View single post by Helmut
 Posted: Tue Aug 4th, 2015 01:33 pm
PMQuoteReplyFull Topic

Joined: Sun Feb 17th, 2013
Location: Friedberg, Germany
Posts: 1252
Hi all,
I have another issue that IMHO is very important when operating in such a dimension. In the smaller scales over here, you get away without compensating the chassis of a two-axle vehicle, as the flange depth will provide sufficient vertical play ( in case you don't overdo it ) to keep the effects of the unavoidable sags and humps in your track at bay. But the great outdoors is a different kettle of fish altogether. At a flange depth of 5/16" ( The standard for 10.25" gauge ) any axle distance of more than 16" on a rigid chassis will give you trouble,when the car is running light. Were it loaded, it would keep the track better.
For testing a way of semi-compensation, I made up a wooden frame vehicle with the axles spaced 24" apart. This is , taking into consideration wheel diameter ( 5"), gauge ( 9 7/16...9 5/8") and minimum radius ( 14' 9" ) the widest reasonably applicable distance.
Just for kicks I tried a rigid chassis first and I sent it light down the hill into the curve at the foot. It jumped the rails halfway in the bend. Nice crash indeed.
I did not want to use springs, so I came across rubber dampers. I had shelved some of these anyway, so I put them under one axle of the contraption.
See attached pictures:

here' the underside, the elastic mount is on the right-hand side:

And finally the mounting of the dampers:

Doing the same test again, it really hugged the rails and sped round the bend you can see in my previous post. I ha dnot then taken the garbage cans away, and it bumped right into them. Yours truly decided to go for a ride himself, precariously clinging to that narrow board and daring only to start from half the hill.  Speedy enough it was, and no harms were reported in the end.

Regards, H.
Close Window