thread locker (Loctite green for example) unless you never ever want to get that tiny screw out again. A thread locker sold as being removable (Loctite blue) may also work, but use the smallest amount possible. None of these, nail polish to Loctite blue, is as good as VibraTite because they can migrate into the brush and get on the comm, but in a pinch they will hold. You may be able to use nail polish to get you through the first set of stubby brushes that come with the car, but when you need to replace these, get a full length pair and use something like VibraTite.


----------



## tjd241

*I understand the process ...*

and I appreciate the end game and the effort put forth by everyone. Today's turtle could be tomorrow's champion and HT guys *ROCK* in that regard. What I can't wrap my head around is _THESE ARE BRAND NEW_... Your telling me that only about a week after being released on the market, you break down and buy one or two, but you have trouble shoot them? Who's job was this supposed to be?... It was just brought up in a similar thread that Tomy is (has been) well known as a manufacturer who evidently keeps their processes and suppliers on a "short leash" quality-wise. I don't run Tomy stuff, but I've ended up with many over the years and either traded or given them away. That being said, I always ran them before offloading them. *Never ever once* did I run one that brand new, right outta the box, first time, didn't flat-out run like the Hammers of Hell. Set cars, 2-packs, single carded, G+, SRT, Turbo whatever. I suspect the same holds true for Wiz., Pat., and others. Seems to me if your gonna make the move out of the "Adult Collectable" category and introduce a "competition" item... "keeping the leash short" quality-wise should be priority number 1. Priority number 2 might be making sure 2 of your new cars could easily pass eachother on plastic sectional track. From there on forward it should be all gravy. nd


----------



## coach61

I am disappointed very much in these new cars, but have to point one thing out.. Super G + black frames.. i have 6 sitting here that I got broken in the package.. so not even tomy is perfect...but having said that.. Aw isn't even close from what I have read thus far.. I have two coming and will plan on tearing them down before they even see the track, I do enjoy the nostolgic feeling when the ozone fills the air. But don't want a cloud of nostolgia all at once lol...

Dave


----------



## Jimmy49098

I guess I got a cherry one, I got the black mustang, purple glass, chrome wheels, kind of cool. All I did was get the shoes to make full contact, oiled it and ran it, then played with the brush tension until it got faster. A little faster than the average turbo, sticks too good, they either should have made it faster or made the traction magnets weaker. The tires are tall and of a nice material, no need to lower the car with different tires, it will just go slower.
I did swap in a tyco axle with a 20 tooth bsrt gear double flanged wheels and the stock tires for a few laps, helped alot!
Bottom line for me is that I think its a good platform for a fast chassis, with the adjustable brush springs and the strong traction magnets...all it needs is a stronger armature, oops, almost forogt it needs smoother gears big time. J


----------



## LDThomas

Looks like I am the only one that thinks the way they space the arm is a big deal...


----------



## SwamperGene

LDThomas said:


> Looks like I am the only one that thinks the way they space the arm is a big deal...


LD I thought about this when we were playing around with these last night. It looks close, but I could not get the stacks to touch the chassis. I do plan on disecting one and will see what is spacing it, if it's the pinion that will be a major headache for the casual tuner...especially if someone starts swapping rears.


----------



## SwamperGene

neorules said:


> Thanks for the info on the arm. Putting a 6.1 arm in this magnet set-up tells me Tom L's advisors were not that educated on matching speed to downforce. Learn from the LL t-chassis please. Having a SS legal arm in a car thats illegal because of magnets was not well thought out. If ceramics were used it would make sense. The choice made was wrong on many levels.


I think the arm/mags will boil down to the big issue, it's not an outright "bad" setup but I'm wondering what fool decided to put polymer motor mags in this chassis. The Tomy SRT is proof enough that you can easily pull neos around on a 6._x _ohm ceramic setup. 

I'm curious as to what type of power is being used by people who've had "hot" cars. Out of three last night, we had one hitting around 125 with lower tires, two with stock tires were only hovering around 100, that was on 4 lanes with 10A. I think wall warts and lower amp supplies are gonna be a big problem with these cars.

BTW, the arms aren't legal by most standards...they've got solder tabs on 'em.


----------



## AfxToo

LD, *OMG*, I know what you are talking about now...

Okay, time to reduce the list of potentially interchangeable parts on the Super III by one, and a big one at that. _The Super III arm is a one of a kind._

The Super III arm follows the *Tomy comm and stack spacing and shaft length* but it is *timed like a Tyco*. Unless anyone else out there knows of another slot car that follows this same exact pattern, this is a one of a kind arm. Forget anything I may have said about putting a Tyco or Wizzard arm in one of these. Forget about putting a Tomy arm in it too. The comm timing won't work for a Tomy arm. The old G-Plus arm used the same arrangement but the G-Plus arm shaft is way too short to work in the Super III.

Dang, I should have noticed this sooner but until I had the thing totally apart and noticed the short shaft, I assumed the arm was Tyco compatible because of the brush arrangement. I guess this means that if you need a new arm for your Super III you're going to have to get it from AutoWorld unless someone can identify another source. I hope AutoWorld comes through with a full set of service parts...


----------



## Montoya1

Worse and worse


----------



## lenny

coach61 said:


> I am disappointed very much in these new cars, but have to point one thing out.. Super G + black frames..


That one is a mystery. Unless the mold can't handle materials like nylon or delrin or some other low friction, high impact plastic, this should have been fixed by simply changing plastics...


----------



## Dragula

The problem with the "afx made in china chassis" was explained to me by a very very strong source,they used too much "post consumer" <recycled> plastic that was diluted heavily with brittle junk,the "AFX China" chassis are nice and strong,much better plastic material.
DRAGjet


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> That one is a mystery. Unless the mold can't handle materials like nylon or delrin or some other low friction, high impact plastic, this should have been fixed by simply changing plastics...


 
The hard black G was the best marketing tool ever for BSRT who sold the only available replacement...the G3. Ironically, Scale Auto (which is also BSRT and was for years a partner or something with Racemasters) had sole importing rights to Tomy HO stuff, and while there is a part number for a replacement chassis they haven't been available stateside for...well, probably since around the time the G3 came out. 

They did change it to nylatron or whatever the soft stuff is last year...I also believe BSRT's involvement with Racemasters ended last year...go figure.


----------



## coach61

lenny said:


> That one is a mystery. Unless the mold can't handle materials like nylon or delrin or some other low friction, high impact plastic, this should have been fixed by simply changing plastics...



They did change them, I bought G3 Blanks and migrated everything over to it.. Now have 6 nice fast drywall rearrangemt missles..lol. Mind you that is the only complainent I have had about any other make.. Aw seems to have taken the worse ideas and called it SIII scarey...


Dave


----------



## LDThomas

Just to be clear here, it is not the OD of the stacks that is touching the chassis. When looking at an assembled chassis (both of mine anyway), there is a gap between the rear bushing and the stacks on the armature. You can see about 1/16" of shaft that is exposed. But when you try to slide the arm back toward the rear bushing, it will not go back. It is the trailing vertical face of the last stack that is hitting the chassis tabs holding the magnets in place. This is absurd!


----------



## SwamperGene

That's the way I took it the first time LD. The ones I looked at were very close but I could not get it to touch the chassis on any of them. Question still remains, though...what is keeping the arm in place? If it is in fact the pinion collar or gear boss, I can easily see what you described happening.


----------



## RacerDave

Wow and I can get one of these messed up creations for about 25 bucks. Uh, no thanks. After reading these glowing reports [insert your own car on fire joke here] I think I will wait for the Super IV. Disappointed Dave.


----------



## AfxToo

I think it is hitting the chassis. On some of mine the red ring on the front of the arm, behind the comm, looks kind of flubbery so I was worried about it contacting the brush tubes and was going to put a spacer in front of the comm to push everything back. That will make the laminations rub against the chassis. Putting spacers in the back will be a little dicey because there is no hard washer on the back to keep spacers from rubbing the windings. I guess I could press one on or use a plastic spacer next to the windings. It looks like some of the rear material where the lamination rub will have to be removed, but not too much or you'll weaken the magnet holder. I know, this will invalidate the chassis for national level races ...


----------



## LDThomas

SwamperGene, rear axle has been removed so the pinion collar or gear boss is totally out of play. On my two, it is without question the chassis that is stopping the arm from sliding back toward the rear bushing. Other cars may have their own unique traits. ;-)


----------



## fordcowboy

I'm not joking. I'd like to have a list of what I need to do to these new Super III's so they don't burn up my track. Sounds like to me these cars may not sell very well. Maybe in 30 years they'll be worth something. But I doubt it if sales are low. 
--FCB


----------



## SwamperGene

Just to show what Larry is talking about, the troublesome area is at the red arrow. With my car assembled as it is out of the box, though, the pinion collar hits the crown gear (blue arrow), effectively preventing the arm from hitting the chassis...if I push the arm as far back as possible I still see light at the red arrow. Definitely not the correct way to locate an arm, although in this chassis the mags are pulling it forward too. If you were to go to a different gear setup this is gonna be an area you have to check. All told, the car is coming along quite nicely, 100+ laps and temp maxed out around 100...and not a mark on the arm or chassis.
:woohoo:


----------



## MarkB

*brushes*

with all this new information coming in about brush adjustments arms,pinion gears rubbing etc... I worked on the chassis that was smoking and got it running as one may have guessed it was the brushes they had backed and it was making contact causing it to glow and smoke it does run now but the brushes still back out on their own sometimes with my lack of knowledge of non pancake chassis and it being in need of some work not a good combo but it does run now need to get it where the brushes don't work out still have 2 with rear axles that are bent and 1 other chassis that the brushes back out on after a lap or 2 all the time I did adjust the brushes on the others and there was improvement in performance 
thanks for all the info keep it coming


----------



## AfxToo

The last car I recall that came out with high expectations and negative initial reviews, and with reports of sudden, smokey arm failures I might add, was the Aurora Super II. It basically went on to become a parts barge and the few that survived being broken up became highly sought after collectibles. But it did have a pimpy velvet flocked packaging and a cool silver box. 

