# Okay, call me crazy, but...



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

Do these really look bad? I guess I'm just not seeing the problem...










Or these? (Actually, I'll concede that the Charger and Riviera look a little odd with the wide fronts, but not THAT bad...)











View. Discuss. Flame. Whatever.

--rick


----------



## WesJY (Mar 4, 2004)

hmmm.. i dont know.. how do they run? i mean any differences between fat tires and skinny tires on curves? 

Wes


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

ParkRNDL said:


> Do these really look bad? I guess I'm just not seeing the problem...
> 
> --rick


You are crazy!
Sorry, could not resist it. I don't have a problem with the bigger front tyres, don't 'real' road cars have four equal sized tyres?

But I have never understood why anyone would make a closed wheel slot car with wheels sticking out of the sides.


dw


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

Yeah, they look cartoonish, but they looked cartoonish with the skinnies on the front too. Tuffies in general always reminded me of Rat Fink. Case in point:

http://www.budshocars.com/

Look at his homepage artwork. The car isn't really all that distorted from what a real Tjet Cougar looks like, but the overall pic is classic Rat Fink cartoon.

Now, I realize we did a thread on that very topic not long ago, where I took a bunch of pix of cars set up as Tuffys, and some of you pointed out that THEY were cartoony, and I had to agree, but I liked them anyway. I guess my point here is that since the pictures of the Corvette and the General Lee were posted, a bunch of us are looking at the wide fronts as a big setback appearance-wise. I say they don't change the look much from what was there before... what's the big deal? When I have time (after work or later in the week) I'll try to shoot a few head-on pictures as you suggested...

Yeah, Deane, I gotta agree on the wheels sticking out point... I put stock Tjet wheels on some of these myself. My point is just that these don't look any worse to me than the previous Tjets.

And Wes, I haven't done much testing on them, just a few laps. I think it was rodstrguy who asked about the same thing in another thread. It's long been considered a fact that independent fronts help Tjets handle better. To be honest, they do seem to spin out pretty easy, but then that may be just Tjets in general. Sounds like we need someone with timing software to do a comparison test. I've seen a couple of people do stuff like that here before...

If the handling is affected, then I think that's a valid concern for people who want to drive these. OTOH, lots of people who race these change the fronts right away anyway...

--rick


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

ParkRNDL said:


> Yeah, Deane, I gotta agree on the wheels sticking out point... I put stock Tjet wheels on some of these myself. My point is just that these don't look any worse to me than the previous Tjets.
> --rick


Agreed. So how did the whole sticky-out thing come about, anyone know?


dw


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

This is taking me back to the early 70's, to dirt tracks like the Freeport Raceway, Hales Corners, Cedar Rapids, etc. The four fats definitely give the cars an old school dirt track stock car look. The skinny fronts seemed to simulate street rods and dragsters. All skinnies gives a factory look. Aftermarket wheels and tires can be used to get other looks. My hope is that the variety and quality of wheels and tires grows. It all works for me.

My cars should arrive on Saturday and I'll do my best at timing comparisons.


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

ParkRNDL said:


> Sounds like we need someone with timing software to do a comparison test. I've seen a couple of people do stuff like that here before...
> 
> --rick





TK Solver said:


> My cars should arrive on Saturday and I'll do my best at timing comparisons.


Hey yeah, that WAS you, wasn't it?  :wave:

--rick


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

Montoya1 said:


> Agreed. So how did the whole sticky-out thing come about, anyone know?
> 
> 
> dw


If I had to guess...

The original Aurora cars (Vibes and Thunderjets) had skinny little tires that tucked under the fenders. For a while, other manufacturers played catch-up, like Tyco S, Lionel, Atlas, Bachmann, Eldon, Marx... Finally, a couple other designs took great strides and surpassed the Tjet in some areas... the ones that come to mind are Riggen and especially TycoPro. These guys had some seriously wide stances. To keep up, Aurora just stuck fat tires on its existing Tjet and added a hot arm and magnets and silver electricals and called them Tuff Ones. It was a quick cheap fix and it used existing bodies and chassis even though they were really too narrow to properly accomodate the wider wheel track setups. The Tuff Ones were used to hold off TycoPros for a couple of years (they actualy STILL handled better than the Tycos, I think, but the Tycos had an inline can motor with oodles of speed) until Aurora could develop the A/FX, which, though it shares much with the Thunderjet, incorporates the wider track of the Tuffy with snap-on bodies that cover the wheels.

