Interesting Data Point Regarding Early Edinger Chassis

[duckhead]

During the latest analysis of the early Edinger kit I was intrigued and a bit baffled by three holes on the chassis that were countersunk after the anodizing process.

I had thought either it was done by the previous owner or was done by a worker during manufacturing, but in error. The holes are machined perfectly and are the exact size of the anodized holes so at the very least whoever did it used a machine, probably a drill press.

I am in possession of four other 'no stamp' early Edinger cars and upon comparing them all I believe the chassis in question was drilled at the factory and is unique. I also believe we now have an undeniable distinguishing data point for early 'no stamp' Edinger cars as even early 'A' stamp cars do not possess these holes (verified by six early 'A' stamp cars on hand).

I encourage everyone who has a 'no stamp' early Edinger car to acknowledge and post a picture verifying this data point for possible inclusion into the '25 YEARS OF RC10' sticky thread.

Example #1: Unique 'error' chassis

Example #2:

Example #3:

Example #4:

Example #5:

[Phin]

My guess is someone at AE missed countersinking the forward holes before sending the chassis off to anodizing...and then the error was probably caught when it got back and the holes got countersunk then.

[RC10resto]

Interesting

[Asso_man!]

Here are two chassis that have an A stamp. I bought these as complete rollers with early Edinger specs. Interestingly enough one has the extra 3 countersunk and anodised holes but the other doesn't. I guess it already ruins your theory? I have other early chassis but they’re not as accessible. Will update as I dig them out.

[jwscab]

my guess is that they made a running change and switched over, possibly with that one chassis or a small number of ones already anodized, and just added the extra countersinks before they left the factory. Ones in production that were still being machined got the update prior to anodizing. So that lends itself to being an earlier unit, especially with the aluminum shock spacers, I think that has only ever been documented one other time.....

as for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.

[RC10resto]

as for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.

Have to disagree here Joe.
Early chassis' had a slight design flaw that was fixed. The updated chassis' were differentiated with the "A" stamp.

[jwscab]

Hmm I guess that may be the case. I just made that suggestion based on the fact that David has an A stamp there with the holes not countersunk. So a no stamp that was countersunk and A stamp that wasn't kind of messes up a proposed timeline.

[Asso_man!]

as for the 'A' vs no 'A', I really think that was an afterthought, and some got it, and some didn't.

Have to disagree here Joe.
Early chassis' had a slight design flaw that was fixed. The updated chassis' were differentiated with the "A" stamp.

What design flaw?

[RC10resto]

Rear cutout. No Stamp vs. A
Curtis explained this to me several years ago
Less flex on the "A"

[scr8p]

Then they went and removed it again on the B tubs.

https://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=28308&p=290739&hilit=Tub#p290739

[RC10resto]

some material...not all

[pedro]

Hi there

Here is my no stamp and upon looking closer at it I realised now that mine has been drilled on separate occasions the 3 holes that have been countersunk like yours have been done properly but what is hard to see is that the 2 in the centre are much different to the other 3, the 2 in the centre appear to have been done with a hand drill and are quite badly done whereas the others are perfect I never noticed this before just thought they had all been done all at the same time prior to building. Mine was half built when I bought it so I really had no idea?

Cheers

Peter

[duckhead]

Hi there

Here is my no stamp and upon looking closer at it I realised now that mine has been drilled on separate occasions the 3 holes that have been countersunk like yours have been done properly but what is hard to see is that the 2 in the centre are much different to the other 3, the 2 in the centre appear to have been done with a hand drill and are quite badly done whereas the others are perfect I never noticed this before just thought they had all been done all at the same time prior to building. Mine was half built when I bought it so I really had no idea?

Cheers

Peter

That is really interesting Peter, thanks!!!

It also looks like you have Good Year front tires and no logos on the rear, just like mine as well.

All of these early cars are so fascinating, uncovering all the obscure details and intricacies.

->Mark

[duckhead]

Never knew about the rear cutouts varying in length on the no-stamp, versus A, versus B. Thanks for the info!

[TOLITS]

Very interesting indeed that they no longer offer an option of moving the battery trays forward. (red arrow shows the battery tray is near the bend side area of the tub chassis pictured on the box)

So the new standard for the location of the battery trays in late edinger, cadillac, and re-release tub chassis shown below. (two red arrow shows the distance of the battery tray from the bend side area of the tub chassis)

These pictures were taken from Ruffy's box art edinger project. https://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=15487&start=45

Also the location of the battery trays in the pre-production RC10.