# What would you like to see in a "new" TJet chassis?



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

Would you like to have a carbon copy of Aurora's Tjet with tighter tolerances?

Or would you like to see a chassis with other improvements?

Just wondering...

Scott


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Great Q Scott,

#1. Square and plumb for starters, made of a material that will hold the tolerances of 
vertical and horizontal bores; as well as indexing the gearplate to the chassis in 
such fashion that it stays put, and of course maintaining precision magnet
spacing.

#2. Provision for gearing changes like the original.

#3. Speed parts standard! As "AFX Too" suggested.

A. decent ballanced arms, with straight comms
B. Comm spring improvement.
C. A more rail friendly pick up shoe, lighter...plenty of nice after market 
choices
D. A properly attached hanger plate that doesnt "Watusi" combined with 
a conductive spring cup

#4. Rear ride height adjustment

A. remove the pinion spacer
B. Raise the lower pinion journal plate
C. relieve the gearplate so the crown gear doesnt rub

#5. Open up the motor pit sides for venting, as well as complimentary
gearplate breathing above the windings.

#6. Providing that the correct chassis material is selected....

A. Narrow or "tub" the rear frame rails, this should include knocking 
the back edge off the rear magnet housing protrusions
B. Lighten the whole ball of wax...the originals were quite robust in
some areas by necessity. With modern advances in "plastic-urgy"
could be thinned down some.

Looks like I just re-invented the AFX .... sorry  ....but ya did ask!...snicker


----------



## martybauer31 (Jan 27, 2004)

Aside from what Bill has said and I agree with all of them, especailly the square and plumb comment (Amen Brutha)...

I would like to se them make it so you can remove the rear axle, crown gear, tire combo like you can with every other modern slot car. PLEEEEEEAAAASSSSE!


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

Given some improvements, the real question is how much would you pay? If a $7 - $10 Aurora chassis can be made just as good with a little tinkering, how much value would a new chassis have, especially in clubs/classes outside of manufacturer control where rules would tend to level the playing field.


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

A redesign for a rear axle that pops in and out like inline car designs would be nice -- trying to get the crown gear/axle/rim thing worked out is a pain in the --- and just plain stupid.

My $.02 because you asked.

'doba


----------



## Bill Hall (Jan 6, 2007)

Gene: I figure about 75 cents...LOL

Seems like they are making some OK chassis these days. The cut and paste design mods wouldnt be astronomical, but I agree that the close tolerance stuff would put it into exhorbitant catagory. If a better material was used I would presume that tolerances could be held better than what is currently available in NOS. I wouldnt be disagreeable to cough up some extra coin...providing the product was quality assured.

'doba: I tried the snap axle mod on the t-jet chassis a couple years ago just for a larf.
Worked great!... except repeated "snappings" would start to distort what was left of the axle bore. The old nylatron is just too gooshy to stand up under the strain. The snapper has great merit...but the material was sorely lacking.


----------



## Grandcheapskate (Jan 5, 2006)

In addition to Bill's list, adjustable brush tension.


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

Why don't you guys post your ideas on WizzardHo's board,they're all good ideas,and you probably got a better chance of getting a reply from the manufacture'r on his board.

http://www.wizzardho.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=8


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

Bill Hall said:


> Gene: I figure about 75 cents...LOL
> 
> Seems like they are making some OK chassis these days. The cut and paste design mods wouldnt be astronomical, but I agree that the close tolerance stuff would put it into exhorbitant catagory. If a better material was used I would presume that tolerances could be held better than what is currently available in NOS. I wouldnt be disagreeable to cough up some extra coin...providing the product was quality assured.


LOL Bill. Seriously, though, I'd bet these things, if built, would probably start in the $25-$35 range with a stock motor and cookie-cutter tires. You gotta remember they sold $75 RTR _Aurora_ cars, it'd look pretty silly to suddenly say they were overpriced junk.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

As Bill pointed out, the original AFX really is the ultimate refinement of the TJet (and my favorite non-mag car of all time) which is probably why Aurora built it. The only "problem" with the AFX is you lose the ability to mount standard TJet bodies because of the axle heights. The body mounts on the side can be lopped off easily but you'll still end up with the wheels way too far up in the wheel wells. 

This is a tough question for lots of reasons, technical and not. Mostly it comes down to whether Wizzard is trying to "fit in" with the status quo in TJet racing or appeal to a broader category of racers and enthusiasts who just enjoy racing pancake powered cars but would just like more choices and a more race-ready product right out of the package. 

