|
|
Post by David Sullivan on May 13, 2009 22:09:48 GMT -5
OK, I was going thru my kits tonight and came across a Kraco March. Decal sheet may be usable, but would like to change it. Haven't seen much in the way for the 88C, but did see a few for the 86C. What are the main differences in the two? Thanks!
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecold44 on May 13, 2009 22:28:53 GMT -5
How much time do you have? If you're talking about the differences in the kits (Kraco 1988 and Cummins 1986) then start with the engine cover. On the 1986 kit, the engine cover is removeable and it also uncovers the side pods. The 1988 kit only covers the engine.
The 1988 has an odd kind of 2-piece rollover bar that also encompasses the fuel cell (I think). The 1988 has a smaller rear wing, but most of us end up modifying the wingplates on the '86 model anyway, depending on which car we are replicating.
From an aesthetic standpoint, the nose on the '86 is more pointed. Jordan, can you think of anything else?
I liked doing both kits (IMO, the 1986 was easier) but I will say that there are more after market decals available for the '86 than the 88. That's a shame because there were some really good looking March cars in the 1988 race that deserve to be built. Besides, I have more than 25 of those kits.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Sullivan on May 14, 2009 4:40:36 GMT -5
That's what I needed to know, thanks!
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on May 14, 2009 8:05:42 GMT -5
While we're on this subject... How about the undertray that comes with this kit. Was there really no center section (engine exposed) to the undertrays on the real cars? Or did the undertray enclose the entire underside side of the car (like the Penske and Lola)?
Russ
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 14, 2009 10:11:36 GMT -5
Nice job on the summary of kit differences ;D As far as the undertrays, I am pretty sure they were enclosed but I bet someone flipped a March in 1988 Indy 500 practice so the yearbook might have some definitive proof - maybe one of us (I'm not near mine at the moment) can check.
Jordan
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on May 14, 2009 11:06:06 GMT -5
Nice job on the summary of kit differences ;D As far as the undertrays, I am pretty sure they were enclosed but I but someone flipped a March in 1988 Indy 500 practice so the yearbook might have some definitive proof - maybe one of us (I'm not near mine at the moment) can check. Jordan Jordan, I know these photos. It was Pancho Carter and he is flipping a 86/87C. I've noticed that the undertray on these photos show a totally enclosed underside. I can only assume that the 88C also had an enclosed undertray (like the Penske and Lola). I'm wondering if AMT might have chopped out the middle section to make the engine fit properly? BTW... The AMT 86C also has the missing middle section. RussD |
|
|
|
Post by lance on May 14, 2009 13:12:33 GMT -5
The 88 March definitely had a full under tray , the kit is not correct ( neither is the AMT 86 march). I have posted some March drawings on the bottom of the garage area page of my website, these cover the 83-86 March's. Lance
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on May 14, 2009 14:55:15 GMT -5
The 88 March definitely had a full under tray , the kit is not correct ( neither is the AMT 86 march). I have posted some March drawings on the bottom of the garage area page of my website, these cover the 83-86 March's. Lance Lance, These are great drawings! Thanks for posting them. I always suspected that the AMT 86C and 88C kits did not have accurate undertrays but I never had a source for a clear view of the underside of these cars. I also suspect that the cars that have aluminum tubs actually show the aluminum floor plane on the bottom of the car. I also have a lot of these March 88C kits and it wold be nice to have a few more AfterMarket decal sets available. Like the Alfa powered March 88C. Thanks, RussD |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2009 17:24:50 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the drawings Lance - they are FANTASTIC!
Mike S.
|
|
|
|
Post by indycals on May 14, 2009 20:02:32 GMT -5
You'll have to forgive me but I thought the 88 was such a butt-ugly car I've never been inspired to do decals for it ;-) It could happen some day though.
