RC10 Graphite vs Tub chassis

[mdutcher]

I have never really seen a graphite chassis raced or even played with around my area. That begs the question regarding durability or longevity when compared to the tub chassis.

What are the advantages to the graphite chassis? Is it weight? Or what?

What about the front end? Any issues there with durability given that there are no real structural supports?

I am really curious as I might have an in on securing a graphite chassis, but not if it will be prone to issues.

Please share your experiences. Post pics, if you have them as I would love to see your runner or shelf queen.

[RC104ever]

My crude understanding is that the graphite is lighter, but also flexes more. Now that we have lipo batteries with long run times, weight is not as much of an issue as it used to be back when NiCd batteries were the norm.

[Y'ernat Al]

Tip of the day..

Use Google, but following your key words of interest, add the following:

site:www.rc10talk.com

Works a bit smoother than the search function up there on the orange bar. For example:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=RC10+graphite+versus+tub+chassis+site:www.rc10talk.com&oq=RC10+graphite+versus+tub+chassis+site:www.rc10talk.com&gs_l=hp.3...3834.22265.0.23111.27.25.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.udBEOmn_iss&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=a7e118819f5e1e5b&bpcl=40096503&biw=1293&bih=704

[mdutcher]

Tip of the day..

Use Google, but following your key words of interest, add the following:

site:www.rc10talk.com

Works a bit smoother than the search function up there on the orange bar. For example:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=RC10+graphite+versus+tub+chassis+site:www.rc10talk.com&oq=RC10+graphite+versus+tub+chassis+site:www.rc10talk.com&gs_l=hp.3...3834.22265.0.23111.27.25.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.udBEOmn_iss&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=a7e118819f5e1e5b&bpcl=40096503&biw=1293&bih=704

Thank you for that tip. Believe me I did try searching using the forum search feature and it kept excluding the words graphite chassis.

I did review those threads now at a pretty quick glance but I did not find an answer about front end durability during a nose dive or something. Thoughts?

As it would seem or appear, the tub chassis is more favored as a common consensus.

Good to know.

[scr8p]

if you break a stock rc10 graphite chassis, it's time to put the radio away.

[Lonestar]

the graphite chassis won't break at all unless you do something really wrong as Scr8p said... unfortunately though, the edge will just wear out and delaminate as the nosedives happen.

[fredswain]

Some people claim that the aluminum tub chassis is superior and cite the fact that Team Associated won the '93 IFMAR championships with them. As a direct rebuttal to that I'd like to point out that those cars had shorter suspension arms than the previous 2 winners or than any current cars yet we still run longer arms today. The point being that one race isn't a deciding factor or a valid comparison. A great driver is always going to be tough to beat and Team Associated has always seemed to find the best drivers. In the 80's and 90's down here you weren't a serious contender unless you ran a graphite chassis and if we want to go back to race results they've won plenty as well. Each handled a bit differently but neither was necessarily always better than the other. It depends on what you like the car to feel like, your track, your tuning ability, and your driving style. Keep in mind many people's opinions of graphite chassis came from the use of aftermarket chassis and some of them were quite terrible. Quality and flexibility varied greatly with them. Some were extremely flexible and soft. Others were quite rigid. The graphite chassis from Associated were actually fairly stiff. Other graphite chassis options that utilized a double deck could be even more rigid than the aluminum tub which actually does have a bit of flexibility to it in the rear bulkhead area.