There is no clear answer or evidence that either strategy would work. All of the larger TJet racing events have "Aurora Only" rules and these are unlikely to change even if Wizzard produced an exact clone. There would always be a concern of one version or the other having an advantage even if race results proved otherwise. (Kind of like magnet cars today.) On the other hand Johnny Lightning (now AutoWorld) has pumped tens of thousands of their TJet variation into the market yet it has not received support or publicity at the national racing level. Had JL/AW produced a perfect product would it have taken over the TJet racing world? Who knows.

The limited current evidence does not tell the whole story. First of all, there are a heck of a lot more people who race TJet style cars than what is reflected by the relatively small number of people who show up at nationally exposed events. (Again, just like the magnet cars.) Second, you can argue the the JL/AW product isn't very race worthy right out of the box, and when tuned properly its performance is so far off the original TJet that racing head to head doesn't make sense. 

There is no clear answer. However, I'm more then happy to sit back and see what happens and harvest the fruits of someone else's labor. 

I'd probably lean more towards wanting an updated and improved version that fixes the decades old problems with the antique TJet design. I'd actually prefer a high performance slimline more than anything because NOBODY is doing it and if done right it would be a sweet little platform for open wheel and hot rod style racers and added realism. Why not try to own the whole small pie instead of a slice of a larger pie that you have to share with others? I say, bring on the Killer Slims.


----------



## Hornet (Dec 1, 2005)

No T-jet racers here,and none in the local area that i know of Dave,so they might not be as popular as you think.  
Still say you guys should be discussing this over on Wizzard's board,as i highly doubt you'll get an answer here from Bob


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I can wait. I'm in no hurry to find out and was addressing Scott's question. I will be happy either way. I'm confident that no matter what Bob decides to produce it will be a well designed, well made, and first-rate product. 

If it's a "Jet" I'd like to see it called SabreJet since the F-86 Sabre Jet was the successsor to the F-84 Thunder Jet.


----------



## lenny (Feb 29, 2000)

Bill Hall said:


> Great Q Scott,
> 
> #1. Square and plumb for starters, made of a material that will hold the tolerances of
> vertical and horizontal bores; as well as indexing the gearplate to the chassis in
> ...


bump...


----------



## martybauer31 (Jan 27, 2004)

Hornet said:


> No T-jet racers here,and none in the local area that i know of Dave,so they might not be as popular as you think.
> Still say you guys should be discussing this over on Wizzard's board,as i highly doubt you'll get an answer here from Bob


I don't understand what Bob has to do with any of this....


----------



## TUFFONE (Dec 21, 2004)

I would like to see a T-jet chassis that is basically like the original. It should be of low cost($6-$8) and geared to running well at low and medium speeds. Not all racers/collectors are into the speed aspect. Interchangable parts with old T-jet chassis would be a plus. Above all inexpensive.
Tuffone


----------



## vaBcHRog (Feb 19, 2003)

New TRUE wheels and a variety of styles from Halibrands to Wire Wheels to a 5 lug Stocker with just slightly woder tires than the stock TJET. And some TRUED white letter Firestone, Good Year and Hoosiers would be niceand some Red line and Blue Line tires too


----------



## lenny (Feb 29, 2000)

martybauer31 said:


> I don't understand what Bob has to do with any of this....


it was an old thread and around the time Wizzard was making his T-Jet shoes. There are other elements in the thread though that I wanted to keep fresh, hence the bump up...


----------



## martybauer31 (Jan 27, 2004)

ahh, gotcha... I have spoken up on a couple of the other threads already, I am looking forward to this!


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

There is/was a replacement for the tjet chassis. The Thunderplus....... But because of the armature snafu, that (along with some of the cars) went up in smoke.

Model Motoring tried to fix the mistake, but some folks weren't willing to be patient. They gave MM very bad word-of-mouth, and in combination with the lawsuit with the chassis manufacturer, that pretty much killed MM.

It would be nice if they can somehow start making more chassis.


----------



## oddrods (Feb 6, 2007)

I'm not so sure it was impatients and bad word of mouth that killed the thunderplus. I think it was more the attitude that "you will buy all my mistakes 1st, and then I'll address the problems" and the fact that there wasn't parts interchangability with the Tjet that killed it. I bought a couple to see for myself if they were as bad as the rumors claimed. Both cars went up in a glorious puff of smoke within 2 laps. I emailed MM with no replies.


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

I don't think MM knew of the bad arms until people told them about it. Remember the first JL Thunderjets? A poster named Groove Daddy was given a test chassis to play with, and I'm sure he told, then JL, his findings.

I wonder if MM did the same thing, giving someone a T+ chassis to test. Perhaps they did, and the factory they contracted used crappy arms...... Just a theory.

When those arms hit the fan, MM did make an effort to fix the problem. I'm not blaming nor condoning MM's methods of trying to fix the problem.

