I recently started creating digitally restored copies of the old Car Model Magazine and noticed a few comparison articles for the HO scale chassis of the era. I decided to follow the idea and compare the modern inline chassis of the present era. I’ve included several manufacturers and also different versions of chassis. All tests were run from new stock, factory box stock cars with as close to similar bodies as possible. For the tests, I used open-wheeled Indy/F1 bodies.
Preparation:
All cars are new, in the package for these tests. Each car was inspected for defects or damage and then tested to make sure it ran properly from a low voltage source. Once each car was verified, they were ran on 6 volts for 15 minutes to seat and break all moving parts. Excessive oil/grease was removed and cars were lightly lubricated. Tires were cleaned and pick up shoes were squared to the track rails. All parts on all test cars remained stock from the manufacturer as they are included from the factory. Each car had a 1 minute practice session prior to the “official” 5 minute session.
Testing Session:
Each car will be tested for a 5 minute segment on the “Blue Lane” of a road course and oval track configuration. Each car will be driven by me and no other driver. No other cars will be present on the track while the test segments are ran. Power was set at 14 Volts and 10 Amps.
A custom Parma 90 Ohm controller with an adjustable resistance from 120-91 Ohms was used in all tests. Resistance was adjusted to suit each chassis tested. In the event of a deslot, power and time are suspended until the car is returned to the point it left the track. The power and time are reactivated and the test continues. Each deslot event is recorded as well as any notes related to possible causes. The fastest lap for each car will be captured during the 5 minute segment. The performance records for each car, on each track will be recorded as separate events. The total number of laps completed in a 5 minute segment, along with the total number of track sections will be recorded and compared.
The Tracks:
The tracks are constructed of Tomy AFX sectional track and is part of a permanent layout. All track is leveled and secured. The track is cleaned before each racing session. The road course is 44 foot and is multi-level. The oval is custom banked with 15 and 18 inch radius turns, banked at 20º and is 41 foot long. Both tracks are powered by a commercial power supply with adjustable voltage (0-30 volts) and adjustable amperage (0-10 Amps). Both track have power jumpers every 10 foot. Power for the testing sessions on both tracks will be set to 14 Volts, 10 Amps. The lap counter/timer are computer controlled, using photo-sensors and a light bridge to detect the cars passing. Slot Race Manager software is used for the counter/timer system and management.
The Cars:
Two of each chassis type were used in the tests. By having two of each example, if one copy happens to be exceptional and the second, a more commonplace example, we will see the individual results and be able to better gauge the performance by comparing the two results. It also allows for the scenario if one car of the two is a poor performer, the second will be able to better show the characteristics of that particular chassis type. In some examples, the chassis may have gone through various generations of improvements, but were essentially the same overall design. The Auto World Super III, for example was tested with the latest, second generation of that car. The same holds true for the AFX Super G+, having used the last version of that chassis. Below are pictures of the test subjects, and top and bottom shots of the chassis, post testing. All cars were new, out of the package prior to the tests. The only alterations made to any cars/chassis, the Life-Like T-Chassis had the original body (NASCAR Ford Fusion) exchanged for an open-wheeled Indy/F1 type body from previous Life-Like M-Car releases. No alterations were made to the chassis.
Each car was removed from their packaging, inspected and tested with a 6 Volt power source to determine if they ran properly. Excessive factory lubricant was removed and the cars were “ran in” on 6 volts for 15 minutes to seat motor brushes and to break in gearing. After the “run in” time, each chassis was cleaned, reassembled using only the parts that came in the package, and lubricated. Pick up shoes were adjusted to sit square to the track rail. No other adjustments were made to the cars. Each were then tested to verify they would start and run on the test track power of 14 Volts. All cars ran with factory stock tires. Tires were cleaned prior to the 5 minute test run by rolling them over masking tape to remove dirt and debris. No tire cleaner or traction compound was used. The oval course tests were run first. After all cars completed the road course test, new, factory OEM pick up shoes were used to replace the original units that came with the car in the package. The road course tests began, using the same 5 minute segments and 14 Volts power. I was the only driver and cars completed the test on the same lane (Blue Lane), second lane from the outside farthest lane (See track illustrations above).
