Page 2 of 3

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:24 am
by badhoopty
bngiles wrote:Nice post.

Just goes to show what little the BS "milling" really did for the weight. Obviously just something to claim on the latest and greatest version.

I imagine the black one is lighter because lighter/thinner/cheaper aluminum was used. Corporations have a way of cutting costs in ways you wouldn't imagine.
ROH73 wrote: I've read somewhere (probably an old RCCA) that the reason for the milled pockets on the sides was to help direct dirt out of the chassis through the slightly larger holes. The 'H' pocket is probably just for show. The World's chassis main claim to fame is its hard anodizing, which makes it stiffer.
one thing i know is the worlds chassis' main claim to fame is it looked like brian kinwalds worlds car.

but since we're speculating, i'd imagine the channeling (and not the anodizing) is where the added rigidity comes from. if anything it just something done to the kinwald car to make it look trick. but regardless of why the worlds chassis was milled, the worlds kit was and is arguably the latest and greatest version of the rc10.

opinions and discussions are very welcome here, but if there is something that you are posting that you are A) claiming as fact. or B) think might get people 'pissed'. take a second and think about whether or not your opinion is valid and contributional, and not some recollection of something you read in rcca years ago or your own personal idea of the marketing schemes and production cutting costs of the corporate giant that was associated in the early 90's.

and besides, in a cage match the worlds chassis would absolutely destroy the graphite.

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:04 am
by scr8p
badhoopty wrote:and besides, in a cage match the worlds chassis would absolutely destroy the graphite.
pfft............... you must've read that in rcca.

:P :P

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:20 am
by RichieRich
scr8p wrote:
badhoopty wrote:and besides, in a cage match the worlds chassis would absolutely destroy the graphite.
pfft............... you must've read that in rcca.

:P :P

Nah, that was in "How to Make Friends Online" by Asa. Oh SNAP! :lol: :lol:

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:31 am
by scr8p
RichieRich wrote:Nah, that was in "How to Make Friends Online" by Asa.
who's that? :?

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:57 am
by badhoopty
i dont mean to offend anybody, the thread just went south in a hurry. it's definitely cool to see the weight differences.

it happens to the best of us... remember when i thought the a&l steering was composite craft? :wink:

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:00 am
by call-911
Cool post! Thanks for taking the time to snap the shots. I think my Siebenelch slammer nose plate will be going on a diet.

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:43 am
by Eau Rouge
The World's chassis main claim to fame is its hard anodizing, which makes it stiffer.
Hard anodizing increases abrasion resistance and makes the surface harder, it doesn't make the aluminum stiffer. The hard anodizing would be less likely to get scratched up and gnarly than the gold anodizing. That's about it.

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:27 pm
by 59burst
call-911 wrote:Cool post! Thanks for taking the time to snap the shots. I think my Siebenelch slammer nose plate will be going on a diet.
thanks, my wife likes this thread too. 'cuase she got a new cooking scale.

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:49 pm
by ROH73
"Opinions and discussions are very welcome here, but if there is something that you are posting that you are A) claiming as fact. or B) think might get people 'pissed'. take a second and think about whether or not your opinion is valid and contributional, and not some recollection of something you read in rcca years ago or your own personal idea of the marketing schemes and production cutting costs of the corporate giant that was associated in the early 90's."

I can't fathom why a recollection from RCCA is not valid or contributing the this online forum/knowledge base, especially when that recollection is accurate. From the December 1990 issue, an article entitled "Inside Cliff Lett's Winning Cars," shows Lett's RC10 with milled pockets and specifically states "You might think that the slots and holes machined in the bottom are there to reduce weight, but, in fact, they allow dirt to fall out. This is a great idea, because dirt increases weight and affects handling."

Please see attached scan, showing pockets nearly identical to the ones in the Worlds chassis'.

Robert

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:57 pm
by Eau Rouge
From reading that magazine on and off for 20-odd years, it wouldn't be the first time they had no idea what they were talking about. :wink:

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:05 pm
by ROH73
Eau Rouge wrote:
The World's chassis main claim to fame is its hard anodizing, which makes it stiffer.
Hard anodizing increases abrasion resistance and makes the surface harder, it doesn't make the aluminum stiffer. The hard anodizing would be less likely to get scratched up and gnarly than the gold anodizing. That's about it.
At my job, we spec hard anodizing quite a bit and the parts appear to be stiffer as compared to the regular anodizing. Unfortunately, I have no quantitative data to back this up, just personal experience, so perhaps I shouldn't have said it in my original post. But, on 6061 aluminum alloy, hard anodizing to black gives a .003" thick outer layer with a hardness similar to case hardened steel. Theoretically, one would expect this to affect the elasticity of the material, especially on something only 1/16" thick like the RC10 chassis.

Robert

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:07 pm
by ROH73
Eau Rouge wrote:From reading that magazine on and off for 20-odd years, it wouldn't be the first time they had no idea what they were talking about. :wink:
Perhaps...

But, I'm happy my memory is still working well :D .

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:38 pm
by Halgar
Eau Rouge wrote:From reading that magazine on and off for 20-odd years, it wouldn't be the first time they had no idea what they were talking about. :wink:
It took you reading RCCA for 20 years to figure out they have their heads up their patootie? :lol: :P :wink: I knew it within 6 months they didn't know anything, and that was holding onto the hope that they would write something worth reading, let alone buying the rag for. There were an awful lot of nice Traxxas ads though. :roll:

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:38 am
by RichieRich
I only look at RCCA for the pictures. Wait...maybe that's another magazine. No, I read that one for the articles. :lol:

Re: Chassis weight comparison

Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:47 am
by call-911
I remember Cliff Lett's car having the vertical sides of the tub having elongated milled slots all the way through. Maybe that is what they were referring to? They couldn't have been that idiotic to think that the shallow slots milled in the belly pan allowed dirt to fall out. :?