The big question is, whatever happened to the Super I? Hmmm....:hat:


----------



## Montoya1

MarkB said:


> with all this new information coming in about brush adjustments arms,pinion gears rubbing etc... I worked on the chassis that was smoking and got it running as one may have guessed it was the brushes they had backed and it was making contact causing it to glow and smoke it does run now but the brushes still back out on their own sometimes with my lack of knowledge of non pancake chassis and it being in need of some work not a good combo but it does run now need to get it where the brushes don't work out still have 2 with rear axles that are bent and 1 other chassis that the brushes back out on after a lap or 2 all the time I did adjust the brushes on the others and there was improvement in performance
> thanks for all the info keep it coming


If and when I find tune up tips I will spread the word, but only if you agree to use some punctuation :freak:

Yours TIC - Deane


----------



## MarkB

Sorry, but English was my worst subject. I'll try harder next time.


----------



## Montoya1

Better already 

I was only being TIC (tongue in cheek) anyway.


----------



## tjettim

The clip holds the back arm bushing in and holds the motor magnets down.


----------



## medic57

> Not MY hobby. You know what would be great? A new slot car that would be a blast to own and drive and if it ran and looked like what you just paid for it. Who is gonna take that step forward and release a new chassis that's smooth right out of the box, can be easily tuned to go even faster (if you want), and is reliable?... Something that is compatible with at least some other bodies?... What is wrong with a true to the name "Hobby Grade" slot car that doesn't require one to have attended several semesters at Rensselaer Polytech in order to maintain and run it around a dinky little home track?? I want fun not more of the same old fussy toil. It doesn't have to be a missle either (I'd prefer it wasn't)... I just wanna say holy crap this is a great slot car right after the very first lap. Until that happens you will simply not separate me from my hard earned cash (or my tjets).



It's called a G3 910 roller:thumbsup:


As far as the Super III, my take is this:


Add a 35.5 or 36 spinner, a decent rear end, tires and gears and a good front end and the car will come to life as a Modified or an R.O., Otherwise, it's a waste oif time and money.


----------



## Montoya1

I thought a post further up stated arm changes are not currently possible.


----------



## Jimmy49098

I think the arms ruled out for the super3 are tyco, super gplus and aurora g plus. Not being much for tuning inlines, the only other arm that might be different than the 3 ruled is patriot...or?


----------



## medic57

It's obvious after looking at this car that the manufacturer did not consult anyone with any HO knowledge in thier R & D.


----------



## AfxToo

The arm spacing issue could be easily fixed with a press on spacer in the rear. Wizzard sells these 10 for $3.00 or you can salvage one from an old Tomy arm, but it would be far better if AutoWorld simply installed them at the factory.



> Something that is compatible with at least some other bodies?... What is wrong with a true to the name "Hobby Grade" slot car that doesn't require one to have attended several semesters at Rensselaer Polytech in order to maintain and run it around a dinky little home track?


1) The Tomy AFX Turbo and Tomy AFX SRT fit the bill on several fronts. But oops, the open wheel Turbos and SRTs can't fit bodies designed for the SG+. The mountings are suspiciously close between the Turbo and SRT open wheel bodies, but not spaced the same. But we can forgive that. 

2) Tomy AFX SG+, maybe, but a perhaps a degree from a community college or trade school would help with these once it comes time to change out the endbell, especially on a black Tomy snapper chassis. The G3/G3R is certainly a nice chassis, and since it's based on the Tomy AFX SG+, it will mount AFX bodies, but it ain't anywhere near $25 and doesn't even come with a body. 

3) Life-Like, too bad, not compatible with any other bodies except ancient Rokars. They fail. 

4) Mattel/Tyco, no longer made and not compatible with any other bodies. They fail, but since they are all but dead, who cares?

5) You can cut the body posts off a Slottech T1/T2 and mount Tomy or Tyco bodies. Trouble is, you probably won't sleep for a month once you realize you just cut up a very expensive chassis. But technically, Slottech passes.

6) Wizzard P3 and Storm. No hardbodies at all, so nothing to share. They fail the test.

7) Artin. Does anyone own an Artin? What bodies do they use? 

Should Tycos be required to fit LL, Artin, and Tomy bodies? Should LLs be required to fit Tomy and AutoWorld bodies?

So tell me, what other chassis, other than the long family lineage of Aurora/Tomy AFX products which are all sold by the same manufacturer share bodies with other brands of slot cars? 

I'm as disappointed as everyone else at the shortcomings of the Super III. I wanted everything to be perfect. But at least what we've seen so far, they are all things that can be dealt with by anyone who wants to take on the challenge and thinks it worth it for them. If it's not, there are plenty of other great products on the market to fill in the gaps left by the Super III. AutoWorld will have to address the issues with the Super III if they expect to compete against the Tomy and Life-Like products that are being sold at about the same price. I hope AutoWorld fixes the Super III's issues because I think it could turn out to be a fun product for some folks. It really is very close in principle to a Tyco 440-X2 with Phase IIs and adjustable brushes, which is one of my favorite rides, and one that is essentially a product that Tyco was afraid to release. 

As to the higher price stuff like G3s and Storms and ThunderCats, the Super III isn't in the same league and at $25 a pop that should not come as a huge shocker. But rest assured that all of those higher end platforms do require a lot more care and feeding than your trusty old Turbo or HP7 that's very happy running on 0.3 amp unregulated wall warts. 

The body mounts, well maybe AutoWorld messed up by setting expectations with their previous products which fit Aurora/Tomy bodies. But those products were all copycat designs. Once AutoWorld decided to design something that wasn't a direct copy of an existing product that mounts a hard body, they came up with something different. It must have fit their needs for some reason. If that's a showstopper for you, dial 1-800-BUY-TOMY. 

If you are really concerned about the Super III and its higher power and maintenance/tuning needs, don't buy one. Life is too short to be frustrated by something that is supposed to bring you pleasure.


----------



## SwamperGene

I just spent another hour+ tuning and running laps, the more I get it dialed it...man, it's a pretty powerful little ride for the price. Sans body it's faster than an SRT and hitting mid-pack Ceramic SS times. With body it loses about a second but that is being chipped away too.

Very fun :thumbsup:

:woohoo:


Oh yeah, another note on the arm spacing...tonight I put a toothpick-sized dab of paint on the backside of the arm (on the white plastic that faces the rear of the car). After 100+ laps, it's still there.


----------



## neorules

Anyone do gauss readings on the magnets yet? How do they compare with other cars? what length is the arm shaft? Thanks for the info.


----------



## Crimnick

Has anyone tried to flip the body clip 180 when trying to mount a G3 or SG+ in the S3 body?

From what I have read...when using a clip in the stock orientation..a G3 sits too far forward in the body...

But if a stock clip is flipped (just tried it on a regular AW body)...the chassis in the AW body is too far back...

could someone try flipping it 180 (wrong position for TOMY/AW bodies) and report back?

The clip mounts either way to the Tomy chassis...but when 180 wrong it sits high on the bulkhead...it needs trimming a hair to sit flat when 180 off stock...

*crossing fingers*


----------



## T-Jet Racer

I bet Bud's H.o. will have a clip soon. He sells all types of adaptors.


----------



## Montoya1

Crimick - already suggested that but AFXtoo had tried and said no go.


----------



## AfxToo

Flipping the clip does not help, plus the sides of the clip hit the brush tubes. A SG+ clip does not work either. 

Neo, the arm shaft on the SIII is the same length as the arm on a Tomy SG+ but the commutator is timed like a Tyco (or a Mabuchi can motor if historical precedent is in order). The SIII brushes are inline with the magnetic field created by the motor magnets (the stator field) so the comm timing must be set to a predetermined point with respect to the arm poles. On a Tomy the brushes are offset by 90 degrees compared to the Tyco so the comm timing is adjusted accordingly. Same goes for the HP7. On a LL M-car the brushes physically look like they are inline with the stator field, but the stator field is actually offset on an M car, and so is the comm timing.

There are several arms out there that have the same comm timing and placement on the motor shaft as the SIII. The Aurora G-Plus arm and arms from the old Mabuchi cans (TycoPro, Riggen, HP2, etc.) would work in a SIII if they had much longer motor shafts. Maybe there are others?


----------



## Montoya1

medic57 said:


> It's obvious after looking at this car that the manufacturer did not consult anyone with any HO knowledge in their R & D.


Or they did but didn't use the input. I know I was very critical of several things on the prototype that are on the chassis even now, and I heard that a HOPRA racer was giving them feedback too.


----------



## Montoya1

Jimmy49098 said:


> I think the arms ruled out for the super3 are tyco, super gplus and aurora g plus. Not being much for tuning inlines, the only other arm that might be different than the 3 ruled out is patriot...or?


I think the Patriot arm is similar to the Tyco.


----------



## tjettim

The Wizzard arms are made by Mabuci just like the Tycos were and are interchangeable.
I was very dissapointed in seeing the car, as in todays slotcars many design parameters
have been established.Low centers of gravity,the ability to run a tire smaller than .440"
in the back.The traction magnets need to be between .350" and .400" long to allow the
magnets to steer the car not the rear tires.I prefer cars with the Tyco timed arms and round brush barrel systems, so I will try to tune one.Hopefully the car will do well in a box
stock enviroment,against equivilant entries,like the LifeLike dot car,SRT and Tomy Super G.


----------



## Montoya1

I started a tips topic for the S3 over in the Hobbytalk Slot Car Tuning Tips sub-forum. Hopefully as lap times start to tumble the data will migrate there and be in one user-friendly location.

Anyone tried Tyco gears yet?