The Cars, in order, as they appear in the test charts.
AFX Super G+ – Second Generation (V 2.0)
Both of these cars came from an AFX Super International Set. Neither have been used other than for review postings, and were never ran. The White car listed as AFXSG+2 White in the test results, shows a consistent wear pattern in the pick up shoes and was far easier to drive than the Blue car (AFXSG+1 Blue). The Blue car had handling issues and deslotted often. After post test inspection, the Blue car’s passenger side (when viewed from the top of the car) had less float from the hinge/spring area. The pick up shoe hanger was tighter at the joint of the pick up shoe. I believe this was the cause of the ill-handling characteristics and the inconsistent lap results. The White car drove very well and set the lap speed record on the oval at 2.570 seconds. Also evident in the pictures above is the tire wear. The hollow core tires wear at the edges and not consistently across the tread surface of the tire.
AFX Mega G – Second Generation (V 2.0 Smaller Bulkheads)
Both of these cars are the second generation Mega G chassis with the lower profile bulkheads. Both of these cars ran predictably and consistently. However, the performance of the yellow car (AFXMG1 Yellow) ran much better than the red car (AFXMG2 Red). Performance stayed consistent on both the road course and oval between the two Mega G Chassis. Note the wear patterns in the pick up shoes. The Mega G rode the leading edge of the shoe more so than across the length of the shoe. The red car had issues in the bank turns of the oval and consistently deslotted, due to the front wing dragging in the banking and lifting the guide pin from the slot. The yellow car had the same issue, but did not lift out as often.
AFX Mega G Plus – First Generation
These are the new Mega G Plus chassis and are from the new Infinity Race Set. These have all new pick up and electrical systems, motor, gearing and guide pin location. All of this together has made for very significant improvements in handling and performance. Of note, these new chassis do require a break in period before they hit best performance. Also, these new chassis performed far better on the road course where handling was paramount. Lap speeds on the oval were good, but not the fastest in all out speed. But adding the handling variable on the road course, these mini-missles show their stuff. They are also very predictable during the entire run time. There was very little, to no drop off in how the car drove into and out of corners for the entire 5 minute run. Also of note, the body changes in a slightly higher front wing and narrower dimensions, showed no drag in the banking like the previous Mega G versions of the body. The new guide pin location allowed for driving into the corners harder and hitting the trigger full throttle early on exit. All of this together made for a great “out of the box” experience in preparation and driving.
Auto World Super III – Second Generation
These tests used the newer, second generation of the Auto World Super III chassis. The newer version improved the pick up shoe design, armature commutator, rear axle width and traction magnet location. Both units were stock out of the box, the bodies have been stripped of factory paint for another project, and are in their base plastic color. The S3 was very surprising in the final results, doing especially well on the oval track. Handling was consistent, although one car did perform better than the second, but were fairly consistent between the two. Road course manners were good, but there is room for tuning improvement that would be beyond the “out of the box” requirements for this test. Even with the extended, divorced front axle, the cars did well on the banked turns and did not drag the front wings. I believe the extended wheelbase aided handling and stability. The new pick up system kept the shoe surface flat to the track rails and showed an even wear pattern. The adjustable brush barrels did require tightening after the break in period to re-establish top RPM. The Super III was by far the loudest car. Although the gearing was loud, the mesh was good and did not bind nor was too loose. I would think this would lessen if the gears were lapped, but this was not allowed during this test. The noise was present for the duration of the two 5 minute sessions, but did not appear to hinder the performance or consistency of the car.
