| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Foreman
USA
|
 Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 17:48:36
|
John, right on.
Plus cars do not have straight cut gears which are much noisier.
Not a good comparison.
You are right that more motors/gears = more noise but also more power and durability with less strain on each part.
Which in my opinion that the Dash 9/SD45 has the toughest and most durable set up and has the most power without drawing excessive amps.
Bud |
 |
|
|
Old Curmudgeon
1st Class Member
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 18:33:01
|
John.......half as many?
In the model?
Did they change their "patented" design again?
Could a swore it was 4 motors, 2 per gearbox, is what the 45 had......and I thought this was the whole deal was more motors.....
But, yer right, those internal cobustion motors in the -9, all 4 of them, with headers and short pipes, not running at a constant speed.....
TOC |
|
|
|
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 18:58:26
|
Mr. Curmudgeon, I believe the "half as many" is about the 4 wheel bricks vs. the 6 wheel bricks(# of motors).
I like the idea of headers and short pipes however. |
|
|
|
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 19:02:11
|
| Mr. bnsfjohn, so, you want the same number of motors? Just put a FA1 and FB1 on the track at the same time. Still much, much quieter then one (1) Sd45 which will sound the same as one (1) Dash 9. |
|
|
|
Old Curmudgeon
1st Class Member
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 19:45:18
|
It's an idea for a new sound system....I'm sure the foks at Sierra can go out to the next 4WD Jamboree in Durango and get all the digital recordings they want.....
Imagine, a forced rev so you can spike the thing before you dump the clutch.
Man, what a deal.
Life will never be the same.
Any of you guys around in the days of LySOL and the 2-8-0 wars?
TOC |
|
|
|
Old Curmudgeon
1st Class Member
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 20:12:08
|
Okay. Here's a start"
Height is 15' 4"
Length is 73' 8"
width is 10'
So, somebody who has one, set it on the rails, measure from railhead, convert the scale, and post the results here.
TOC
|
|
|
|
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 03 Jun 2004 : 20:37:51
|
| I believe it was Mr. Art that stated the Dash 9 model is 8 scale inches too tall. |
|
|
|
deleted
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 06:04:36
|
Get a clue people!
The designer already responded on another thread on the public forum, now locked by Shad, that the measurement of height off the railhead will vary based on fuel load, and that the model was correct, based on measurements of four REAL WORLD Dash 9's.
If it appears "high" it could be because the frame was DELETED so the beast could turn on our ridiculously TIGHT radii, which are 2 TIMES tighter than the MINIMUM turning radius of even a single Gunderson stack car, and obviously much tighter than what a real Dash 9 can negotiate.
Regarding photos that appear to show it sitting high--respectfully, one can not accurately scale dimensions of truck height off photos without knowing the angle at which the photo was shot. IF the person was slightly out of the horizontal plane (with respect to the top of the trucks) when shooting the picture, it WILL distort the apparent height of the engine off the ground. Also, prototype step arrangements on this model are KNOWN TO VARY.
John |
|
|
|
Engineer
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 07:59:07
|
(Heh heh heh *snicker* heh heh...) Man! I gotta admit that it's definitely interesting to see it from the other side!
I don't know why some of you can't seem to let it go! John's absolutely right about this being answered in another (locked by the way) thread!
By the way, before I forget you might want to note that we have a new member posting here at MLS by the name of Steven Gugel who just happens to be the gentleman that designed the Dash 9 model!!
I don't know about you but I would find his comments very interesting as well as informative!
Now where was I.......oh yes, John being right! As he stated (and he got this from that other thread in which Steven Gugel posted the answer) that certain compromises had to be made to accomodate our ridiculously tight curves!
Now here comes the beauty.....(those of us in narrow gauge already know the answer).........If you aren't satisfied with how the model looks then change the model to make it the way you want it to look!!
Add detailing (you know, all of those pesky little details that would keep the model from running on R1 curves and such).
The only other thing I would say is to be grateful that you guys have an affordable model like the Dash 9 (yes, even with it's perceived flaws) that you can get. We narrow gauge folks can't even get a C-19 Consolidation let alone a K-27 Mikado unless we want to spend $2500 or so! I know it's fun to rag on the perceived flaws in a new model but when those "flaws" have been addressed and answered by none less than the designer of the model it seems somewhat ungrateful to keep beating this dead horse.