----------



## tjd241

*Anything wrong with high expectations?*

...I don't think so. Anything unreasonable with the line of thought that *"at least some"* body compatability, even within it's own brand be present? (I never offered there should be a *requirement*). It does kinda make sense though... We've just seen listed a pretty thorough list of tech tips and tricks... for *us* though. Also a very useful puchlist of what was and what is available (great). Kind of my point!!... What's different about this animal than the other animals? IMHO not much really. I think all we now have is #8 on the list. It has potential... but for *us*. My wondering (however bourgeois and naive as it must sound) is who will produce a NEW chassis that adresses the needs of Joe Bag'O Donuts who just wants to get into the hobby and have a good time with his kids? Joe doesn't have a hobby bench. He's got a claw hammer, a hacksaw, and a toilet plunger... And at the same time who's gonna make a chassis that is a viable platform and ultimately upgradeable for the "Joe" turned enthusiast?... What's wrong with setting a car on the track and having it run like a Singer sewing machine? Quiet ... smooth.... fun. My local HS is still stuck with Dukes and Bowtie Brigades... He won't even consider getting these in until he sells what he has. So my question more pointedly is who is going to make a chassis that overcomes the problems of the past and holds potential for the future?? Remember that feeling you had with your first set? That feeling.. *THAT's* what's gonna turn some heads and sell some product. The more fussing and tweaking involved... the less "fannies in the seats". So no.. there's nothing wrong with high expectations... nothing at all. nd


----------



## neorules

Regarding a new car design-- it seems you can't have it both ways. LL T chassis seems to be the car that works decent with just rear tire change. The biggest complaint I've heard is that there's not much to work on to improve it for the tinkerer. The Aw car seems to be ready mmade for the bench guy who loves to improve a car over how it comes from the manufacturer. Maybe the new Tomy car will solve both areas.


----------



## Montoya1

TJD - It is a nice idea but by definition slot cars, especially not HO, are just not Joe Bloggs friendly.

But the SIII is even less so than some, and if they don't do spares we are all stuffed.


----------



## Jimmy49098

AW made pit kits for everything else, maybe the girl at AW just meant no individual spare parts will be sold, maybe pit kits are coming.


----------



## AfxToo

> who will produce a NEW chassis that adresses the needs of Joe Bag'O Donuts who just wants to get into the hobby and have a good time with his kids? Joe doesn't have a hobby bench. He's got a claw hammer, a hacksaw, and a toilet plunger... And at the same time who's gonna make a chassis that is a viable platform and ultimately upgradeable for the "Joe" turned enthusiast?


Who indeed?

Will it be some guy with decades of experience and intimate knowledge of exactly what it takes to make a great slot car, but in doing so it ends up costing $65 for a kit car you have to put together yourself? 

Will it be some guy who is a technical genius about slot cars and whose primary goal is on winning races and extracting every ounce of performance out of the platform but doesn't really care one tiny bit about whiny little slot car collectors?

Is is the botique guy with a cult following whose primary interest is in keeping his dear friends and followers happy and gassin' up the Beemer with premium? 

Is it the model railroading enthusiast who found himself stuck with a product line that he doesn't really know what to do with?

Is it the massive toy conglomerate whose primary goal is to slowly smuggle all of the lead paint out of China by hiding it on toys?

Or maybe it's some guy with a passion for making collectible toys that has fallen in love with slot cars and is trying his best to make a whole bunch of them that appeal to several segments of the hobby?

Who indeed? Maybe it's you, maybe it's me. Maybe it's someone else on the board. Motivation, passion, and an understanding of what people want and need. That's the formula for success. We've seen what the other guys can do and where they have succeeded and failed. This sounds so easy.

Please don't take my comments as countering what anyone is saying here. I know and I hope AW knows that there are a lot of disappointed people here. Our hopes were high and at some level they have been diminished or even dashed. We wanted more. We expected more. We didn't get everything we hoped for. But we have so little to lose compared to AW. I'm just grateful that AW is still trying and I respect their attempt to delve into a market that is a whole lot tougher than they probably realized. At least I know I can work around the issues with the current product and I hope they fix the problems with the SIII in the next release. I'll just run the crap out of these little buggers and see what happens. 

By the way, I'm a Joe Mountain 'O Muffins guy myself, so you'd might want to do some market research on what kind of slot cars appeal to the M.O.M. demographic.


----------



## AfxToo

> The Wizzard arms are made by Mabuci just like the Tycos were


The Wizzard and Tyco arms are completely interchangeable but the Wizzard arms are not made by Mabuchi.


----------



## Montoya1

I have seen people claim that before and seen some very angst-ridden counter-claims. Whats is the story?


----------



## SwamperGene

AfxToo said:


> but the Wizzard arms are not made by Mabuchi.


They are manufactured by Mabuchi...they are the "made" by someone else. The pronged comm blank and matching slotted lams (which are still there on the wiz arms) are both patented by Mabuchi. For that matter so is their crimp-tab machinery.


Montoya it is a long and worthless story. Boils down to who's definition of "manufacturer" fit the rules.


----------



## Montoya1

OK S-Gene I'll avoid that topic like the plague then.

Thanks for the 101.


----------



## SwamperGene

AfxToo said:


> But we have so little to lose compared to AW. I'm just grateful that AW is still trying and I respect their attempt to delve into a market that is a whole lot tougher than they probably realized. At least I know I can work around the issues with the current product and I hope they fix the problems with the SIII in the next release. I'll just run the crap out of these little buggers and see what happens.


Agreed, well said. :thumbsup:


----------



## grungerockjeepe

I stepped out on a limb and bought the case of Mustangs. I only wanted the blue '05 and teal boss with plans to ebay the rest. Usually works out better that way. Still after reading on here the past couple days Im a bit spooked. 

It sounds like most if the issues can be remedied by just some basic tuning and anyone with any knowledge at all can handle bending a little copper, adjusting some screws and maybe adding a couple spacers. Still, these are issues that you'd expect on 1 or 2 out of a shipment of cars, not to be traits shared by the entire production run.

Someone mentioned how having the end user troubleshoot a new product is a bad ideal. Actually, it has potential to be the best idea yet if AW were to go about it properly. They had us sign up as members on the website, right? Well why not charge $10-$20 a year for a premium membership which would mean the occasional unpainted body sent out as a bonus whenever something new is molded, and most imortantly a pre-production sample of a chassis anytime a change is made in exchange for some feedback BEFORE sending them to production? I mean think about it. You can either pay the salaries of your R&D people who may or may not be slotcar enthusiasts, or charge someone a few bucks to get some free hardware and get feedback from people who will be the end user. All you gotta do is separate the consistent concerns from the one or 2 really bright ideas from the one guy who's whining that the chassis wont adapt to 1/43 scale Artin style tracks and they overlooked classic bodystyles like the '84 Chevy Celebrity. Id pay $20 for some freebies and a voice in the final product. Even if this way ends up costing a little more on the front end, those costs will come back to AW 10 fold or more by way of hooking both experienced slotters and new ones on a great product that they'll want to buy more of.

As to the body mount concerns, remember there's supposedly a 4-gear chassis in development also. Maybe the SIII and 4-gear will be interchangeable?

And you know good and well that pit kits are gonna be available. And once these get in peoples' hands, Wizzard, BSRT, etc will respond with upgrades. Its gonna happen.

So im just gonna wait for my case and dive in with an open mind. If one of my keepers turns out to be such a turd that tweeking it is a lost cause, AW is getting an email and a request for a replacement.


----------



## tjettim

When you design a car and send the prints over to China,what you get back
is not always exactly what you ordered.There is money up front and money
invested after you get the prototype.It is real hard to backout once you get 
your first shipment if you are not happy with it.


----------



## twolff

grungerockjeepe said:


> They had us sign up as members on the website, right?


And I don't even get an occasional SPAM e-mail from AW for my trouble. Nothing in my inbox or junk mail folder suggests they even bothered to sell the e-mail list to anyone else. They just plain don't give a damn.


----------



## Jimmy49098

Basically the same things that are trouble areas on the super3 are trouble areas on all the JL and AW chassis, wheels untrue and bad gear mesh.
When I take a look at my case of AFX super g plus chassis runners they all have aftermarket wheels and crown gears.
Of course it would be nice to get a perfect car out of the box but not many are rockets out da' box without some messing around. 
To me the worst part other than the bodies not fitting other chassis is low speed arm, well, low speed as of yet, still trying to tune up these things.


----------



## Montoya1

I have long held the view that the China syndrome is at the route of the AW troubles, they are just not doing enough to keep on top of it. I remember they seemed unsure if adjustable magnets could be added later once they dropped the idea or even what the magnets were made of.


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> Just to show what Larry is talking about, the troublesome area is at the red arrow. With my car assembled as it is out of the box, though, the pinion collar hits the crown gear (blue arrow), effectively preventing the arm from hitting the chassis...if I push the arm as far back as possible I still see light at the red arrow. Definitely not the correct way to locate an arm, although in this chassis the mags are pulling it forward too. If you were to go to a different gear setup this is gonna be an area you have to check. All told, the car is coming along quite nicely, 100+ laps and temp maxed out around 100...and not a mark on the arm or chassis.
> :woohoo:


Maybe this was covered before (sorry if I missed it) but is the crown gear supposed to be rubbing on the traction magnet 'housing'? It looks like it extends too far into the gearbox and serves no real useful purpose other than offering a little more support to the rear end. This area should be trimmed or tapered. It's another source of friction.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> Maybe this was covered before (sorry if I missed it) but is the crown gear supposed to be rubbing on the traction magnet 'housing'? It looks like it extends too far into the gearbox and serves no real useful purpose other than offering a little more support to the rear end. This area should be trimmed or tapered. It's another source of friction.


Dan I purposely took that pic at an angle to show where the arm could potentially rub the chassis. The crown gear is not hitting the chassis. On most modern mag cars the gear extends into the "mag box" (for lack of a better term).


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> Dan I purposely took that pic at an angle to show where the arm could potentially rub the chassis. The crown gear is not hitting the chassis. On most modern mag cars the gear extends into the "mag box" (for lack of a better term).


On the car I have the backside of the crown gear rubs on the chassis...


----------



## SwamperGene

I looked again, at rest it is not hitting but it can be pushed against it, and the gear boss is already against the crown. A spacer would help, but without any spares I still haven't got the cahoonies to push on or remove my wheels yet.

Good catch Dan. :thumbsup:


----------



## tjd241

*Geez...*

I mean a fella can dream can't he? nd


----------



## Grandcheapskate

I just got through reading though all the posts. WOW.

As I said in another post, for $10 a pop, I could stand to to tinker with JL cars all day long. At $25, my tolerance for lack of quality is quite limited.

