RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

I run all cheap brushless in my cars, sensored, and sensorless. Using 2.4ghz radio gear, there hasnt been any issues with interference between components. I have had trouble lately with hitech servos not playing well though. Ive had a couple that freak out in a left hand turn only, another that caused range issues, and another yet that just died for no apparent reason, no smoke, no crash,, just died. These were spendy servos too.

Im wondering about the works chassis and top decks, the setup where the battery slots run at an angle rather than straight on. Can standard 870c bulkheads and belts be fitted to those? I really like the look of the angular chassis, and top deck,, and would hope to build one of my 870s onto that platform.

Yeah the battery connections on the lipo are very snug, this doesnt mean that it connects properly so i found out...easy fix so all good. I run a standard 3mm setup in mine...i would have to check wot model belt it is. Seems fine and to adjust is easy enough? Stickboy knows as he mentioned something like this in one of his vids?

rccars4sal wrote:I run all cheap brushless in my cars, sensored, and sensorless. Using 2.4ghz radio gear, there hasnt been any issues with interference between components. I have had trouble lately with hitech servos not playing well though. Ive had a couple that freak out in a left hand turn only, another that caused range issues, and another yet that just died for no apparent reason, no smoke, no crash,, just died. These were spendy servos too.

Im wondering about the works chassis and top decks, the setup where the battery slots run at an angle rather than straight on. Can standard 870c bulkheads and belts be fitted to those? I really like the look of the angular chassis, and top deck,, and would hope to build one of my 870s onto that platform.

The bulkheads bolt up just fine.. I found this out when I bolted up a works 93 bulkheads on my 870c.. what I don't know is the belts.. I have to assume that the 92 top deck with the 92 chassis would work fine but I bet that someone else may have a definite answer to this..

Shawn

@rccars4sal, yes, you should be able to directly bolt on your magnesium bulkheads onto a works chassis. The only difference between the 870 and the Works bulkheads is the material - magnesium vs. aluminum, as you state. The aluminum does not oxidize as much and so it will take much longer to turn dull. Aluminum is only slightly heavier in atomic weight than magnesium (26.98 g/mol vs. 24.31 g/mol - just check any periodic table), but is considerably denser (2.7 g/mL vs. 1.738 g/mL). This means the aluminum bulkheads will be heavier, but because aluminum is "soft" rather than brittle, it will be much less likely to shatter on hard impacts.

As for the belts, I have yet to check directly, but I put an 870c directly next to a 93 works, and a 93 works next to a 91 works, and they all have the same exact length, dogbone to dogbone, at least looking by eye (the '91 and '92 have the same upper and lower deck). They use the same 35T pulleys (except the 91 of course - 2mm belts), so most likely, you should not have a problem running an 870c belt on a '92 or '93 Works chassis. As for adjustment, all of the Works models have adjustable front belt tension via the rear 4 screws on the upper deck (slotted screw holes), and rear belt tension via the rear bulkhead position on the lower deck (again, slotted screw holes). As you can probably tell, that is not terribly accurate, especially for the upper deck. You have to loosen those screws, then press the upper deck forward to tighten the belt (by flexing the chassis), and then hold that in place with one hand while you tighten the screws down with the other hand. Very hard to get it just perfect, which is compounded by the fiddly 2mm belts on the 91 works, where the teeth are not as deep as on the 3mm belts.