# super III by AW wont run?



## slotnut (May 14, 2009)

I think I remember a thread awhile back that discussed the issues of the AW super III not running right out of box. In my thirty plus yrs of collecting I have never had a new car not run. I am very disappointed. Not to mention how I was bragging and trying to show a newbie the hobby only for him to see a mib AW not run. What crap!!! I will never buy another if this is their quality control standard. Ok I'm done ranting can anyone tell me how to fix these pieces of #*#* 
Thanks slotnut.


----------



## NTxSlotCars (May 27, 2008)

Wow, what bad timing!!! Excuse me while I LMAO. Ahem, okay, the only reason I laugh is because this has happened to me too. I just can't explain the gut wrenching disappointment that a Super III can bring. I haven't seen chassis this bad since the early 80s, when every manufacturer thought they could make an inline chassis. 
The fix: First, will the motor turn? I'm sure you checked that first, but with this chassis, you never know. Next, you need to check the adjustments at the end of the brush barrels. The spring pressures are never right, and its just possible that one screw has backed off or even flattened a spring. Those are the first places I would start. Check the arm for loose windings too.

Oh wait, is the track on?


----------



## Joe65SkylarkGS (Feb 15, 2010)

LMAO..Is the track on?!!!

I never had this happen to me either. It would really piss me off. I have the set of Super 3's but didn't open any because my friend had his here and i'm not really into running the fast cars. Don't get me wrong, they are out of control and blistering speed. But I like hanhing it out in every turn.

I have to say that so far i'm impressed with how the AW cars run. I have a few Ultra g tjets that smoke the tires!!


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

slotnut said:


> I think I remember a thread awhile back that discussed the issues of the AW super III not running right out of box. In my thirty plus yrs of collecting I have never had a new car not run. I am very disappointed. Not to mention how I was bragging and trying to show a newbie the hobby only for him to see a mib AW not run. What crap!!! I will never buy another if this is their quality control standard. Ok I'm done ranting can anyone tell me how to fix these pieces of #*#*
> Thanks slotnut.


 
Out of the box the shoes are usually only hitting on the tips...so make sure the shoes are adjusted to ride flat on the rails. 

Also, make sure the brush screws are not backed out, a good starting point isto make sure the head of the screw is flush with the bottom af the tapered part of the barrel.

Properly set up, these _"dogs"_ are screamers.

:thumbsup:


----------



## pshoe64 (Jun 10, 2008)

*PU Shoe Adjustments*

The part of the PU shoe that wraps around the brush barrel lifts and loses contact. I widen the hinged area a bit by re-bending the shape so it rests on the brush barrel flat, where ever the pick up is located as it floats. I started bending the shoes to get them flat to rails when I noticed the barrel contact not setting as it should. Now that I've adjusted that, my S-IIIs scream around the track. It also improved the heat issue with the better flow of power. I've gotten most of my S-IIIs competitive with SG+ and all but a couple of my Mega-Gs and Life-likes. I still have a couple of dogs as well, but with this adjustment, most are really good now.

-Paul


----------



## sethndaddy (Dec 4, 2004)

Slotnut, In my forever racing, the super 3 is the only car I got that ran very very bad out of the box, I don't think cars should have to be "tweeked" to make it around the track, but after bending the pickup shoes for better contact and some silicone tires it worked great.


----------



## SwamperGene (Dec 1, 2003)

sethndaddy said:


> Slotnut, In my forever racing, the super 3 is the only car I got that ran very very bad out of the box, I don't think cars should have to be "tweeked" to make it around the track, but after bending the pickup shoes for better contact and some silicone tires it worked great.


We had a few of them screamin' around the track that night.


...'til we tried to pass each other lol :freak:


----------



## WaltB (Feb 21, 2010)

Just opened a life-like twin pak, Nascar T-chassis (thought they were M's) 1 ran fine the other stalled repeatedly, adjusted the pickup shoes and the car ran great! These were bought a couple years ago but it's not a problem limited to 1 brand. 

Walt


----------



## LeeRoy98 (Jul 8, 2005)

I have close to 40 lifelike T chassis cars and have never had one not run fine straight from the package.
I have 6 of the Super III cars and 4 of 6 would not run out of the package.
I would say there is a significant difference in those statistics.

Gary
AKA LeeRoy98
www.marioncountyraceway.com


----------



## Rawafx (Jul 20, 1999)

I used to work at a hobby shop and we had a Wizzard layout in the store. We'd have to adjust probably 3 or 4 of every 10 we sold. Some of the T chassis were worse than others because of the warping of the chassis right out of the package. 

Bob Weichbrodt
Rawafx
W-S, NC


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

The AW Super III is an interesting concept, i.e., copy a proven design, but the execution on the assembly side was badly bungled. AW bit off more than they could chew with the III. That particular design requires a more precise build process than what the AW manufacturing process can handle. I'd say 99.99% of out of box issues with the Super III would be brush or brush spring related. If the brush, brush spring, and brush adjustment is not correct then the car will not run. Anyone who has setup a car with a similar design can setup the AW Super III without blinking an eye, but it requires some insight that some hobbyists may not have. The shoes always need adjustment too, but the car should still run with poorly adjusted shoes.