Pancake cars will always require some TLC to run well. My experiance with inline chassis, whether Tyco, Tomy, Lifelike, Marchon, Microscalextric, even Artin, is that you put them on the track and they run well right out of the box. Just how well you want them to run is up to you. But the bottom line is that someone new to the hobby can get an inline magnet car and use it right away without needing a degree in slot car physics or buying new parts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, introduce someone to this hobby with a Tyco HP-7 (or clone) and you've got a chance to keep them involved in the hobby. Simple chassis design, runs right out of the box. Give them a car that doesn't run, you can kiss them goodbye.

Let me just throw this out there for comments. Is there any other HO company, past or present, which has produced chassis which require as much initial preparation, investigation and parts replacement as the chassis which have come out of JL and AW? Do you tolerate this kind of quality, repeatedly, in other products you buy?

I guess as long as they sell, what motivation is there to put in the effort to make them better? As I've said, I haven't seen anything, anywhere, that shows me where AW has acknowledged issues and is putting in the effort to correct them. The really amazing thing to me is that they aren't inventing the wheel, all they need to do is copy an existing, already debugged, product.

My concern is for the harm it does to the hobby when these, or any other sub-par chassis, are the first cars to which new entrants into the hobby are exposed. Experianced slot guys know what they are getting and can make the determination as to whether the effort required to make a good car out of one of these chassis is worth the time and money. 

Thanks...Joe


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Montoya1 said:


> I have long held the view that the China syndrome is at the route of the AW troubles, they are just not doing enough to keep on top of it. I remember they seemed unsure if adjustable magnets could be added later once they dropped the idea or even what the magnets were made of.


As much as I dont like ANYTHING being made in China, thats not all of it. Arent the Tomy chassis being made there too? If the plant making the AW stuff isnt doing their job then find one who will. What about Taiwan or Malaysia? Ive got tomys and tycos made there and none of these problems. 

Since the change from JL to AW, Ive had little trouble with the TJ500 or XT chassis. I had one TJ with the last gear on the top plate over the axle that was way off center. I had one XT chassis that doesnt quite sit level. And outside of some lopsided tires thats really been it and Ive bought quite a few. With the JL XTs it was a nightmare finding one with a top plate that wouldnt shift out of alignment the second you reved the motor. And with their Tjets Ive seen all sorts of garbage. So they ARE making improvements, just not as fast as Id like. And if you've bought any of the recent (last 3 years or so) Mattel releases, they're no better. Ever since that 'new formula' theyve been using the tires are so lopsided they might as well be square, and apparently attack the plastic in your track. If you think AW has a wobbly wheel issue, then you havent spent much time with that blue charger and yellow superbird they had in a figure 8 set a few years back. I even had a chassis where the front axle would only snap in on the one side, just dangled loose on the other, the mount was so warped. 

I find the QC issues frustrating also, but lets look at the competition: Mattel seems content to let what was once the top selling slotcar line in the world die a slow and undignified death, with nothing but a few _Cars_ retreads and crappy quality as its dying gasps. Lifelike makes a chassis that runs great box stock but is nearly unserviceable and non upgradeable. If you dont like Nascar, then you're stuck with the 1 or 2 street bodystyles they feel like offering. Tomy's stuff is great quality but as to bodystyles see Lifelike only insert F1s in place of Nascars. AW is at least trying to reclaim the 'something for everyone' appeal that tyco and AFX had in the 70s by branching out. I just think theyd do well to listen to their customers a little more and get more slot guys involved.


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> I looked again, at rest it is not hitting but it can be pushed against it, and the gear boss is already against the crown. A spacer would help, but without any spares I still haven't got the cahoonies to push on or remove my wheels yet.
> 
> Good catch Dan. :thumbsup:


As soon as the pinion gear starts spinning, the crown gear will be forced into the chassis. The fixes are simple but here's yet another area where this should have been caught early on.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> As soon as the pinion gear starts spinning, the crown gear will be forced into the chassis. The fixes are simple but here's yet another area where this should have been caught early on.


 
Yeah I can see a faint line on the back of the gear now. As my reports are showing it's obviously not causing heat and the car is now plenty fast, but it should've been addressed in development.


----------



## AfxToo

> Montoya it is a long and worthless story. Boils down to who's definition of "manufacturer" fit the rules


Sorry, no intention to peel the scab off that wound. In friendly conversation and in kinder and gentler times I was told they were not coming from Mabuchi. I didn't care then and I don't care now where they come from. I actually thought the Keebler Elves were somehow involved based on the very small size of the wires and connections. The total lack of chocolaty smell should have tipped me off. As long as they work and are interchangeable with Tyco arms, I'm cool. 

Speaking of elves...

Over the past decade or more I've heard the same point about "this thing" or "that thing," usually a piece of hardware or a racing rule, either attracting or repulsing "newbies" and other such folk who are not already addicted to slot cars to or from the hobby. But in the grand experiment we call real life, nothing much has really changed. The same people who are in the hobby today are the same ones who were in it then. The main source of new faces arriving on the scene are the middle aged refugees from the workaday grind who are returning to the hobby after years away working, raising kids, divorcing wives, paying child support, serving their country, serving time, getting educated, and generally just punching the clock of life. The true newbies are very rare and tend to be kids who live near a slot shop or have older relatives in the hobby. 

I guess what I'm saying is that I think it's better to put the "doom of larger consequences" aside and just deal with these kinds of things at face value. They are what they are, shiny new toys with some warts and blemishes that need some work. Nothing more and nothing less. The strength of this hobby is not based on the hardware, it's based on the people and the enjoyment we get out of being involved with other folks with the same passion for the hobby. Hey maybe more people would feel compelled to join in if they saw that we were all having fun. If you were to look in as an outsider and see everyone so down on something that is supposedly a source of enjoyment and denigrating the few brave souls who are willing to stick their neck and wallet out on the line for our pleasure by producing new products that 99.9% of the world's population doesn't even know exist, would you want to join in on that kind of FUN? As an outsider, I'd rather be painted with bacon and thrown in with the pit bulls.


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> Yeah I can see a faint line on the back of the gear now. As my reports are showing it's obviously not causing heat and the car is now plenty fast, but it should've been addressed in development.


friction is friction. You try to eliminate it where you can.


----------



## SwamperGene

Ironically AFXToo, I find its the "newbies", both truly new and "New Old Guys", that seem to be most tolerant of the quirks and are quite happy that this stuff is still around to experience. And I agree, it is all about having some fun with toy cars, from T-Jet to T2, that's what they are and what it's all about.



Dan a little friction has it's benefits.... 


....just not on my cars :freak:


----------



## 1976Cordoba

grungerockjeepe said:


> . . . I even had a chassis where the front axle would only snap in on the one side, just dangled loose on the other, the mount was so warped . . .


Hey I got one from the same batch! The POS doesn't have enough material at the left front axle hole to keep the axle in :tongue: frikkin garbage.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> On the car I have the backside of the crown gear rubs on the chassis...


 
*Fixed * (quickly) :thumbsup:


----------



## grungerockjeepe

1976Cordoba said:


> Hey I got one from the same batch! The POS doesn't have enough material at the left front axle hole to keep the axle in :tongue: frikkin garbage.


I think mine had plenty of material, but it was on the lwb setting, and the upper half of the 'jaw' that mounts the axle was warped upwards. Piece o crap! Oh and one of the rear wheels on my Gotham city cop car is cracked, so its fairly loose on the axle. Doesnt pop off since the axles have those stacked knurls that I found out about the hard way when I started swapping around the redline style wheels they brought out around '01.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

grungerockjeepe said:


> And if you've bought any of the recent (last 3 years or so) Mattel releases, they're no better. Ever since that 'new formula' theyve been using the tires are so lopsided they might as well be square, and apparently attack the plastic in your track. If you think AW has a wobbly wheel issue, then you havent spent much time with that blue charger and yellow superbird they had in a figure 8 set a few years back. I even had a chassis where the front axle would only snap in on the one side, just dangled loose on the other, the mount was so warped.
> 
> I find the QC issues frustrating also, but lets look at the competition: Mattel seems content to let what was once the top selling slotcar line in the world die a slow and undignified death, with nothing but a few _Cars_ retreads and crappy quality as its dying gasps. Lifelike makes a chassis that runs great box stock but is nearly unserviceable and non upgradeable. If you dont like Nascar, then you're stuck with the 1 or 2 street bodystyles they feel like offering. Tomy's stuff is great quality but as to bodystyles see Lifelike only insert F1s in place of Nascars..


 Agreed. The difference I see is that nowhere will you find anyone defending the lack of quality in these Mattel (or Lifelike or Tomy) chassis. If they are a POS, guys call them a POS and don't buy any more. Nowhere will you find someone who says "Well, if you dismantle the chassis, take some liquid plastic and form it around the front axle, you can rebuild the axle mount". Or, "They're doing the best they can", "Just replace the rear axle right out of the box". Or, "It's not Mattel's fault, it's the factory they use in China". You recognize it for what it is, a business putting out a substandard product and really not caring about the quality.

What you don't do is keep buying them at full price.

Did anyone cut Mattel slack for the problem of lead in children's toys? Their product, their responsibility.

I will tell you something else though. If you get a bad chassis from Lifelike or Mattel, send them an e-mail or call them and they will replace it with proof or purchase. I've done it with both companies and was surprised how easy it was. Does JL/AW do that?



grungerockjeepe said:


> AW is at least trying to reclaim the 'something for everyone' appeal that tyco and AFX had in the 70s by branching out. I just think theyd do well to listen to their customers a little more and get more slot guys involved.


 You think they would be a lot closer to their customer base than either Mattel or Lifelike; after all, slot cars are their only product line (until now). That is what makes it so sad.

Joe


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Grandcheapskate said:


> Agreed. The difference I see is that nowhere will you find anyone defending the lack of quality in these Mattel (or Lifelike or Tomy) chassis. If they are a POS, guys call them a POS and don't buy any more. Nowhere will you find someone who says "Well, if you dismantle the chassis, take some liquid plastic and form it around the front axle, you can rebuild the axle mount". Or, "They're doing the best they can", "Just replace the rear axle right out of the box". Or, "It's not Mattel's fault, it's the factory they use in China". You recognize it for what it is, a business putting out a substandard product and really not caring about the quality.
> 
> What you don't do is keep buying them at full price.
> 
> Did anyone cut Mattel slack for the problem of lead in children's toys? Their product, their responsibility.
> 
> I will tell you something else though. If you get a bad chassis from Lifelike or Mattel, send them an e-mail or call them and they will replace it with proof or purchase. I've done it with both companies and was surprised how easy it was. Does JL/AW do that?
> 
> 
> 
> You think they would be a lot closer to their customer base than either Mattel or Lifelike; after all, slot cars are their only product line (until now). That is what makes it so sad.
> 
> Joe



I see what youre saying, totally. Its just that I havent experienced the bad QC issues on the AW stuff so much. AW is releasing a spanking new chassis so a FEW bugs are to be expected but it sounds like it needed to be run thru R&D a few more times and it REALLY sounds like Tom needs to go to China and start breaking his foot off up in some arses.