Life-Like M-Car – Second Generation
Both of these cars were the second to last version of the M-Car chassis. They included the nickel/silver plated pick up shoes and faster armature. Both of these cars were originally NASCAR bodied, but the open wheeled, Indy/F1 body was used in order to better match up with the other cars in weight and center of gravity. Both of the M-Cars handled extremely well, but were not as fast as others I own, that have been modified with different tires and gears. The factory stock rear tires were the main disadvantage. They were made of a harder compound and fell away faster during the 5 minute session. The nickel/silver pick up shoes wore very well, not showing any significant grooves or scorching from arcing. The motor brushes did wear faster than others in the test and by the time the last seconds of the second session were over, both M-Cars were noticeably slower by a couple of hundredths of a second per lap. But when fresh, both of these cars turned some very fast times on the oval, where they performed better.
Life-Like T-Car
The T-Chassis was the last hurrah from Life-Like and we used two matching units that were originally under NASCAR bodies. We used the same Indy/F1 bodies that were used on the M-Car tests. The pick up shoe system on theses chassis are the main weak point. The two units used in these tests were fast, but the pick up spring tension was very stiff and caused a lot of jittering and bounce. This was most noticeable on the acceleration out of turns when the cars would lift and the pick up springs helped that along, causing deslots. This was more prevalent on the oval where the limited pick up travel caused issues in the banking. Another cause of ill-handling is the location of the guide pin, behind the front axle plane. Both chassis were extremely fast, but neither could be tamed in the turns.
MicroScalextrix
I recently picked up several of these British based HO slots and thought it would be good to add them here for those who may want to add them to their stable. The MSX chassis is based on the same Mabuchi motor found in earlier Tomy AFX Turbo and SRT chassis. The main difference in these chassis and the more familiar designs on this side of the HO pond, are the braided pick up system, more akin to larger scale slot cousins. These cars do perform well, but have some room for improvements. The biggest issue is handling, due to a combination of the pick up braid and guide “fin”, which is molded into the chassis base. Like the Life-Like T Chassis, the MSX guide is behind the front axle plane and makes acceleration from exiting a turn, tricky at best. The braid work well and I did not have any contact or electrical issues from them. The MSX chassis also has some EMF and voltage regulators in the form of resistors put in place across the motor leads. In the second 5 minute session, car #2 had one of the resistors fail and was not able to complete the road course session. The cars are incredibly quiet. The make a minimal sound, and only from the motor hum. They performed well on the road course, but less so on the oval. I had to scale back any aggressive acceleration come into and out of turns due to the guide fin deslotting often, especially on the banked oval. I think these chassis have some serious potential, but straight out of the box, do not compete with the AFX, Auto World and other domestic lines.
Tyco 440-X2
These are original Tyco 440-X2, circa 1988 when they were purchased. They were still new in the package, and were opened for this test. The Tyco X2 set the standard in HO performance for two decades, before other makes started making headway. The base design is still used in the majority of all HO performance chassis, mass manufactured or from specialty shops. The two examples used in these tests still hold their ground and performed on par with the rest of the field. Out of the package handling was only hampered by the factory stock tires, unlike the newer offerings, has more rubber and less silicon or urethane in their content. So the effect was the tires went away after a handful of laps and you had to rely increasing more on the traction magnets to keep the rear end in its proper place. The performance was predictable and responsive. Acceleration into and out of turns was consistent, up and until the tires became slick. Oval performance was better than the road course, but both were good.
Performance Statistics
So let’s get down to the meat and potatoes of this test and look at the performance statistics. Below are the forms and data from the 5 minute sessions from both the road course and oval.
I captured the fastest lap times, number of laps and segments total in the 5 minute session, and the number of deslots that occurred in that session. I also captured notes of anything that stood out during that 5 minute session, most of which was reported above.
Let’s take a look at the road course data comments first.