(That's my two cents for what they're worth!) |
Edited by - on 04 Jun 2004 08:02:19 |
|
|
|
Engineer
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 10:06:03
|
1. The title of this subject is: " The best "Quality Control" "
2. The height of a given model is not a "Quality Control" issue.
3. In my industry, we employ lots of 12 to 24 volt D.C. motors with built in speed reducers. These motors are of similar frame sizes and power ratings as required for typical LS locomotive use. Actually, they are usually somewhat smaller in physical size due to their use of high technology magnets, windings and bearings.
Both the motors and gearboxes are very quiet. Just a small hum induced by the PWM controller and some very minor gear noise dependent on the load.
Only one small problem with using these motors: COST!
As an example, there is a 48 watt Micro-Mo motor we are currently using. Its cost in quantities is around $400. Compare that with the current price of $169.89 (or two for $329.89) for an SD-45 at St. Aubin. That's for the whole engine!!
If the noise really bothers you, go to either Micro-Mo or Maxon. They will help you determine which of their products will work best and advise you on what part of $2000 it will cost to replace the current drive.
BTW: The noise reports don't appear to be a "Quality Control" issue either.
Happy RRing. |
|
|
|
deleted
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 10:36:30
|
I am very happy to see Steve Gugel joined our forum and also possessed the courage to speak up in his own defense. I have been privileged to meet him in person, and he is a class act.
Personally, as a former shop employee (who made the trains, did the casting, milling, and drilling, and I have the molten zinc burns to prove it) of Bowser Manufacturing, and as a former model train retailer, I believe my past background gives me a greater taste of the frustration manufacturers must go through to produce a quality product. Yet that has not made me immune from making my own misguided comments.
No manufacturer wants to produce junk, and they all (excepting maybe LGB--who state that they make toys) want to make the best model possible that will SELL--because they have to pay for tooling and material costs just to stay in business.
On that locked thread, one individual calculated a $25 per model cost on Aristo's behalf. Guess again--that number is way low! 1200 hours just for engineering the body--typical billed engineering cost (benefits, etc.) of $80/hour = $96,000 right there, plus mechanism = lets say $200,000 just for engineering BEFORE any production, possibly even BEFORE TOOL AND DIE WORK. Then they had to purchase/fabricate materials and assemble the models, finally package and ship them. Cha-ching.
I AM ECSTATIC that we can actually buy such fine models as some of the plastic ones available WITHOUT having to spend a mint. I've spent a mint on brass in small scales, and guess what--both Aristo and USAT products are better, especially where bang for the buck is concerned.
If one doesn't like the products available in large scale--then go back to small scale and buy brass--and you'll find out what real quality control DISAPPOINTMENT is with the stuff coming out of Korea and China even now. I lost thousands of dollars on crappy models, and will never go back.
My 2c.
John
|
Edited by - on 04 Jun 2004 10:40:04 |
|
|
|
Engineer
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 12:21:59
|
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it is a bit silly to argue about scale fidelity for 1:29 models running on 45-mm track?
If you want the trucks to be true 1:29 scale, then you'd better cough up the dough to replace your 45-mm track with some nice 49.4-mm track.
Mark |
|
|
|
Engineer
1st Class Member
USA
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 12:37:55
|
TOC,
I remember the days of LSOL. Seems like the dark ages, even though it was only 4 years ago...
Time flies when you're having fun, no?
|
Edited by - on 04 Jun 2004 12:38:28 |
|
|
|
Old Curmudgeon
1st Class Member
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 12:48:59
|
I do know from former insider information that the cost of certain diesels was about that.
I am not certain of the exact bottom line, but the company that makes the stuff does all the engineering, and keep ownership of the product.
I suppose there is a contractual possibilty you could pay all the engineering costs and own it.
I was told if you were to contact the company, and request a specific loco imported and sold by someone else, all they would ask is how many and what name do you want on the chassis and box.
We'll never know, and I could care less.
Did anyone notice nobody actualy measured a -9 to compare?
Ah, well.
Oh, you remember the original Big Hauler?
You know what the most expensive part on it was?
The box.
TOC |
|
|
|
Engineer
USA
|
Posted - 04 Jun 2004 : 12:58:05
|
Scale has never been the issue to me. It has always been the items appearance. Besides photos, I have held a Aristocraft Dash 9 and even the dealer thinks the frame rides too high from the trucks.
I know what I am looking at. If everyone else wishes to continue wearing blinders that is fine by me. I know what the truth is. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
All Forums
The best "Quality Control"
Forum Locked
Printer Friendly