----------



## Montoya1

grungerockjeepe said:


> Tomy's stuff is great quality but as to bodystyles see Lifelike only insert F1s in place of Nascars.


Their recent GT40s were awesome and there is more of the same coming. I think when a factory is a long way from home base the company concerned has to resign themselves to regular flights out there. Maybe that has been AW's downfall?


----------



## tjettim

They cost more,but I think I will stick to cars that the chassis
are molded in the USA.You get what you pay for.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Montoya1 said:


> Their recent GT40s were awesome and there is more of the same coming. I think when a factory is a long way from home base the company concerned has to resign themselves to regular flights out there. Maybe that has been AW's downfall?


Totally, its a nice mold. But one or two new bodystyles arent going to keep my attention for long. I already have all 4 versions of the AW CJ-5 and Im ready to pounce on any more versions they make. And Ill be going after at least 1 version of their '09 challenger, vw bugs, vw bus, charger cop car and quite a few others. 

Variety of bodystyles is whats going to suck more people in. I hate to say it, but more tuner cars are needed in order to grab the interest of the kids to keep fresh blood in the hobby. Few people even my age (34) know what a GT-40 even is.


----------



## Montoya1

If that last bit is true then I pity them.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Montoya, I agree totally. I think that a piece of automotive history like the GT-40 being unknown among the younger generations is truly pathetic. But if anyone out there knew thing 1 about cars then every last hybrid car built would be sitting in the lot untouched. The enthusiast faction of the car market is rapidly shrinking and the more the auto makers cater to people who look at cars in the same way as an appliance, its just gonna get worse. 

This affects us slotters since the real appeal of slots is that I get to have that massive garage of sweet rides in HO scale that I cant afford in the the 'real' world. If you cant appreciate the real thing then you wont appreciate motorized models of them.


----------



## AfxToo

> I hate to say it, but more tuner cars are needed in order to grab the interest of the kids


I'm only a kid at heart, but I love tuners! Bring 'em on.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

depends on the tuner. RX-8s, 350Zs, VW R32s, cool. But Evos and other 4-door crap is lame-O.


----------



## Scafremon

grungerockjeepe said:


> But if anyone out there knew thing 1 about cars then every last hybrid car built would be sitting in the lot untouched.


:freak: If this is just a personal opinion about hybrid cars, then no explanation is needed. But if there is some logic behind the statement, I'd be interested to hear it.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

grungerockjeepe said:


> I see what youre saying, totally. Its just that I havent experienced the bad QC issues on the AW stuff so much.


 Now, for my part, I haven't really had any serious QC issues with Mattel chassis, except for the plastic melting tires. If I get a Mattel, Lifelike, Tomy, etc. chassis, they run right out of the box. Maybe they aren't race quality, but they run without part replacements or a total teardown. I can enjoy them as is. Pancake cars, whether Aurora, JL or AW are a different animal. I expect to have to oil them up and do a bit of tuning before they are really enjoyable. What is unacceptable is bent axles, tires that need immediate replacement (because they fall off), parts that don't fit or are warped, etc. These are basic QC problems and the higher the MSRP, the more unacceptable they become.



grungerockjeepe said:


> AW is releasing a spanking new chassis so a FEW bugs are to be expected but it sounds like it needed to be run thru R&D a few more times and it REALLY sounds like Tom needs to go to China and start breaking his foot off up in some arses.


 From all I have read, I don't remember ever seeing where the testing occurs. That goes not just for AW, but for other chassis as well. Clearly, if a small number of any of these chassis were made and then distributed out for testing and comments, a lot of these issues may have been resolved. There are some pretty sharp chassis guys out there (I am not one of them) who I am sure are more than willing to offer their expertise. If after all the issues are identified and addressed, the production chassis comes out with poor quality, then you can blame either the factory or the effort put into the production. And then you have to start looking at what the contract between the manufacturer and the factory states in terms of producing a poor quality product.

But, if JL/AW is going to go ahead and make a full production run of an lightly or untested chassis, then they need to accept the inevitable critisism. The consumer really does then become the QA testers. To me, that's unacceptable in any product. While we applaud the financial commitment to the hobby, we can still be critical of the execution. If the consumer is in fact the QA tester, you must expect all the flaws to be aired out in public and accept it.

I spent a good part of my career writing mainframe software. Testing the software was a huge, essential part of the job, especially trying to anticipate all the stupid things a user might do. I could think of some, but I always needed help from the people who were going to use the software. If I did all the testing myself, knowing that I did not have all the knowledge I needed to perform a full test, and then released the software to the user community, I wouldn't have lasted very long.

Clearly, the body mounting issue would have been discovered. If that was intentional, it was a business move designed to isolate the SIII; you can say that was either a smart business decision or a move which will obsolete, or make less desireable, some of the past investments customers made in JL/AW bodies and chassis. If it was unintentional, someone would have caught that very early in the development.

Joe


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Scafremon said:


> :freak: If this is just a personal opinion about hybrid cars, then no explanation is needed. But if there is some logic behind the statement, I'd be interested to hear it.


Oh, there's logic alright:

The gas mileage thing is completely bogus. You only run off of those batteries at speeds under 30-40 mph depending on the model. Now if you deliver pizzas or have a cab company that operates solely in a large congested area then you might see some savings. But out on the open road all you have is a wheezy little underpowered engine with a bunch of dead weight in the form of batteries and motors to haul around.

Speaking of those batteries, my cel phone is just over 2 years old and already has diminished talk time. It costs about $30 to replace. Battery packs in hybrid cars range from $3-7K to replace. And all the tree huggers would have coronaries if they realized that they were driving mini toxic waste dumps since theres not much you can do with those used batteries. 

You pay a hefty premium for the 'privelege' of owning a hybrid. And for most of us who use our cars in the real world the savings are bunk. Most hybrids are all based on subcompact sedans or crossover SUVS at this point, and these have horrible resale value when you go to trade them in, like most anything that caters to the non-enthusiast. 

You're better off to buy a nice used Celica or GTI for under $10K. Gas mileage in the low 30s and theyre fun to drive. Hell even a Mustang GT with a 5 spd is rated at 25mpg hwy. Sorry, but having to drive something that I hate in order to save a nickel just isnt worth it.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Grandcheapskate said:


> From all I have read, I don't remember ever seeing where the testing occurs. That goes not just for AW, but for other chassis as well. Clearly, if a small number of any of these chassis were made and then distributed out for testing and comments, a lot of these issues may have been resolved. There are some pretty sharp chassis guys out there (I am not one of them) who I am sure are more than willing to offer their expertise.
> 
> 
> Clearly, the body mounting issue would have been discovered. If that was intentional, it was a business move designed to isolate the SIII; you can say that was either a smart business decision or a move which will obsolete, or make less desireable, some of the past investments customers made in JL/AW bodies and chassis. If it was unintentional, someone would have caught that very early in the development.
> 
> Joe


You make a good point with distributing out a small num for feedback. Maybe you didnt see it before but this is what I suggested. The kinds of issues theyre having wouldnt be a big deal on a freebie, but I understand the frustration when people are dropping $25-$30 on these. 

I still think that the XTs are meant to be their own thing, and the SIII and upcoming 4-gear will be another. This is no different than having the TJ 500s be separate from the XTs, or like how the specialty cars werent interchangeable with the standard AFXs. Or how at first Tyco 440 cars wererent interchangeable with the HP2s ore HP7s.


----------



## Scafremon

-- The gas mileage thing is completely bogus. 

Not sure what 'completly bogus' means. I'm getting 50.1 MPG on my current tank of gas. 

-- You only run off of those batteries at speeds under 30-40 mph depending on the model. 

Actually, you run off those batteries at higher speeds. Maybe you meant to say that you can only run solely on the batteries at those lower speeds, which is true.

-- Now if you deliver pizzas or have a cab company that operates solely in a large congested area then you might see some savings. 

I admit - I sometimes bring home a pizza, and am often chosen to drive during lunch at work, so my coworkers can save some gas money. Still, going from $100+ in petrol costs a month to about $30 - I'm seeing some savings.

-- But out on the open road all you have is a wheezy little underpowered engine with a bunch of dead weight in the form of batteries and motors to haul around.

Actually, the engine is appropriately sized for the vehicle. The 'dead weight' comment is pretty silly if you think about it. 

-- Speaking of those batteries, my cel phone is just over 2 years old and already has diminished talk time. It costs about $30 to replace. 

Batteries don't last forever. 

-- Battery packs in hybrid cars range from $3-7K to replace. 

Actually, they don't. But, if you want to pay that much, I can sell you a replacement battery for your cell phone for $90.

-- And all the tree huggers would have coronaries if they realized that they were driving mini toxic waste dumps since theres not much you can do with those used batteries. 

I forget the recycle percentage of the cells, but it is upwards of 75%.

-- You pay a hefty premium for the 'privelege' of owning a hybrid. 

I haven't received any privilege from owning a hybrid. Some people do, or did, such as access to car pool lanes, or a tax credit. As for a premium, things in demand tend to warrant a higher a price, but the gap in cost between equivalent hybrid and non-hybrid cars is, and will continue to lessen.

-- And for most of us who use our cars in the real world the savings are bunk. 

Earth here - you?

-- Most hybrids are all based on subcompact sedans or crossover SUVS at this point, and these have horrible resale value when you go to trade them in, like most anything that caters to the non-enthusiast. 

you need to educate yourself on resale values of hybrids. 

-- Sorry, but having to drive something that I hate in order to save a nickel just isnt worth it.

