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



Joined: Sun Feb 17th, 2013
Location: Friedberg, Germany
Posts: 1252
Status: 
Offline
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