The bottom line is that the Super III was designed in a way that requires a level of technical savvy than what some hobbyists are able to provide on their first time through. On the other hand the AW Super III is really is not good enough or have enough upside to attract serious racers who would help mentor those who are coming up through the ranks. Basically, the Super III can be setup to run pretty darn well, on par with a Tomy SRT. But why jump through all the hoops with a SIII when the Tomy SRT is pretty much plug & play? Easy answer, reflected in sales numbers. 

The Tomy SG+ is a good example of the other side of a similar complex situation. The Tomy SG+ is a difficult chassis for newbies to work with when things go wrong. Any three handed double jointed contortionist would disagree, but getting the SG+ apart and reassembled for the very first time is a devirginizing experience. The necessity for special tools, like the endbell removal tool are not obvious. Back in the SG+ brittle chassis era the situation was even worse. Talk about buyer remorse, getting a brand new broken in the package (BIP) SG+ really sucks. But where the SG+ redeemed itself is where the SIII went wrong. The SG+ ran very good right of the box. Assembly quality was good. The shoes required adjustment, and the oddball rear tires were a nit, but all in all they seemed to run great. The main point of redemption on the SG+ though was in its upside. There were few if any chassis of its era that had more upside potential. The overall SG+ design and polymer magnets put it in a performance class all by itself for amateur and pro racers alike. So while the SG+ requires some serious effort to master, like the SIII, the effort is worth it with the SG+ because it can be transformed into a serious race car. It's popularity drew widespread support from racers and performance parts vendors. The SG+ design was refined into the G3 and it is still one of the most successful racing platforms available today. The SIII will not follow a similar path, but it is still a respectable effort by AutoWorld to get their products into a different market. One interesting point is that the molded polymer motor magnet plus neo tractions on the SIII were a first and something repeated on the Tomy MegaG, which by the way has still not proven to be a worthy replacement for the SG+. 

I have a handful of Super IIIs that I will keep around for historical reasons. If AW offers replacement parts I would run them more. 

By the way, one of my AW TJet500s UGs in the latest release arrived with only one brush. No slot car will run with only one brush. Fortunately even an entry level first order nube will pick up on the missing brush on a TJet style chassis pretty quickly.


----------



## demether (Aug 26, 2008)

Is it possible to run superIII cars without magnet, with the classic tweaks (12-14volt with a lot of amps, weight instead of magnets, silicone tires) ? 

I love the look of the nascar-type AW super III, and they are quite cheap...But I don't like magnet cars too much (anything faster/sticky than a tyco 440x2 with rubber tires under 14volt does not interest me)

thanks


----------



## NTxSlotCars (May 27, 2008)

Another downside of the SIII is the bonehead body mounts.
Great looking bodies, but they won't fit anything else without modifications.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> Another downside of the SIII is the bonehead body mounts.


Which is a problem shared with the Tomy Turbo/SRT narrow chassis and Tomy MegaG 1.7, both of which only accept a chassis specific type of body. One could argue that the Tyco 440 narrow chassis is half boneheaded for only fitting the open wheel bodies and a select few closed fender bodies. You could also argue that the Aurora G-Plus is also semi boneheaded too, although a clip is available to allow their narrow chassis to fit some (but not all) standard A/FX bodies.

AutoWorld didn't make any "mistakes" that hadn't already been committed by one or more other HO slot car manufacturers. You can pick on any one of the few areas where the Super III fell short, but it really comes down to the fact that they failed to produce a product that compelled us to overlook these limitations. If the Super III was truly a race quality chassis the fact that it could fit *any* hard bodies would have been seen as a big plus compared to the lexan-only option that many cars in that class provide. Likewise, if the Super III bodies were as visually stunning as those designed for the Mega G 1.7 then we would consider overlooking the chassis and service part limitations like we do on the Mega G. 

Product design is very hard and trying to hit a homerun on your first try is nearly impossible. For most every successful product out there you will typically find a series of failed or mixed-bag attempts leading up to the one that is a big hit. The Aurora TJet was preceded by the Vibrator, a thoroughly Rube Goldberg design, and the Tyco 440 were preceded by the Curve Huggers and HP2s. The Tomy SG+ can trace its DNA back to the Aurora G-Plus (as many inlines can) so there is something to be said for evolutionary design. The Super III tried to borrow from an earlier Patriot design (WHP had no involvement) but missed on some of the very crucial details. 

I am interested to see whether AW will try to fix the Super III flaws and improve the design to the point where it will be a compelling product. Frankly, with the strength of the current pancake powered cars in AW's lineup, and the heavy magnets in the 5-gear chassis that yield the kiddie friendly out of box experience, I'm not so sure that AW has anything to gain with a improved Super III design, except perhaps as a platform for some truly high performance drag chassis to go with their drag strip set. The thought of a big and heavy drag body sitting on a 5-gear chassis doesn't excite me. If it had some serious inline power, well then we'd be talking.


----------