Fast forward to 2001, when JL/PM chooses an old slot car to emulate, and they picked up on the classic Thunderjet bodies with Tuff Ones chassis, including the stick-em-out wheel stance. Doesn't bother me at all, I can change to original Aurora skinnies if I want, but I certainly wouldn't mind if Round 2 tried a set of narrower wheels that fit under the bodies... maybe between Thunderjet and Tuff Ones width, as AfxToo has suggested...

--rick


----------



## co_zee (Mar 28, 2005)

> To keep up, Aurora just stuck fat tires on its existing Tjet and added a hot arm and magnets and silver electricals and called them Tuff Ones.


Different gearing also!!!!!


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

co_zee said:


> Different gearing also!!!!!


Oops. Forgot about that. I stand corrected. :wave:

--rick


----------



## Montoya1 (May 14, 2004)

ParkRNDL said:


> If I had to guess...
> 
> The original Aurora cars (Vibes and Thunderjets) had skinny little tires that tucked under the fenders. For a while, other manufacturers played catch-up, like Tyco S, Lionel, Atlas, Bachmann, Eldon, Marx... Finally, a couple other designs took great strides and surpassed the Tjet in some areas... the ones that come to mind are Riggen and especially TycoPro. These guys had some seriously wide stances. To keep up, Aurora just stuck fat tires on its existing Tjet and added a hot arm and magnets and silver electricals and called them Tuff Ones. It was a quick cheap fix and it used existing bodies and chassis even though they were really too narrow to properly accomodate the wider wheel track setups. The Tuff Ones were used to hold off TycoPros for a couple of years (they actualy STILL handled better than the Tycos, I think, but the Tycos had an inline can motor with oodles of speed) until Aurora could develop the A/FX, which, though it shares much with the Thunderjet, incorporates the wider track of the Tuffy with snap-on bodies that cover the wheels.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the comprehensive answer. I guess with the new cars, Tom wanted to retain the original look or was simply re-popping from old molds, but I prefer cars like the F&F ones that look 'real' and fit the Tomy Turbo.

Having said that, any new slot cars are welcome!


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Of course my .02*

Ok, I look at the cars.
I see the wide front tires. Makes me wonder why they would change whan as far as I am concerned JL had it right with the JL Tuff Ones.
I will scratch my head in puzzlement and then buy some anyway...
(I still feel it is the factory screwing it up....)

Scott


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

Making the front tires smaller in diameter would help a lot.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

*Outstanding report AFX Too*

Outstanding report AFX Too.

Thanks you for taking the time to post it...


Scott


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

noddaz said:


> Outstanding report AFX Too.
> 
> Thanks you for taking the time to post it...
> 
> ...


Yeah, thanks. Now I really gotta find me some of these things...

--rick


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## RacerDave (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks for all the info AFX. Looking forward to getting a few of these and checking them out.


----------



## Manning (Mar 2, 2004)

Mr. Too, 

Is the armature comm plate flat? Lots of my JL cars are dished horribly.

Do the brushes fit any better? My JLXT's are very loose....

Is the chassis flat? Or is one wheel dangling in the air? About 2/3rds of my JL cars chassis are twisted....both TO and XT

Good to hear the AW cars run well. Will have to pick some up just go get rid of my pile of 440x2 pan front tires........ :thumbsup:


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

*Looks are very deceiving....*

I too have been hard on these seemingly big honkin' front setups. Today I picked up my first AW XT...call it morbid curiousity I guess.

I decided I'm going to try to write a comprehensive review, in part because I've never done it but more importantly because our local group runs some JL classes and we wanted to see how these cars "mix", not wanting to see as wide a gap as say a T-Jet to a Tuffie.

I'm still in the early stages of testing, but wanted to pass this finding along. It threw me for a loop. I was using an "out of the box" condition Fast and Furious XT as a comparison.

One of the first questions that popped up concerning the front ends was axle diameter. The AW front axle is larger, measuring .059, same as the rear in both the JL and AW cars. In comparison, the JL front axle is .048, and yes the holes are sized accordingly, ie. the AW axles won't even begin to go into the JL holes.

