[Scott B]

Pictures can be deceptive, but it does look a bit fat - both in height and width - around the centre.

If Vanquish have made these as modular as the real things were, then with a sub-chassis and DFV moulding they can stick on various bodies - just as the teams did - to make most of the 1970s grid. Then, as with the Can-Am cars, the scale issue will matter less.

Anyone got an old Hornby 72 we can see a comparison with?

Scott

 

[wixwacing]

I think gauging the size of the driver is a bit errant. A 1/32 Lester Piggot and a 1/32 Frank Bruno would be two vastly different models (not that they race motor sport of course). How about someone quoting driver statistics for once, instead of track and wheelbase. ie How tall was J M Fangio and what was his hat (helmet) size. How tall is M Schumacher and what is his helmet size etc, etc, Then we could press the manufacturers to have the correct size drivers in our models.
As a point of interest, can anyone name the smallest and the largest drivers in motor sport since 1950?

 

[Wankel Ickx]

CAUTION OPINION BEING AIRED

Sorry folks, those Ciberslot photos seal it for me. VMG are the Kings of Chunky. That ain't the profile of the Lotus 72 that I remember. No sir.

I'm prepared to accept that in its long history (six years?) it may have undergone some changes but that ain't the classic profile I know and love.

As far as I'm concerned the field is still wide open for someone to step up and give us some decent 1:32 representations of Can Am and 70's F1.

 

[BeardogRacing]

I wish that the Lotus would be 1/32, but...from designing my McLaren M-16, which has a very similar shape, I know how incredibly hard it is to keep the proportions right when you're designing a car aroung an S can. The motor is far too large.

I'm betting that the real car had a wheel base of about 100" which makes it much smaller than a modern F-1 car. Plus they're wrapping the S can in a dummy 3 litre Ford engine, ??? and a diff. It'll have the rear end proportions of the Politoy Lotus 76. and thats 1/28th too.

But I'll still buy one, cause knowbody else has made one.

Chris

 

[bwaminispeed]

Pretty easy to judge the scale of these cars frem the rear shot.These cars have the same rear axle/diff setups that the CanAm cars have,and you can judge the proportions accordingly.

I think if anything,these cars are going to be BIGGER than 1/28 scale,not smaller.

 

[Wankel Ickx]

Beardog, is that motor in the Ninco karts not a more suitable option? I've only seen one once or twice and from my dodgy memory it looked quite compact.

Only other option I could offer would be to make the little Mabuchi a stressed member....

 

[Jamie]

Hmm, just had a look at Fast Lucky's link, it looks a bit chunky as per Scott's comments.

 

[Tropi]

Just did a few hands on width checks on my motors!
Standard S - - - 19.8mm
Cheetah type - -20.2mm
SCX type - - - - -20.5mm
All surprisingly close and not massively significant.

I suspect, but wouldn't bet money on it, that the Slot Center pics have a plain plate to either cover the motor face or to disguise the fact that no motor is present in that car!

 

[howmet tx]

Hi

Could I draw your attention to a really interesting discussion about building F1s in scale, and appropriate sized motors that appeared in the 'Scratchbuilding' section of this forum a while ago? It was really helpful for me, and the sight of the new Beardog F1 chassis in there was a darn sight more exciting than this pregnant moose masquerading as, sob, a Lotus 72. Check it out, and everyone cheer mightily for Beardog.

 

[howmet tx]

Hi

Could I draw your attention to a really interesting discussion about building F1s in scale, and appropriate sized motors that appeared in the 'Scratchbuilding' section of this forum a while ago? It was really helpful for me, and the sight of the new Beardog F1 chassis in there was a darn sight more exciting than this pregnant moose masquerading as, sob, a Lotus 72. Check it out, and everyone cheer mightily for Beardog.

 

[Tropi]

NO problems cheering mightily for Beardog!

 

[bluetoes591]

VMG and Spirit seem to be having a heated battle to see who can deform a good looking car the most. Due to VMGs prolific output and total disregard for actual measurements, I'd say they're winning.

 

[uksqueezea]

Regardless of year or spec's, this is the Lotus I remember.

 

[Tropi]

Several weeks have gone by and I have now read a customer reaction to this car.

QUOTE Got one and don't like it. Really poor build quality.
Body is held on by one screw and 2 flimsy plastic bars that are part of the suspension assembly. The body sits higher off the chassis towards the back and is loose. The car ran like it was really bogged down as if the magnet was too strong. The motor shaft is actually sitting and rubbing on the magnet. Extreme wheel/axle wobble. Exhaust pipes on back were melted on badly misaligned because they don't have room to fit. I chose this one out of about 6 they had in stock. This was the best one if you can believe it.
Junk....I feel ripped off.

Maybe he was just unlucky . . .

 

[Jamie]

Yeah I was as equally surprised as you Tropi, upon reading that thread.

I think unless the reviews are really bad (I have yet to read a review that has really slated a slot product) I will more than likely buy one anyway, 70's F1's are one my favourite era's of racing cars.

One important consideration I think the car doesn't look grossly oversized (see pic posted earlier) if these cars were massive i'd definately pass. Can Ams were monsters in reality so the size issue isn't as critical, but F1's?

One thing I would definately consider is whipping the magnet out, as these cars IMHO would look better sliding, hopefully this will avoid the 'bogged down' comment above.

Jamie