|
|
|
|
Post by stonecold44 on May 14, 2009 22:16:29 GMT -5
I forgot about that undertray opening. Good catch guys. Michael, think of the possibilities from a marketing standpoint. More cars to decal, more offerings, more orders= more $$$. Another thing you could do, since you have most of the artwork, is to improve the Dominos March decals. Personally, I'd buy at least 1 of each set for the Marches and have a load of fun doing each kit. I'm a pretty demanding SOB aren't I? I want more decals, progress on your 1988 front row, and the usual paint suggestions. Oh yeah, I also want a better set for the Provimi 1988 Lola. That's all for now!  ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 12:24:06 GMT -5
The Provimi is a must have. Its a great looking car and the kit decal is terrible. I'll jump in on the March 88 decals. There are some great cars in March Chassis (Emerson, Al Unser Jr.) that I would love to see decals for.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 12:37:33 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the drawings Lance - they are FANTASTIC! Mike S. May I ask what the link is please? Thank you Chris |
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Jun 6, 2009 13:31:44 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the drawings Lance - they are FANTASTIC! Mike S. May I ask what the link is please? Thank you Chris Here ya go Chris -> www.lsresincars.com/page2.htmlRussD |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2009 17:13:46 GMT -5
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
Post by pje on Jun 8, 2009 15:29:29 GMT -5
  Since the discussion has turned to undertrays, I’d like to add a couple of questions to the discussion. First, here is a scan of Pancho Carter’s March 87C flip during practice for the 1987 Indy 500. Notice what looks like a Formula 1 like wooden plank. Please refresh my memory, as I don’t remember planks being added to Indy cars. I remember the titanium rub strips that shot sparks from behind the car when they would bottom out, but I don’t remember this type of feature being added to mid-‘80’s cars. Also, here is a photo of the underside to the AMT Lola T8800. Notice the directional air vanes. I’m doing a Lola T8700 and I question whether these were part of the undertray of the 1987 Lola. I’m looking for photographic evidence of this and I haven’t been able to confirm this yet, but I think I’m making a pretty good educated guess. Nigel Bennett designed the T87/00 and then for the 1988 season he moved to Penske and headed up the PC17 effort, and there are no directional air vanes on the PC17. I think that the vanes are something that Bruce Ashmore, who took over for Bennett as chief designer at Lola, added in his development of the T88/00. Thoughts? Paul Erlendson |
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Jun 8, 2009 15:36:51 GMT -5
Paul,
I think that the lighter colored area is actually the bottom of the tub (not a F1 style plank).
RussD
|
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jun 8, 2009 21:36:29 GMT -5
Indy/ChampCars did have rub/wear planks. They were a compressed wood which I think this is and then by the late 90s they had became an aluminum/titanium material. I'd really have to look into more to say for sure.
Jordan
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Jun 9, 2009 10:15:07 GMT -5
Indy/ChampCars did have rub/wear planks. They were a compressed wood which I think this is and then by the late 90s they had became an aluminum/titanium material. I'd really have to look into more to say for sure. Jordan Really! I had no idea that CART was using wooden rub planks. I always assumed that the bottom of the tub was visible from below. At least for the years where the tub had a metal bottom (up to the early 90's). Good luck finding a pix of this area. I've been looking for years and I still haven't found a good picture of the underside of the 80's - 90's cars. The picture above is probably the best view I've seen. I was hoping that someone on the list might have been walking through the pits and snapped a picture of the underside of one of these cars. RussD |
|
|
|
Post by SWT500 on Jun 9, 2009 11:35:29 GMT -5
The wooden bottoms were called a "jabrock". It was a special wood that was imported from Europe and only available from Lola or March. It was about 5/16" thick and served only to protect the carbon undertray. At that time, they were spray painted (usually day-glo orange) before being put on the car. After the car ran, if and where it was touching was then apparent. Earlier, the 1986 Lola had four brass skidblocks that were about 3/8" thick x 2" x 6" and bolted to the undertray. They had a tendency to just rip off and the downside of that is obvious. Later on, in the early 90's the jabrock floor was replaced with aluminum sheeting and/or brass sheeting if you preferred to add weight. I'm confident the jabrock was used in both 1987 and 1988.
|
|
|
|
Post by pje on Jun 12, 2009 0:08:59 GMT -5
I sent an email to Andy Gilberg at Marchives.com and asked him about the undertrays. Here is what he had to say:
Yes, all the Indy cars had ¼” Jabrock planks under the central portion of the underwing…from the nose to the firewall. They were attached with 10-32 countersunk screws in special washers that were recessed into and flush with the planks.
I have also sent a query to Lola, but I have not heard from them yet.
Paul Erlendson
|
|
russd
Race Winner
Posts: 482
|
Post by russd on Jun 12, 2009 12:29:35 GMT -5
Paul,
Thanks for the info on this. I'd imagine that all the teams used the same basic thing but it would be great to confirm it. Let us know if you get a reply from Lola.
RussD
RussD
|
|
