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

OK I'm starting a new post as my friend that does the design is a new member here and can't access the buy and sell section.

You can see the start of the discussion here http://www.rc10talk.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14157

So following the feedback we got from members here we came up with this new chassis design.

One thing to note is that although the front holes looks a bit far on the front plate, they are actually positionned correctly. The fold in the metal is closer to the center of the chassis and explains the difference.

So:

We got rid of the row of holes on the sides

We repositionned the bends to avoid weak points in the chassis

We added holes for the servo posts. QUESTION: are both sets of holes necessary

We changed the angle of the rear part so the chassis has 0° toe-in

What do you guys think? This would most likely be anodized back (but we can choose other colors per batch as well)

Any constructive comments are welcome

Looks good! Only suggestion I have is don't bend the sides up as much. It doesn't take much bend to stiffen it up. I assume you will do the bend on a brake? I would bend it up that much do define the line and then bend it back to almost flat.

Thanks

This is a good point. We used the T2 chassis as an example and since my friend lives in a different city and does the drawings, I could only send him a picture

I also though the angle was a bit steep.

We're open to more comments....

Is it still pertinent to have two sets of holes for the servo posts?

Looks great! Just one more hole for the antenna mount........ but even on the T2 chassis it was still in a tight spot.

AYKBOBCAT wrote:One thing to note is that although the front holes looks a bit far on the front plate, they are actually positionned correctly. The fold in the metal is closer to the center of the chassis and explains the difference.

Are you sure about this? the screws should be closer to the bend.

It is looking good. i would not bend the sides that much. If you look at the flat the sides should be 1/8" from the floor.
i am sure once you make the first test chassis you might make some adjustments to get is a close to perfect as possible.
i am not sure about the servo holes, the T2 chassis had only one set so i would only doe one set of holes not both.

Just wondering if the sides being angled in so tight, is this going to cause weight distibution problems for mounting the receiver and esc?
The racers here may know.

m_vice wrote:

AYKBOBCAT wrote:One thing to note is that although the front holes looks a bit far on the front plate, they are actually positionned correctly. The fold in the metal is closer to the center of the chassis and explains the difference.

Are you sure about this? the screws should be closer to the bend.

the front end holes on the sassy chassis were placed in the center of the kick-up. why, i don't know. i always thought it was dumb. but anyway, that's why he's saying the holes are positioned correctly. since he's using a sassy chassis as inspiration.

in my opinion, you shouldn't use an aftermarket chassis as a hole template. put the holes in the kick-up closer to the bend, just like a factory nose plate or chassis.

m_vice wrote:

AYKBOBCAT wrote:One thing to note is that although the front holes looks a bit far on the front plate, they are actually positionned correctly. The fold in the metal is closer to the center of the chassis and explains the difference.

Are you sure about this? the screws should be closer to the bend.

It is looking good. i would not bend the sides that much. If you look at the flat the sides should be 1/8" from the floor.
i am sure once you make the first test chassis you might make some adjustments to get is a close to perfect as possible.
i am not sure about the servo holes, the T2 chassis had only one set so i would only doe one set of holes not both.

Scr8p has a good point.

We'll check again and reposition the holes , but this is a minor issue I think. I mean we'll obviously make a prototype.

I also think one set of servo holes is enough.

For the bends, We'll wait for more comments. I agree that as it is now it's too much. What is the angle on the T2? Someone as a tool to measure it?

i would love an aluminum chassis with a&l swingaxle mounts built-in...

badhoopty wrote:i would love an aluminum chassis with a&l swingaxle mounts built-in...

What does that looks like? We're also taking suggestions for a follow up option (worlds stup etc.)...

QUESTION: are both sets of holes necessary for steering servo?? no only need 1 set.... looks very nice..

With the sides bent up like that the whole thing reminds me of a *ahem* sanitary napkin

Now that i've ruined it for everybody I think you're on to something and would be interested in one myself.

Lowgear wrote:With the sides bent up like that the whole thing reminds me of a *ahem* sanitary napkin

Now that i've ruined it for everybody I think you're on to something and would be interested in one myself.

That's a good one!

OK so far looks like we're making progress again. Thanks for all the comments. It is very much appreciated.

The only real changes I wrote down from this round is

1- move the holes on the front plate closer to the bend

2- Keep only one set of servo holes

3- bend on the chassis should be less steep

Anything else?


A couple of questions:

What angle should we use for the chassis bend? Would using the same as the T2 correct in your opinion?

Which servo holes do you use on your tub chassis?

Should we also put servo holes to mount the servo perpandicular to the chassis?

Should we add another pair of wholes to give the option to move the battery cup forward to allow for 7 cells to be positioned flat? Although most people may now use lipos (I'm not)

Let us know... We'll come back with another drawing...

is there enough room lateral to the servo mount holes to fit a standard size servo there without the bent up portion of the chassis hitting the servo case?
otherwise it looks nice.