No reason to apologize. Drive what you want. :thumbsup:


----------



## tjettim

I have yet to put a JL/AW chassis on a tweak plate and actualy find
a flat one.What does a Hybrid's fuel milage drop to when you pull a
bass boat?


----------



## Scafremon

tjettim said:


> What does a Hybrid's fuel milage drop to when you pull a bass boat?


Assuming some of the larger hybrids can actually tow a boat, I imagine it would be the same percentage drop in mpg as a non-hybrid.


----------



## Slott V

My cars are hybrids. They burn gas and rubber.


----------



## wm_brant

Ummm -- Guys, I don't see this hybrid discussion going anyplace good.

Could you please take it offline or to an auto forum?

-- Bill


----------



## tjettim

Sorry guys I was trying to make a funny.Most of the guys I know that buy JLs
just collect them,they would never actualy run them.I bought an Xtraction,It
does not run as good as an original,but the front tires do fall off the same.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Hey Scaf, if the hybrid works for you then cool. I cant see it tho, and most of the reviews Ive read have shown otherwise. If its not a Jeep Wrangler or a 2 door car oriented towards style and performance Im not interested. What scares me is the possibility of a move away from the free market and having hybrids pushed on us by the government or the automakers.


----------



## Montoya1

As WM said take it outside.


----------



## Grandcheapskate

grungerockjeepe said:


> I still think that the XTs are meant to be their own thing, and the SIII and upcoming 4-gear will be another. This is no different than having the TJ 500s be separate from the XTs, or like how the specialty cars werent interchangeable with the standard AFXs. Or how at first Tyco 440 cars wererent interchangeable with the HP2s ore HP7s.


 Agreed, the SIII is meant to be it's own thing, like the 4 gear chassis. The only point I was trying to make is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling physical reason why the body mounts on the SIII are not compatible with existing AFX/XT/JL Pullback bodies. On a 4 gear chassis, it make sense the body mounts would be incompatible.

A major part of the quality discussion depends upon whether AW's intent is to make a toy, a (true) hobby quality product, or a top line serious racing product. My opinion is that the JL and AW T-Jet and XT era produced a toy chassis on mostly hobby quality bodies. And, at the prices of the early TJs and XTs, that was acceptable. As I said before, when adjusted for inflation, a $10 JL/AW is cheaper than a 1960s/1970s Aurora. But when you move into the $25+ range, you have to produce a better quality product; it's no longer a toy. While it may not approach the level some consider to be the price point of a serious racing chassis, it is priced higher than than a toy chassis.

Joe


----------



## TK Solver

The SIII cars are just $15.99 at the HobbyTown in Rockford. Check your local stores. I'm not sure if that's a good price for a toy or a hobby product but it's better than the $20-$25 plus shipping I'm seeing elsewhere. I bought two last night and I'd say that $15.99 is where these should be priced when compared with Tomy Turbo, Mattel and LifeLike cars.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

Grandcheapskate said:


> Agreed, the SIII is meant to be it's own thing, like the 4 gear chassis. The only point I was trying to make is that there doesn't seem to be a compelling physical reason why the body mounts on the SIII are not compatible with existing AFX/XT/JL Pullback bodies. On a 4 gear chassis, it make sense the body mounts would be incompatible.
> 
> 
> Joe


Well youre right, you'd think that the body mounts should line up from the SIII to the XTs. But what I forgot to point out is that with the 4-gear having at least 3 front axle positions and the SIII having 4, it makes sense for those to be interchangeable. Im guessing that the way they grafted on the body mounts to the 4-gear there was no way to get the XTs compatible with it, due to the axle housing being extended so far past the motor bucket. So with that in mind, they might have engineered the SIII to be the alternate chassis for those bodies. Does that make more sense?

Once those 4-gears are out then we'll know for sure. But since all this buzz about the SIII being its own thing gives me this creeping suspicion that it might be yet a 3rd different animal altogether...


----------



## ThChrMn

Well, I finally seen one of these cars tonight at our club race.

Clearly a collector’s car. The body looked cool but the rest was not impressive.

A very high center of gravity, the pick-up shoes are laughable and it took .478 silicone coated sponge tires!

I seriously doubt anyone will develop aftermarket parts with an attempt to make these things race able.

We were all very disappointed with this offering.


----------



## dlw

The SIII body mounts are compatible with XT cars, it's the wheelbase that's way different, preventing an XT from fitting a SIII body and visa-versa.


----------



## tjettim

It will be hard to make a low body fit the chassis.Open wheelers
are out of the question.Anyone for a Hummer series?


----------



## lenny

tjettim said:


> It will be hard to make a low body fit the chassis.Open wheelers
> are out of the question.Anyone for a Hummer series?


I used an AW Camaro body and set it on a Stupor III chassis without the body clip for this little experiment.

Even if you could mount an XT body low on this chassis, there are clearance issues with the underside of the front of the body and the shoes and shoe hangers. To accomodate the extra 4th wheelbase setting the Stupor III chassis is 4mm to 5mm longer than a Wizzard chassis, measured from the brush tubes to the tips of the shoe hangers.

After trimming the body to allow for shoe clearance, the Camaro body would still sit way too high, at least 3mm of the chassis shows on the bottom. To get this particular Camaro body to sit 'right' on this chassis, some surgery would need to be done to the wheel wells. And all of that would depend on having an appropriate body clip to mount the body in the first place.

Not a very well thought out design...


----------



## videojimmy

got 'em, hate 'em.... gonna dump 'em on the bay. 
I just hope I don't take too big a loss on them. 

Why didn't they listen to us a year ago when we told them this would happen? They had to be at least as good as a Tomy SRT, and they're not even close... plus they cost more too. I hope the hit AW is going to take on them isn't going to hurt them too much... but the word is out, the super 3's are garbage. 

A very disappointing release to be sure. 

Sorry Tom, but it's the truth.
No Offense.


----------



## TK Solver

You're quite the salesman. I'll give you $5 apiece for your SIII "garbage"...


----------



## videojimmy

I guess you didn't read the whole message, you know... like the second line.


----------



## SwamperGene

videojimmy said:


> They had to be at least as good as a Tomy SRT, and they're not even close... plus they cost more too


Sorry Jimmy, I gotta disagree. With good power and the shoes and brushes set up properly, they are much faster than an SRT (and they should be), the only thing that knocks 'em down to a very close match is body weight. I paid $20 for one, $24.99 for the second. The $24.99 was at HobbyTown, and most of the SRT's were a dollar more. The GT40's - which are the only closed-wheel SRT with a clear advantage against a SIII - are $4 more through their website. You're welcome to come see the SIII's in action when we race 'em, might be early April.


----------



## grungerockjeepe

SwamperGene said:


> Sorry Jimmy, I gotta disagree. With good power and the shoes and brushes set up properly, they are much faster than an SRT (and they should be), the only thing that knocks 'em down to a very close match is body weight. I paid $20 for one, $24.99 for the second. The $24.99 was at HobbyTown, and most of the SRT's were a dollar more. The GT40's - which are the only closed-wheel SRT with a clear advantage against a SIII - are $4 more through their website. You're welcome to come see the SIII's in action when we race 'em, might be early April.


OK, I was having buyers remorse from getting that 6 pak of Stangs on the bay but this gives me some hope. I hope my luck with my keepers is as good as yours.


----------



## SwamperGene

grungerockjeepe said:


> OK, I was having buyers remorse from getting that 6 pak of Stangs on the bay but this gives me some hope. I hope my luck with my keepers is as good as yours.


Here's to luck. :thumbsup:

For the record, my findings are not just with my own cars.


----------



## LeeRoy98

I have to agree with Jimmy, the two I bought wouldn't come close to an SRT even with the body off. I have tweaked, replaced, cussed, etc.... all known items to make them run faster. They are both DOGS... I am so disappointed. I happened to like the Nascar bodies. The best I can do with either car is only a few tenths faster than an X-Traction. And I have been able to tweak X-Tractions to respectable times.

Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com


----------



## tjd241

*Wondering...*

Do you have to "tweak" an SRT chassis? I have not spent very much time running them. nd


----------



## videojimmy

I actually like the bodies and the rims too. I bought 9. 4 Boss Stangs (2 of each), an iwheels stang, the stripes stangs, and the Mopars... all at 24.99. 

I opened the red striped stang first, the rear wheels were out of round, the axel hole was drill off center. bummer, runs like crap. 

I opened one of the Mopars.... ran fine for about 3 mins, needs help now.

I opened an Orange Boss... more off center drilling, I guess I can live with it, as long as I'm not racing one of my buddies. 

I'm afraid to open anymore. Maybe for the tweak miester's and racers these chassis are cool... but I'm a customizing, Sunday driving, collector type and for this money, I expected more ... you know, like something that actually works? I mean, this stuff wasn't exactly cheap, ya dig? 

I like AW's stuff. I buy alot of it... but they swung and missed this time in my book. 
I hope the new stuff I saw in the pics today is better. A new 4 gear specialty chassis with extra traction magnets has me excited, as well as a few of the new bodies designs. 

I'm not looking to start a "Tom vs the World" debate, like I said I before, I'm a fan of this stuff, for the most part... but I can't help but feel a little disappointed this time. The complete opposite feeling I had when I ran my Tomy Ford GT's. 

Can I get amen?

Another thing, for 25 bucks, they could have least thrown a little screw driver for the brushes. Yeah, I said it! hehehe


----------



## ThChrMn

I come from a time when Auto World was so much more. . . 

How times have changed. . .


----------



## hartracerman

Bottom line is if you buy one and then purchase the stuff to fix it, what's the total cost to have a runner? Again buy new and have to fix it?


----------



## AfxToo

Yeah, I guess the new AutoWorld really falls short. After all they ONLY produce, on their own I might add, ...

1) The complete line of TJet500 slot cars including the special chase car variations. These now include a neat little traction magnet that helps the cars deliver a significantly better out of box experience for younger racers while more experienced racers can pop the magnet out for more sliding fun.

2) The complete line of AutoWorld X-Traction slot car products including two lines of special chase car variations as well as lighted cars. Same deal with the traction magnets.

3) The entirely new line of AutoWorld Super III slot cars including two lines of special chase car variations.