Now on to the optical illusion part. Assembled and adjusted for equal tolerance, the new front setups are actually NARROWER than the JL XT's. To put is simply, the JL wheels are .293 wide, the AW wheels are .015 narrower at .278. From a birds-eye view, you will see less tire on the new cars when these fronts are properly adjusted. And you can run these new wheels right up against the chassis with stock tires and all, and they will not interfere with the shoes.

So far, I have to say my mind is changed, with only a few laps right out of the box this car is within a second of our fastest JL XT's. This is with stock tires, stock grease, the whole stock package. If half of these cars run as good as this one, I don't believe the JL cars will be close!

More to come later!


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

Preliminary observations... All six of the AWTJs ran great right away. The fat fronts work well for these. However, two have significant paint problems that I didn't catch before opening up the cubes. The purple Bel Air has a bad scuff going from left to right across the top. It looks like it was handled before the paint dried. I can't believe I didn't see that before I opened it.

All of the AWXTs had problems with front tire interference. I am surprised that none of the previous posters on this thread reported a problem in that area. I had to replace all the front tires with ones with smaller diameters. I had some spare RRR rears that worked well. The performance was good once I replaced the tires.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

AfxToo's point about the big fronts on TJets is right on. The coasting speed through the corners might be restricted a bit because the wheels don't turn independently but overall the car seems to be a little more stable. I ran some time trials last night and these were all in the top 33% of my TJet collection without ANY modifications. When I added silicones on the rears, they were all in the top 20%. All that without any cleaning or oiling. I am impressed with these chassis.

Back on the XTs... the Mopars (Challengers) don't have "body stilts" as they have in the past. Roscoe's Police Car does however. Removing the bodies, the chassis are all good performers. The bodies all fit tightly to the chassis. I wonder if that causes any binding problems. The tire inner diameters are not all the same. The softer tires seem to be slightly larger.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

They sound pretty good, and the ones I saw in person don't look bad at all with the big fronts.

Have any of you tried nail polish on the fronts to reduce the friction between the tires and the track?


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

Just tried one of the new cars (Mopar Viper), and thought it runs ok out of the box, I didin't tune it up yet so I'm probably gonna see a speed boost when I get to doing so.

The only 'bad' thing is the use of the thicker rear axles/rims on the front. The non-independant front axle/rim setup hampers peformace in the curves. This is caused (for the novice racers) by the wheel whose on the inside edge of a curve, putting pressure on the rest of the car, which can cause a deslot. Indepenent fronts cure this problem. I'll replace the new chassis with one of the JL chassis...........I'm glad I picked up a few bare JL chassis.

Tom, may I suggest going back to the original front axle/rim combo and use a smaller diameter tire, like the Goodyear tires used on the vintage AFX cars......but without the Goodyear name on the tires. I'm sure a hefty liscence fee would be saved.


----------



## mgibbs7 (Jul 11, 2003)

Just got my AW cars and I'll agree, they are pretty good runners straight outta the box. One comment/question: I have experienced some issues with the new softer tires on the XTs coming off as I drive the cars. Is anyone else noticing this? Does anyone have any fixes other than buying all new tires?


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

-----


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

Also you can put your front tires on a rim on a dremel and round them so they only make contact with the track on a narrow strip of the tire near the middle of the tire width. Or taper them so theey only ride on the outside edge of the tire width. This gives you the advantage of the wider stance in the front.


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

*Indie Front for AW XT's...*

(and shameless plug)  

http://www.horacingworld.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9&PN=1&TPN=1


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

The holes in the chassis are too big for that.

And, where can I get JLTO front axles?


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

Hi Mike :wave: 

I just did the conversion in about 5 minutes before I put that post up. The AWXT axles are .059's, the JL Tuff Ones are .060 +/-, it fit right in the hole. Perhaps you were thinking I meant JL XT axles? They are smaller at .047.

I had a few axles laying around from dead/sloppy JLTO chassis that had been swapped out for real T-Jets. I'd imagine that with all the ones that got taken apart for the mags that a few of the vendors out there should have a pile of them.


----------



## micyou03 (Apr 8, 2003)

OK, I stand corrected. Thanks for the tip.


----------

