New Design chassis ASSEMBLED PROTOTYPE 18/04/10

[aconsola]

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.

Justa thought as I am certainly no expert on suspension tuning/geometry, but it seems to me that putting the holes higher up on the kick-up will lower the CG and ground clearance of the front of the pan a little. It should also help with the clearance issues of the inner camberlink and the bellcrank ballstuds.

[AYKBOBCAT]

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.

You are asking if the servo saver would hit the bend right? Because the servo itself is located between the bend lines.

I can't answer this before building a prototype but we'll obviously make sure we don't have a problem with that. Thanks for the comment...

[scr8p]

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.

Justa thought as I am certainly no expert on suspension tuning/geometry, but it seems to me that putting the holes higher up on the kick-up will lower the CG and ground clearance of the front of the pan a little. It should also help with the clearance issues of the inner camberlink and the bellcrank ballstuds.

ya, it would do all that. but was that sassy's reason for doing it?

i just remembered, thinking about the one that i had, that it came with a paper drill template for the mip 4x4 kit. with the 4x4 setup, the noseplate on a tub chassis needed to be moved ahead. could it be that sassy didn't want to make the chassis longer, so they simply moved the holes ahead on the kick-up? maybe...... i don't know. but it would make sense.

[scr8p]

another thing could be the height of the sassy aluminum bellcranks. they sat a mile above the chassis, so they need clearance room to the shock tower.

and also, sassy, unlike aykbobcat, didn't narrow the chassis and the bottom of the kick-up. like many other aftermarket companies bitd. so the buyer would have to notch out the chassis for a-arm/hinge pin clearance. with sassy sliding the whole front suspension forward, it resolved that issue.

[AYKBOBCAT]

another thing could be the height of the sassy aluminum bellcranks. they sat a mile above the chassis, so they need clearance room to the shock tower.

and also, sassy, unlike aykbobcat, didn't narrow the chassis and the bottom of the kick-up. like many other aftermarket companies bitd. so the buyer would have to notch out the chassis for a-arm/hinge pin clearance. with sassy sliding the whole front suspension forward, it resolved that issue.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean Scr8p. The front kick-up is based on the gold tub front piece so it should be a direct fit.

[scr8p]

i'm talking about the reason why the suspension mount holes are so far forward on the kickup on a sassy chassis compared to any other rc10 chassis.

[AYKBOBCAT]

Yes I get that but I dont understand what the problem would be with narroing the chassis and the base of the front plate...

[scr8p]

there IS no problem with that. that's how they SHOULD be. i was just pointing out that sassy, as well as alot of other aftermarket companies didn't.

[AYKBOBCAT]

Got it... thanks

[Jay]

I like the idea.. I would probably buy one.

[AYKBOBCAT]

Tanks for this... A new design comming up soon...

[AYKBOBCAT]

Ok guys here is a new version of the chassis.

We have now moved the holes on the cickup plate to the same position as on the gold tub.

We removed one set of sevo holes

We made the angle shallower on the chassis bend. It was 15° and is now 10°. I'm adding a picture that will allow you to see the agle properly. I think it's pretty good now.

We added a hole for the antenna mount on each side toward the rear but that is on the 10° angled part and would require cutting the servo mount accordingly to have the tube straight. It also may take some of the space needed to mount the electronics. This is to my opinion not the best way to go so if you have another proposition to mount the antenna let us know.

As before we're open to constructive coments. This is getting close to prototype now I guess

[jwscab]

I want to add one thing which I think is important. The point where the bend stops at the rear of the chassis where it narrows creates a high stress point which will eventually cause a stress fracture, especially if there is no upper deck to stiffen the design.

At the very least, I would change the plan to use a radius at the point where the chassis narrows, maybe use something like a 10mm or so radius, instead of a sharp angle produced by two cuts.

another thing to reduce that potential problem is to slightly move the end of the bend, so that it doesn't coincide with that width change, so in other words, move the bend line out in the back, like 3-4mm.

[AYKBOBCAT]

This is an important point but I believe we have taken your proposed solution #2. On this image the green section shows the flat part. The edge of the green section is where the bend is positionned.

Does that match with what you're suggesting?

[jwscab]

yep, perfect. that should prevent any stress fracturing from occurring there. I apologize if this is what you already designed, it is hard to tell in the white drawings, and the size of the picture.

The reason I mention this in the first place, is even though the bend is slight, if you use something like 6061-T6 already tempered, and then bent it, the aluminum undergoes some decent deformation, which shows up pretty much like stretch marks. This is more critical and happens faster the sharper the bend radius, so you have to be careful. Couple that with a sharp angle at that point, and the 'crack' is already there.

looks great!