4) An upcoming line of AutoWorld 4-gear chassis based cars. 

5) Special releases of slot cars for club events which they make available to the public if quantities allow.

6) Complete races sets featuring novelty or movie themes and concept cars.

7) Novel full-car U-assemble pit kits.

8) They are the same folks that brought us several releases of TJet500 and XT slot cars under the Johnny Lightning and RC2 label. 

It might be worth taking a step back and look at the massive amount of new slot car product that Playing Mantis-now-AutoWorld has delivered to the market over the past 5 or 6 years. Compared to anyone else in the same business, they have delivered staggering numbers of new cars for sale and created 3 and soon to be 4 lines of car products alone. Has everything been perfection? Absolutely not. But from a quantity and value standpoint, there's something there for everyone. 

The Super III cars are a big departure for them and they have a lot of ground to make up to establish the Super III near the established and top tier products. But you can't diminish what they have done and what they are trying to do. I think they are upholding the AutoWorld name quite well considering they don't have a small army of other manufacturers pumping product into their inventory. They are going it alone and on the whole are doing a commendable job.


----------



## videojimmy

Everything AFXtoo posted is true... but is doesn't change the fact the Super III's are overpriced crappola. If you haven't bought them yet, don't make the same mistake I did and buy a bunch at once... just buy one, and make up your own mind.


----------



## dlw

One more thing:

Remember all the comments about the first runs of Thunderjet and XT cars? This is AW's first swing at a true magnet racer. Let's see how the next release comes out.......


----------



## Grandcheapskate

I have always admired and respected anyone who is willing to put up the money necessary to produce products for this hobby.

That said, it it still necessary to produce a product consumate with the selling price. It is also imperative that you do not use your paying customers as your QC department. If others are willing to spend their money to debug someone else's product, then by all means have at it. However, not everyone who buys the product understands that they are probably the QC tester.

And even if the general public is the QC tester, where does AW ask or actively encourage feedback? If you don't get feedback, how do you improve?

JL/AW did not have to design or invent anything when it produced the T-Jets and X-Tractions. All it needed to do was copy an already existing design with 40+ years of testing behind it. Over those 40 years, all the bugs, tweaks and other shortcomings of the Aurora T-Jet and AFX chassis had been shaken out. There really is no reason, other than poor quality components and control, for there to be anything wrong with those chassis.

I don't know much about the Super III, but it should not have come to market if it was not ready for prime time.

What I find disappointing is that the Auto World itself does not provide more info and customer support on their website. We expect such lack of customer support from Mattel and Lifelike (Walthers); and no one defends them for their lack of support. When they put out garbage, we rip them for it. I don't recall ever reading where someone says "Hey, cut Mattel some slack, they'll do better next time".

I think we expect, and get, more from Racemasters because it is run by a slot car hobbiest. It seems that if they screw up, they admit it and try to do better. Even Lifelike and Mattel will replace a bad chassis if you call them.

Slot cars are AWs only line of products; the primary focus of all their efforts. Because of that, I expect more from AW than I would from Mattel or Lifelike. I expect the chassis to be tested more, and have less problems, than a chassis from Mattel or Lifelike. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.

I admit I have not bought AW cars. I already have more runners than I can keep up with. When I buy new cars, it is almost always for the display case. I was going to collect the AW cars, but we all know how that turned out for collectors.

If I was going to buy them for runners, I would need to get them at the $10 price point knowing that I would have to immediatly replace and/or repair parts just to get a decent running chassis.

Joe


----------



## Bill Hall

*Ditto*



ThChrMn said:


> I come from a time when Auto World was so much more. . .
> 
> How times have changed. . .


Well said.


----------



## Pomfish

I really Wanted to like this Super III chassis.
I was really hoping everyone else just got the bad luck of the draw or were being too hard on it.

Anyway, I got one of the $60 dollar Butterscotch Mustangs for $19 plus $5 to ship. It arrived today.

So, I thought, why not try to break it in at low voltage without the rear axle in place and try to seat the brushes good and then get a baseline.

The first thing I notice is that the chassis sounds like a buzzsaw and then I remember someone on the board saying the brush barrel screws backed out on them and caused a smoke storm. 
So I removed the chassis from the track and backed the screws out most of the way and applied a light Eyeglass screw glue.

So, back on the track and continue the break in.
So far, so good.

After 10 minutes it was pulled from the track and the rear axle was put back in. Before even running the car, I can see the pinion to ring gap is way too big and is going to chew up the gears in a hurry, so I swapped in a Life-Like axle complete with gear. It fits and meshes much better. Set one rim in close to tighten up the runout even more and that was it.

Test ran the car, it would hardly keep moving as the pickup shoe contact patch is that far off as to make the car jittery.
These pickup shoes are made of Hard Steel or something, had to twaek them 3 times till I got enough arc on them to get in the middle of the shoe.

I put on the largest Super Tires I had, which are .490 for Afx, they fit the rim, but are too narrow for the Life-Like rims. I will get proper tires some time in the future.

Anyway, the front tires kept walking to the edge of the rim and trying to come off, so they got replaced with Tyco front tires from a wide chassis, they fit well and lower the front just a hair. 

So at the end of the day the car runs only as well as my worst Life Like T chassis and refuses to coast. It drives like you have brakes wired up and I do not use brakes.

Does any one else have a Super III that coasts decent?
I tried backing out the comm spring pressure and that helped some, but it only wants to run smooth at about 2/3 to Full throttle.
It's like you are driving with the parking brake half on.

Bottom line, I am happy that I only bought one.
It is NOT a Pro Level car by any stretch of the imagination.

Say what you want about Life-Like, but I have Never had one not run properly out of the package. Some run better than others when new, but they are All acceptable. 
This AW quality control, or lack there of is Unacceptable in todays marketplace.

Thanks,
Keith


----------



## bobhch

No thanks as I will pass....Whew!


----------



## 1976Cordoba

videojimmy said:


> Everything AFXtoo posted is true... but it doesn't change the fact the Super III's are overpriced crappola.


+1 to this.

And as a bonus the bods won't work with anything else -- _NICE_.


----------



## SwamperGene

Well guys there's always the Slottech T1/T2, readily accepts many Tyco and Tomy bodies and is truly a precision racer. 
:thumbsup:


----------



## videojimmy

I gotta agree on the Life Like praise. I never had a bad chassis either... just wish they had a better selection of bodies and rim options. I really like their Dirt Mod cars. It's a shame they didn't think to put knobby tires all around, like Tyco did. 

I still like AW, but I should have used better judgement and not rushed in and bought so many cars before I knew what they're really just expensive paper weights that look like slot cars. Unlike some of the dudes here, I've always had great luck with their T-jet and Xtraction chassis, so their product rep was sound in my book... and I spent my cash accordlingly. The only criticism I had in the past was their former sales method. 
Moot point now. 

Next time, I'll be smarter, I'll buy fewer cars until I know what the deal is. 
I was a sucker, it's my bad. 

but damn ... 25 bucks a car... for 9 paper weights that look like slot cars? 
Man, that hurts. Don't even get me started on shipping. Lol 

P.T. Barnum saw me coming a mile away.
Sucker, thyne name is Jim

"uh, hello everyone... my name is Jim... and.. I'm a.. a slot-a-haulic"


----------



## Grandcheapskate

SwamperGene said:


> Well guys there's always the Slottech T1/T2, readily accepts many Tyco and Tomy bodies and is truly a precision racer.
> :thumbsup:


Gene,
I'm not sure that guys are necessarily looking for a precision racer. I think what people want is quality proportionate to the price. For $25, they expect the car to run right out of the box without problems after some basic tune-up steps (shoe tweaking, brush tension, oiling etc.).

We need to compare the AW $25 car to others in the same price range. How does it stack up?

Thanks...Joe


----------



## mking

*Comparisons*

_We need to compare the AW $25 car to others in the same price range. How does it stack up?

Tomy SRT w/ newest bodies: $25 Ebay buy it now.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-TOMY-AFX-SRT-FORD-GT-40-MKII-1-LIGHT-BLUE-WHITE-ST_W0QQitemZ360033726634QQihZ023QQcategoryZ2619QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


Tomy SRT with older bodies. $16.50 Ebay buy it now. 

http://cgi.ebay.com/TOMY-AFX-SRT-PORSCHE-962-7-YELLOW-BLACK-WHITE-NEW_W0QQitemZ360033771335QQihZ023QQcategoryZ2619QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


The SRT needs no tuning out of the box, and will run circles around the Super III, unless your one of the lucky ones who gets a Super III that needs no tuning. The SRT can use many AFX, JL, AW and Tomy bodies. 

Tomy Super G+: w/ older body style $16.50 buy it now

http://cgi.ebay.com/TOMY-AFX-SG-CROWN-VICTORIA-4-DOOR-COUNTY-SHERRIF-407_W0QQitemZ360033741547QQihZ023QQcategoryZ2619QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Tomy Super G+ w/ newer Champ body style. $17.50 buy it now

http://cgi.ebay.com/TOMY-AFX-SG-F1-CHAMP-5-WILLIAMS-IN-GREEN-YELLOW-NEW_W0QQitemZ360033761666QQihZ023QQcategoryZ2619QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

So for $25 you get an AW SIII that runs poorly out of the box, and for which there are no readily available performance parts such as gears, armatures, or tires. 

For $17.50 you get a Super G+, for which many performance parts area available, and which is compatible with AFX, JL, AW, and Tomy bodies. Not to mention that out of the box the Super G+ will run circles around the AW SII. 

I am not knocking AW (I have over a hundred JL/AW slots). I am knocking the Super III.


_


----------



## AfxToo

> I am not knocking AW (I have over a hundred JL/AW slots). I am knocking the Super III.


Excellent, excellent posting!!! Extremely well put. What makes this posting so great is that it's objective, factual, straight to the point, cites concrete examples, unemotional, is limited to the subject at hand, and compares apples to apples. Wow.

Now that's the kind of critique that garners attention from prospective buyers and from the producers of the product being evaluated alike. Facts are facts and when you lay it all out and surround it with supporting data your conclusion has real impact and merit. 

