RC10 Classic 40th anniversary

[TokyoProf]

That was a nice detailed comparo highlighting the differences between the RC10 pans with facts and firsthand observations azone!
Your post made me laugh in a good way--(very neutral, measured, and evidence-based). Thanks for taking time to provide the info and pics dude. The community here appreciates it for sure!

[azone]

That was a nice detailed comparo highlighting the differences between the RC10 pans with facts and firsthand observations azone!
Your post made me laugh in a good way--(very neutral, measured, and evidence-based). Thanks for taking time to provide the info and pics dude. The community here appreciates it for sure!

It really doesn't matter though does it - we are really being kind of ridiculous but it does interest me and what are you gonna do? I also just posted another thread with the nylon color comparison.

[Brendan2904]

That was a nice detailed comparo highlighting the differences between the RC10 pans with facts and firsthand observations azone!
Your post made me laugh in a good way--(very neutral, measured, and evidence-based). Thanks for taking time to provide the info and pics dude. The community here appreciates it for sure!

It really doesn't matter though does it - we are really being kind of ridiculous but it does interest me and what are you gonna do? I also just posted another thread with the nylon color comparison.

I am just happy I finally get to build one after 40 years of wanting one. What kid didn't? I was fortunate to get 2 to restore 2 months ago but I get to build and run this one all by myself. Same thing with the T coming out. I'm not complaining about anything. I'm excited.

[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.

I should have noted that I originally only took one thickness measurement of each...across the FLAT area where the rear arms attach, as another poster had suggested. But now I've taken three measurements on each and all five chassis are ALL still 1.4mm. All three places I measured each are FLAT areas of the chassis that are not subject to deformation or have an irregular edge....which every RC10 chassis I've ever seen has along the top side edge, which prevents a caliper from getting a true reading of the thickness. The actually FLAT areas that were measured were:

Across the rear chassis at the rear arm mount
At the front vertical edge just below where the front support tubes attach
At the very front bottom of the chassis where the nose plate attaches

Here's my evidence.....er...I mean pics:

[azone]

ok, I think it's good to have reference points. For my data I will take those additional measurements and add them to my post. If I scratch one of my chassis with the calipers I'm blaming you guys! If we can get one or two more people would be cool too, even if just one chassis version on hand...

[RogueIV]

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.

Nice! I'll add my measurement here. Maybe others can add as well. I did find a variation between the old and the new. The original is likely 14 gauge 6061-T6 aluminum. The median thickness should be 1.63mm, but as someone who owns a manufacturing company and deals with CRS and aluminum the variation in stock can be great depending on lots and where it is manufactured. There is also a lot of secondary processes on the RC10 chassis that will deform the dimensions so I took measurements in three different places for each chassis. Also. the upper edge of the chassis can have a lip (especially the CC/40th) so in any areas there was a lip, I placed the calipers below this area for a more accurate measurement.

Gold A light anodize: 1.74/1.70/1.64. Average 1.69mm thickness.
Gold B dark anodize: 1.53/1.72/1.70. Average 1.65mm thickness.
Gold 40th: 1.50 / 1.53 / 1.51. Average 1.51mm thickness.
RC10CC: 1.44 / 1.43 / 1.46. Average 1.44mm thickness.

I have not weighed the old gold pans unfortunately as I don't want to take them apart. From holding them and feeling them side by side though the 40th and CC chassis feel like a tin can next to the old ones. I would argue the newer ones are 16 gauge aluminum (and not sure what alloy/grade).

RC10A_Chassis_1.jpg
RC10A_Chassis_2.jpg
RC10A_Chassis_3.jpg
RC10B_Chassis_1.jpg
RC10B_Chassis_2.jpg
RC10B_Chassis_3.jpg
RC1040_Chassis_1.jpg
RC1040_Chassis_2.jpg
RC1040_Chassis_3.jpg

To really know what stock they used you really should be measuring from the bottom of the pan like where the trans mounts as the side are stretched on a form so the thickness will vary a lot more on those locations.

Edit: i missed the last update oops

[BattleTrak]

Here is a no stamp chassis…slightly thicker @ 1.67mm.

[azone]

Here is a no stamp chassis…slightly thicker @ 1.67mm.

so is that a very early chassis? that's pretty cool.
Make sure to check out my earlier post on page 27, I spent way too much time and added some more data and a video link. In the case of mine I found my vintage chassis are stiffer, slightly thicker, and heavier.

[morrisey0]

I'm actually an engineer and have lots of precision calipers

You have to appreciate the irony of you following up this statement by showing what looks to me any standard digital micrometer, and its battery being held in place with masking tape. Is that thing NIST traceable?

[azone]

I'm actually an engineer and have lots of precision calipers

You have to appreciate the irony of you following up this statement by showing what looks to me any standard digital micrometer, and its battery being held in place with masking tape. Is that thing NIST traceable?

perhaps it is also ironic that all the Mitutoyo calipers I used are by definition precision calipers, I've had the same set my entire career, and they have recently been calibrated...

[Frankentruck]

I do cheat and use a digital set more and more, but I like my Brown and Sharpe best. I bought these 28yrs ago while working in a machine shop.
.

[morrisey0]

Nope, you're out of cal!!!!

Touche' on there actually being a cal sticker on it though!! You got me!

[azone]

I do cheat and use a digital set more and more, but I like my Brown and Sharpe best. I bought these 28yrs ago while working in a machine shop.

Nice. When I started my career I was gifted a set a 6" Brown & Sharpe's by a guy that was retiring. I used them mostly as backup. I just wasted another 15 minutes running around looking for them as I found the box empty. I think my son got to them. But yeah they were from the 60's and definitely quality.

Nope, you're out of cal!!!!

I guess take it for what it is - just trying to share some data. Not sure how much precision we really need here but I did double check w/ the 12" caliper and same readings.

[Frankentruck]

I had a similar walnut caliper box but forgot it at the machine shop when I moved onward.

[XLR8]

I'm actually an engineer and have lots of precision calipers

You have to appreciate the irony of you following up this statement by showing what looks to me any standard digital micrometer, and its battery being held in place with masking tape. Is that thing NIST traceable?

Maybe it's an "engineer" thing.
Here's my calipers:

Yes, that's a AAA battery taped to the back. ... for extra l o n g run times.