Road Course – Fastest Lap Speed – Results:
Hands down the new AFX Mega G+(Car #2) had the lap speed records all to itself. I will say this is more attributed to the handling characteristics than all out speed. AFX chassis in general dominated the lap speed readings on the road course as a whole, taking the first 4 positions. A pleasant surprise was the Auto World Super III taking the fifth and sixth lap speed spots. They had a bit more acceleration over all, but still handled very well, even in the tight 6 inch curves of the road course. Bringing up the rear of the speed tests were the Microscalectrix cars. It was also a handling issue that best describes their performance. They were plenty fast, but more than a handful to drive into an out of corners. The majority of the makes are all with half a second of each other in fastest lap times on the road course. This is very nice to see for a “factory out of the box” test. Not everyone is equal, but it would appear that we can get pretty close to parity with most of today’s offerings.
Next Up: Lap Count for a 5 minute run on the road course.
Road Course – Total Laps Turned and Number of Deslots – Results:
As with the Lap Speed tests, the AFX Mega G+ dominated the total lap count for a 5 minute session. As with the lap speed record, I will agree this was due to very consistent handling characteristics and not with a blistering per lap pace in seconds. The Mega G+ is a great car to drive. It does the same thing lap after lap and does not fall away as the session continues. AFX carried 6 of the top 10 spots (the first 3 are AFX chassis) with Tyco picking up 2 top 10 spots and Auto World and Life-Like each taking 1 position each in the top 10.
Next Up: Lap Speed Records for the Oval Course.
Oval Course – Fastest Lap Speed – Results:
Now we get to see the need for speed. The banked oval does not require as much handling finesse as the road course, so our test subjects could stretch their legs a bit more. The venerable AFX Super G+ was the car with the “mostest” in all out speed, clocking a blistering 2.570 second lap time. This is still on the 14 volts as the road course, so we can compare the results from one form of layout to another. AFX did not completely dominate the roles in the oval lap speed. I was a bit surprised to see the variety of chassis that populated the top 5. The AFX SG+., AFX Mega G, Tyco X2, Auto World S-III and AFX Mega G+ rounded out the top 5 in that order. The top nine were all within half a second of each other. If you eliminate the top 2 from the list, the next 7 were all within 1/10th of a second of each other. That will make for some close, wheel to wheel racing between several chassis makes and brands on high speed courses.
Next Up: Lap Count for a 5 minute run on the oval course.
Oval Course – Total Laps Turned and Number of Deslots – Results:
I thought I would really ratchet up the lap counts on the oval and I was not disappointed. Picking up where it left off in the lap speed record, the AFX Super G+ (Car #2) settled in to a predictable pace and toted up 107 laps, seven laps over the next closest tally by an AFX Mega G (Car #1). In third place with a total of 99 laps was the Auto World Super III (Car #2). There was a much larger spread in lap count totals. This was due to tire/traction fall off having a much larger effect with the increased speed coming into and out of turns. So as the cars were farther along in the 5 minute session, I had to back off the throttle in the last 90 seconds or so to keep the cars in the slot. Depending on the car, the fall off came earlier or later in the run, decreasing the total lap count. As to the 107 laps turned by the AFX SG+, it was an exception sample of the car. The other SG+ (Car #1) turned 15 fewer laps in the same duration. It may be interesting to run this same test, using the same metrics, but run several sessions and average the total lap count for each car/chassis type. That may be something done in the near future.
Final Thoughts:
I was quite surprised with some of the results. Some brands turned in spectacular performances, others showed some potential if modified beyond the factory box stock limitations of this set of tests. It was evident that some brands that have made improvements in their products, AFX with the Mega G+ and Auto World with the Super III/Gen2, have better results than previous versions. This was most evident in the road course testing. Having ran the tests on 2 copies of each chassis’ make and model, I was able to show some variances that come with a mass produced product and hopefully shown the good and not so good potentials. With the exception of the MicroScalectrix car having an electrical failure, the only wear apparent in each of the subjects were normal, pick up shoe, motor brush and tire wear. Can any of these cars be competitive “out of the box”? With the exception of a couple of our samples, the answer is “Yes”! I think it would be better to state, any of these can be competitive with some minor tweaks, tires, motor brushes and maybe guide pin changes.