Frankly, the "AutoWorld shoulda" and emotion laden postings have almost no impact on what AutoWorld will do going forward. This post simply lays it all out for them. This clearly shows where the gaps are and now it's up to them to take the next steps if they so choose. This is the kind of post that makes me feel that we've done our part and can move on. 

Thank you mking for giving us such a fine example of how to present a point in a professional manner. I'm very impressed.


----------



## lenny

AfxToo said:


> Excellent, excellent posting!!! Extremely well put. What makes this posting so great is that it's objective, factual, straight to the point, cites concrete examples, unemotional, is limited to the subject at hand, and compares apples to apples. Wow.
> 
> Now that's the kind of critique that garners attention from prospective buyers and from the producers of the product being evaluated alike. Facts are facts and when you lay it all out and surround it with supporting data your conclusion has real impact and merit.
> 
> Frankly, the "AutoWorld shoulda" and emotion laden postings have almost no impact on what AutoWorld will do going forward. This post simply lays it all out for them. This clearly shows where the gaps are and now it's up to them to take the next steps if they so choose. This is the kind of post that makes me feel that we've done our part and can move on.
> 
> Thank you mking for giving us such a fine example of how to present a point in a professional manner. I'm very impressed.


It's actually called 'market research' and is something that "Autoworld shoulda" done long ago before releasing this abomination...


----------



## SwamperGene

Sorry Mike, don't take this the wrong way as I surely don't mean it to be taken as a personal attack, but I see no merit to that post. 

First, you're comparing the SIII retail price to a bunch of ebay auctions. I got my first SIII for $20 from a real vendor. So did a bunch of other guys. 

Local Hobbytown: 

Super III: $24.99
SRT Daytona Coupe: $25.99
SRT GT40: $29.99
Super G+: $24.99

As for the SRT running circles around the SIII, that's purely subjective. You yourself were ready to dump the SIII as you acknowledged that you really know nothing about inline cars...now a week later you're qualified to "knock the SIII"? I wouldn't have a problem with that but when you're on a board where people look up to you for your tuning/building skills, that statement carries alot of weight. Hell there's people on this board trashing the car already based solely on pictures and the comments of a few.

Does an SRT run at it's best out of the box? Absolutely not, you still gotta set up the shoes and throw a set of tires on if you want it to perform _well_. Granted the SIII shoes are further out of whack depending on the track, but the same "tweak" is nonetheless needed for both and done right the cars with bodies are pretty much even if you're talking an SRT GT40. Against most other closed-wheel Tomy bodies packaged with the SRT I'd put my money on the SIII, but it'd be very close.

The SIII and SRT are exactly what they are...a fun, affordable racing platform. I love 'em both, and really could care less which is ultimately faster, and they all have their good and bad points. Sure I can think of ways I'd build the SIII...but I didn't, someone else did and there ya have it. I'm happy to have all the manufacturers still bringing this stuff to us, crap like the whining and bogus comparisons do nothing foir anyone...it's already kept most manufacturers and does a pretty good job at keeping racers from this board.


----------



## SwamperGene

lenny said:


> It's actually called 'market research' and is something that "Autoworld shoulda" done long ago before releasing this abomination...


I'm real curious to know who these so called racers are that supposedly provided feedback. While I'm not gonna agree on the "abomination" part, there are clearly things that could've been better. 

Then again, when the first images surfaced way way back, everyone was saying "looks cool, can't wait"...maybe that _was_ their market research lol


----------



## SwamperGene

Grandcheapskate said:


> For $25, they expect the car to run right out of the box without problems after some basic tune-up steps (shoe tweaking, brush tension, oiling etc.).


Shoe adjustment, brush setup, oiling. 

OK, after that, what are the problems. The only thing I've seen is VJ's comment about offset axle holes, which is common on many mass-produced toy cars (put a row a Tomy Super G+'s to a measurement test). 

If one can't set it up correctly, well, it ain't the car. :thumbsup:


----------



## T-Jet Racer

$19.00 for a new Super III,

$1.50 for shipping ( 1/6 of the 6 pack of cars I got )

Opened up the first of my new inline competition racers, bent rear axel or rim. ( it wobbles)

OVERPRICEDLESS!


----------



## Scafremon

AfxToo said:


> Excellent, excellent posting!!! Extremely well put. What makes this posting so great is that it's objective, factual, straight to the point, cites concrete examples, unemotional, is limited to the subject at hand, and compares apples to apples.


Yea, but you say this about any post in _Times New Roman AND italics!_


----------



## RiderZ

*!!!*

Get'em Gene!!!


----------



## mking

*swampere gene*

_you acknowledged that you really know nothing about inline cars_

Actually, its the adjustable brush tension inline magnet cars i dont know anything about, slot techs, wizzards and maybe 440s if you put in aftermarket brush systems 

Ive got alot of track time with in line can motors that dont need out of the box brush tweaking, and the tomy/bsrt stuff with end bells. 

but your right, my lack of knowledge about the brush system the Super III uses probably plays a large factor in my being unhappy with them. 

i still beleive that out of the box, even at comparable retail prices, the SRT's and Super G+ give better performance. 

After fiddling (blindly playing with the brush adjustment screws) with one of the two super IIIs i opend, it did run as well as a Tomy turbo (ceramic traction mag). i didnt run it against an SRT, so maybe the runs rings around comment was over the top. the same treatment with the other SIII went from running poorly to not running. i think i backed the adjustment screw out too far. 

too bad your so far away, id welcome the chance for you to show me how to tweak the SIIIs. ive got six of them, and id rather have them running than not! :wave:


----------



## RacerDave

I have quite a few Tomy Super G's and SRT's and they have all run just fine out of package. Didn't need to tear em apart and change parts to get them to run right. They are well made. Dave.


----------



## AfxToo

Yes indeed, having a 15+ to 20+ *year* head start (Turbo 1985, SG+ 1992) and being the beneficiary of a design, development, and testing effort funded by a majorly deep pockets toy company has its benefits. 

The Super G+ is a wonderful design but it was nearly squandered by some shoddy production issues that persisted for a number of years. Thankfully these have finally been rectified and the current new issue $14.00 USD SG+ roller is one of, if not the single best, deals going on right now. It rocks.

It just shows that building a top quality product requires that every aspect of the design and production "click" just right. It ain't easy and it sometimes takes a trial by fire to get it all perfect. But I wholeheartedly applaud and encourage anyone who is willing to take the shot, especially in products that are a purely discretionary part of our lives. The first release of the Super III does fall short for some folks but it has some tremendous upside potential for others and I hope AutoWorld continues to refine this platform and address its weaknesses. It's close, but as we saw with the brittle SG+, being close isn't good enough. 

I will continue to encourage the AutoWorld team because I believe they do want nothing more than to build a product that delights us. That's the only reason these things exist.

I'd also encourage anyone who feels that they didn't get what they paid for to try and do something about it. Twenty five bucks isn't chump change. But try not to make it personal, it's just a product purchase that you are not happy with. No big deal.


----------



## SwamperGene

Yeah Mike too bad you're not closer, it's alot of fun and I'd be more than happy to share tips. I'll say one thing, the SIII shoes are a bit puzzling at first, but that's "where it's at" with any car. Brush tension helps too of course.

Really my point was that if you sit down with an open mind and do some setup work these cars ain't bad. Hard to do when you are expecting the worse. My second one took about 5 minutes to get it screaming, I put a crappy vid of it doin' laps on my board. The hot lap was 5.9 with the big load Taurus body. That's two tenths slower than the SRT GT40 track record held by a guy that's twice the driver I am, which I expect with the bigger, heavier body. It's a good half second faster than the SRT average though. These are lap-time supported facts. 

I'm gonna try to get some more detailed setup tips with pics up soon, if that doesn't help you can send one over and I'll see if I can make it better.

:thumbsup:


----------



## brownie374

Glad I didnt get one.There is some on ebay that are NOT selling for 16.99


----------



## Pomfish

SwamperGene said:


> Shoe adjustment, brush setup, oiling.
> 
> OK, after that, what are the problems. The only thing I've seen is VJ's comment about offset axle holes, which is common on many mass-produced toy cars (put a row a Tomy Super G+'s to a measurement test).
> 
> If one can't set it up correctly, well, it ain't the car. :thumbsup:


Here are some of the other problems;
The rear gear has WAY too much play side to side, it is only a matter of time till you chew up the teeth. They sound like a box of rocks.

Some Life-like T chassis also sound like a box of rocks but they do not chew up the gears. 

Tweaking the brushes is only part of the problem, if you do not put some type of thread lock on, they will just back out again.
Now tell me, which other Mfg has this problem?

I will buy more AW cars in the future, but not the Super III unless all these problems are addressed.

Odds are good, Out of the box a box stock SRT will out run a Super III. Untweaked it is no contest.

Thanks,
Keith


----------



## SwamperGene

I agree the SIII gear mesh could be better, but I've had terrible luck with the few LL cars I've had, most did chew the gears up. It's seems to be forgotten too that many people, who's GT40 were their first experience with SRT's, complained of gear noise and were told to switch to Super G+ gears.

Speaking of Super G's...don't you just love the rear tires/rims. You'd figure at $20 -$30 bucks for a packaged car they'd put a set of real rims on the thing. First piece of advice everyone gives a SG+ newbie...change your real wheels. 
Of course, that's after you're done picking up the shoes that seemingly jumped off the chassis when you opened the package. How long has Tomy had to address these problems? The chinese dude whose name is on the SG+ patent probably cares less about any of us this hobby than TL.

Yeah, AW should be so ashamed of what they've done. How dare they release the Super III.

Lastly, the only other two "adjustable barrel" HO manufacturers both recommend a threadlocker. I don't have it on either of my SIII's yet and they are fine, but as a racer I know that I should and if the screws back out, that's my fault.


----------



## lenny

SwamperGene said:


> I'm real curious to know who these so called racers are that supposedly provided feedback...


Same here. And as for the 4 wheelbases, that was probably a little ill-conceived because it stretched this chassis out a lot longer than it needs to be. It's at least 4mm longer than a Wizzard as measured from the brush tubes to the tips of their respective shoe hangers. This precludes using any X-Trac bodies even if you could because the brushes will interfere with the front.


----------



## 1976Cordoba

OK maybe it is time to move on . . . :wave:


----------