I too have T+ chassis with the bad arm. I ran it and it was slow. I took a look at the arm and notice the comm is sloped. I still have the arm sitting on my desk. When I got a multimeter, I ohmed it. It came up 24/47/24.

I know the gearplates aren't compatible with NOS chassis, but the T+ can/could serve as a replacement.


----------



## RMMseven (Oct 22, 2004)

I think this is an interesting topic.

To answer the initial question I will state that my goal would be to have a number very drivable car and that I could buy mulitples of that I could race together and have even racing - I really don't care how fast they are as long as one isn't a lot faster or slower than the others (like the original Aurora versions are). 

There is no reason to make the T-Jets faster, almost every HO car is faster. I want driveability and race-ability, good throttle control that allows people to drift the cars thru the turns is what I'm looking for. To do this straight axles with good alignment, round wheels and tires are mandatory along with armatures with close tolerances. 

The only improvement I think that is really needed would be wider tires on the rear.

I do like the idea of an improved slim-line but one that I could also mount traditional T-Jet bodies on. Some of the original Aurora slim-lines I have run very good and are really a lot of fun but others run poor and some just will not run at all.

We have a lot of fun racing original Aurora Thunder-Jets, the all brass ones not the "Tuff-Ones" or "Wild-Ones", we do install slip-on silicone tires. We can usually find some cars that have very similar performance to race against one another. and it is great fun!


----------



## tjettim (Nov 29, 2005)

To make a better Tjet chassis it would have to be made in the USA
and out of a top notch plastic,not the recycled junk comming from
china.Chassis flex would be hard to engineer in with the gear train
design of the T-jet.This car would not be cheap! An RTR would be
80-100 dollars.How many could one sell?


----------



## lenny (Feb 29, 2000)

tjettim said:


> To make a better Tjet chassis it would have to be made in the USA
> and out of a top notch plastic,not the recycled junk comming from
> china.Chassis flex would be hard to engineer in with the gear train
> design of the T-jet.This car would not be cheap! An RTR would be
> 80-100 dollars.How many could one sell?


The original T-Jet was molded, stamped out and assembled in Hong Kong over 40 years ago, I assume out of recycled junk, since that's all that comes from there. In fact, 40 years ago EVERYTHING that came out of Japan, Hong Kong and China was perceived as junk. Yet this 40 year old relic is what's being held up as 'the benchmark'.

How many chassis are molded in the US, aside from Wizzard products? 

To be totally honest with you, I could care less about 'chassis flex' in a T-Jet as I do with some of the other topics being tossed around. In fact, your post is the first I've seen regarding chassis flex and doesn't mention whether more, less or the same is 'needed', only that it needs to be 'controlled'.

How many chassis could I sell at $80 to $100? Zero. I wouldn't even take on a project like this if the product retailed for over $10, since originals NOS are still available for slightly more than that.


----------



## Marty (Oct 20, 1999)

The only improvement I would want to see over the original T-Jet is Quality Control.

MOO

Marty


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

lenny said:


> How many chassis could I sell at $80 to $100? Zero. I wouldn't even take on a project like this if the product retailed for over $10, since originals NOS are still available for slightly more than that.


This is very good to hear, and yet another background point sufraces for keeping it as close to the original specs as possible.

There is no such product as a Fray chassis. Or a VHORS chassis. Or even our own Dirt Mod T-jet. They are all modifications to the original, based on specific rules built around that original. Bring on an affordable, decent quality reproduction with quality on par with and perhaps a bit better than the original, and let the tweakers and tuners worry about the details just as they do now (they're gonna do it anyway). :thumbsup:


----------



## ScottD961 (Jan 31, 2008)

I agree ! Make it a 100% exact copy of the original but with better Q.C. I'll modify it the way I want it later !


----------



## twolff (May 11, 2007)

100% dimensionally interchangeable with the orginial. As good or better quality control. Improve the material where needed and pratical. Round and true wheels with tires I can actually use to run the car would be a welcome improvement.


----------



## brownie374 (Nov 21, 2007)

Exactly same chassis of course better q.c. and double flanged skinny rims.


----------



## PumaT (Jul 17, 2008)

Since the NOS T-Jets are drying up and parts are getting harder to find (and more expensive), I would vote for an exact duplicate. Everything interchangable. Is that legal?


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

"Drying Up" might not be....._entirely_ true.

Rumors are already surfacing that REH has more unopened trailers behind the ones they're in now. Could be little left, could be _alot_ left.


----------



## coach61 (Sep 6, 2004)

SwamperGene said:


> "Drying Up" might not be....._entirely_ true.
> 
> Rumors are already surfacing that REH has more unopened trailers behind the ones they're in now. Could be little left, could be _alot_ left.


Wonder if the out of scare is a tactic leanred from the Oil speculaters..lol..


Dave


----------

