RC10 Classic 40th anniversary

[Frankentruck]

Do you know anyone with a tap and die set? Adding a 1/4-20 UNC thread wouldn't be too difficult. Very annoying though, yes. Someone else here had that happen with a Tamiya or Kyosho kit not long ago. I'm surprised this happens, but apparently it does. If AE doesn't get back to you quickly, I'm sure I have a stub axle I could send your way. Just PM me a shipping address.

The thread would be an 8-32 not a 1/4-20

The threaded part of the axle is far less than a 1/4.

Thanks, yes 8-32 is right. Serious brain fart on the thread size.

[TokyoProf]

So what is the latest 40th serial tracking number so far?
Is the 40th gold pan much lighter/thinner than previous versions?

[azone]

There are numbers in the 7,000's. Someone on YouTube had 7xxx. About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

[TokyoProf]

There are numbers in the 7,000's. Someone on YouTube had 7xxx. About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Cool thank you! Someone should put all the RC10 pans side by side and do a detailed comparo that would be interesting. I had a conversation with Akira about the JJ Ultima, and for some reason I recall he said 5,000 were made for production out of Taiwan. He wanted Kyosho to make more of the JJ at the time of the initial reissue. Maybe 5,000 for a such a niche model was about right in retrospect.

Maybe 5,000 is a the ideal return on investment order batch for an RC offroad buggy made out of Taiwan. I have mixed feelings about the RC10 limited edition going to 9999 (the thinking from this forum). That number makes sense to me.

[morrisey0]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

[Dangeruss]

I had a conversation with Akira about the JJ Ultima, and for some reason I recall he said 5,000 were made for production out of Taiwan. He wanted Kyosho to make more of the JJ at the time of the initial reissue. Maybe 5,000 for a such a niche model was about right in retrospect.

5000? I thought there were only 1500 of the JJ kits?

[RogueIV]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

[XLR8]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I've just measured the tub on my 40th and it measures same as one of my early A stamp chassis tubs. Both tubs were measured in the same place; the flat area behind the rear arm mounts under the motor.

[azone]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

Other than experience and holding them side by side I'm actually an engineer and have lots of precision calipers so maybe I will take the time to measure them. Maybe weigh them too. It's unquestionable though just from visually inspecting them and picking them up. If the original was like these we wouldn't have all had to drill holes in our RC10 chassis in 1986 after seeing the team drivers do it in RCCA magazine

[NeonNoodle]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I've just measured the tub on my 40th and it measures same as one of my early A stamp chassis tubs. Both tubs were measured in the same place; the flat area behind the rear arm mounts under the motor.

I have a selection of chassis on hand and I just weighed and measured them. Here's what I got:

Gold A light anodize: 6.0oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold A dark anodize: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold B: 5.9oz/1.4mm thickness
Black B: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
40th: 5.7oz./1.4mm thickness

Sorry for the mix of oz. and mm....I only had a postal scale on hand.

[RogueIV]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I've just measured the tub on my 40th and it measures same as one of my early A stamp chassis tubs. Both tubs were measured in the same place; the flat area behind the rear arm mounts under the motor.

I have a selection of chassis on hand and I just weighed and measured them. Here's what I got:

Gold A light anodize: 6.0oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold A dark anodize: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold B: 5.9oz/1.4mm thickness
Black B: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
40th: 5.7oz./1.4mm thickness

Sorry for the mix of oz. and mm....I only had a postal scale on hand.

Considering the hole differences in the pans that' could account for the 0.3oz difference maybe? Either way that's not a huge difference at all.

[NeonNoodle]

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I've just measured the tub on my 40th and it measures same as one of my early A stamp chassis tubs. Both tubs were measured in the same place; the flat area behind the rear arm mounts under the motor.

I have a selection of chassis on hand and I just weighed and measured them. Here's what I got:

Gold A light anodize: 6.0oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold A dark anodize: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold B: 5.9oz/1.4mm thickness
Black B: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
40th: 5.7oz./1.4mm thickness

Sorry for the mix of oz. and mm....I only had a postal scale on hand.

Considering the hole differences in the pans that' could account for the 0.3oz difference maybe? Either way that's not a huge difference at all.

That's exactly what I thought...they were all very close in weight.

[terry.sc]

I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I suspect it's people who are new to vintage RC, or used to have one years ago and won't buy an old original. They open the 40th and find the chassis is light and flexes and assume the one they had memories of from years ago was some solid lump, and make wild assumptions as to why. They won't actually think that the chassis is stiffer once you've braced it with the nose and rear bulkhead and gearbox. The majority of people rushing to buy the 40th seem to be people who won't buy a lightly used runner or put one together from repro parts, but constantly moan about the price of nib originals, so won't know what an original feels like.

[azone]

About the chassis it is certainly thinner and lighter than the original. It's like the CC. I don't have the classic reissue so can't comment on that one.

Do you have actual thickness numbers to support the thinner claim? From my research, I have heard the 40th is as thick as an original variant. I haven't opened my 40th, so I can't confirm.

I have personally confirmed that it's the same thickness as a B stamp chassis. I'm not sure where people keep coming up that it is thinner and have not seen any proof as such.

I've just measured the tub on my 40th and it measures same as one of my early A stamp chassis tubs. Both tubs were measured in the same place; the flat area behind the rear arm mounts under the motor.

I have a selection of chassis on hand and I just weighed and measured them. Here's what I got:

Gold A light anodize: 6.0oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold A dark anodize: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
Gold B: 5.9oz/1.4mm thickness
Black B: 5.7oz/1.4mm thickness
40th: 5.7oz./1.4mm thickness

Sorry for the mix of oz. and mm....I only had a postal scale on hand.

[edit] please note I have updated these measurements taken at the specific places asked... I also measured a 3rd of my 4 vintage chassis (I didn't want to take apart one of them).
Nice! I'll add my measurements here. Maybe others can add as well. I did find a variation between the old and the new. The original is 6061-T6 aluminum, likely 14 gauge or at worst 16 gauge. I found a differnce in thickness, weight, and ring resonance (stiffness).

Gold A Stamp # 1
Thickess: 1.60/1.62/1.62. Average 1.61mm.
Weight: 172.82g
Resonance: 620Hz (also rings out longer)

Gold A Stamp # 2
Thickness: 1.60/1.61/1.58. Average 1.60mm.
Weight: 171.58 g
Resonance: 620Hz (also rings out longer)

Gold 40th
Thickness: 1.55 / 1.54 / 1.32. Average 1.55mm (1.47mm incl. 3rd measurement).
Weight: 159.55g
Resonance: 580Hz

RC10CC
Thickness: 1.50 / 1.48 / 1.32. Average 1.49mm (1.45mm incl. 3rd measurement).
Weight: 154.70g
Resonance: 550Hz

I note the average thickness with and w/o the 3rd measurement as that edge is formed and could be distorted. Also I noted the smallest measurements I could get for the A stamp chassis just to make sure I wasn't measuring a thicker area

Here is a link to the video showing all this...
https://youtu.be/mowc6K13L7Y

So, my vintage chassis are slightly thicker, definitely stiffer, and weigh more than the 40th and CC. It could just be the four that I have, but maybe others can add more data.

[azone]