New RC10 Rear tower design...

[SMOKE-DOG]

SSG would be sweet.

[lowrydesign]

what if i wanted to use it with a rpm bulkhead?????

[scr8p]

what if i wanted to use it with a rpm bulkhead?????

then you'd be looking for a different tower.

there might be enough meat on the sides to drill those upper mounting hole. might being the key word.

[seth556]

LMK what you think and if there are any changes that might seem prudent. -Jeff

there's a couple front shock towers out there now to use the .89 b4 shocks on the front of an rc10. but i find it odd that no one has made a lower rear tower so you can use 1.18 b4 rear shocks on the back.

the 1.32 is the standard rear. but most people use 1.02 shafts. so that means people are building rear shocks piece by piece, or buying 1.32 kits as well as a pair of 1.02 shafts to replace the 1.32's in the kit. seems to me that it'd be much easier to just get the 1.18 shock kit................. and have someone offer a direct fit shock tower for them. not to mention, the tower would need to be about 3/16" lower, and will help with getting the "slammed" look.

just my thoughts........

If I could design one and make a production version that would work well do you think there would be much of a market for it? Besides 4 or 5 people on here that want it because it looks cool?

[Jay Dub]

Well, I received my G10 yesterday, and will hopefully be cutting parts tomorrow (no CF yet -this week). I will have them in .093, and .125. AS far as production runs, It's really not my style. I have very little time, and to try to market these as a good profit making entity is not going to happen any time soon. Typicaly I would do a small run by request (10-20pcs) and sell them here (maybe e-bay too -for those who are not RC10talk savy ) . I wil let you gut know when they come available. -jeff

[seth556]

Sorry to hijack the thread. But just found a CNC machine I'm pretty sure I can use. So I hurried off to doing some drawing.

Here's my warm up at a tranny brace, no one makes one without extra holes or without the body mount hole for those of us who don't use it.



Next I'll start work on the rear tower and try to make one for the standard B4 1.18 shocks.

Here's a quick tower I made that would be similar with the original tower (shock mounting points) plus some holes for the B4 wing mounts. Although it would probably need some extra material near the top so little tab type things that come out where the shock mounts don't break off during a roll over.

[Jay Dub]

Good rule of thumb for engineering purposes on most materials. When cutting material around a hole- If the material is the same thickness as the diameter of the hole being drilled leave at least one hole diameter of material on all sides of the hole. So, if you have 1/8th inch thick material, and you are drilling an 1/8th inch hole, the cross section thru the hole to both sides of the material should be no less than 3/8th of an inch. If the material is thinner, increase the cros sectional area to accomodate. Also you should never have any square inside corners (like in your rear tower). They will focus and magnify stress and be a point of fracture. Always radius your corners. This is not much of an issue on cnc routed stuff like mine, as the machining leaves natural raduises. Otherwise, it looks like a good start. Good luck -Jeff

[Jay Dub]

Also, I understand what you are saying about the shorter rear B4.1 shocks being offeres by AE, and a tower for them. It might be a good idea. I haven't looked into them, but I do wonder about the decrease (if any) in travel. With the B4.1 the car has much longer arms than the std RC10. This allows as a shorter shock to be used and maintain travel. The std RC10 benefits from a longer shock because it need a greater range of motion to maintain its suspension travel. I am using the V2 shocks on another one of my cars, and if memory serves I have limiters in the rear. It may well be that the B4.1 shocks work just fine on the rear of the std RC10. I don't have them to check, but maybe one of the mambers here does... -Jeff

[seth556]

But with the 1.32 shocks and shafts I have to use 5/8" of limiters so it's not too long. So both shocks should end up having around the same amount of travel. As well as lowering the CG and a minor weight loss.

I still have a little work on the rear tower (thicken up the tabs and work on the middle hole). Then I also need to do the lower tower.

[scr8p]

Also, I understand what you are saying about the shorter rear B4.1 shocks being offeres by AE, and a tower for them. It might be a good idea. I haven't looked into them, but I do wonder about the decrease (if any) in travel. With the B4.1 the car has much longer arms than the std RC10. This allows as a shorter shock to be used and maintain travel. The std RC10 benefits from a longer shock because it need a greater range of motion to maintain its suspension travel. I am using the V2 shocks on another one of my cars, and if memory serves I have limiters in the rear. It may well be that the B4.1 shocks work just fine on the rear of the std RC10. I don't have them to check, but maybe one of the mambers here does... -Jeff

there would be no issue with shock travel. all you are trying to accomplish is to lower the shock body so that the suspension bottoms out before the dogbones bind in the outdrives.

i'm pretty sure b4 shock will work on an rc10 with a standard rear tower. but you must use limiters on the outside to limit up travel because the shock bodies are shorter than a 1.32.

when i felt like designing one, i was going to measure a 1.32 body, and a 1.18 body. however much shorter the 1.18 is (3/16" or so if i remember correctly), that's how much shorter the tower was going to be.

[Jay Dub]

Cool, good to know about the newer shocks.. As far as the RPM bulkhead is concerned, I don't have one to design from. But if anyone here wants to donate one, I will gladly take it under consideration . -Jeff

[scr8p]

on the rpm bulkhead, they use 2 different upper shock tower mounting locations. instead of being up an towards the center like a standard bulkhead, they're positioned above the lower holes. so to use any kind of rc10 tower (besides an rpm and i believe fiberlyte), 2 new holes need to be drilled.

so more or less, all you need to do to your tower is take out the dish section on both sides of your tower and make it go straight up and down. then if someone wanted to use your tower on an rpm bulkhead, they can drill the 2 holes themself.

or, they could just grow a pair and drill 2 holes in the rpm bulkhead and use your tower as designed.

[scr8p]

ref. pic of upper mounting points:

[seth556]

Could probably very easily design a tower that has both mounting holes.

[scr8p]

Could probably very easily design a tower that has both mounting holes.

ya, but the more i look at jay dub's, there shouldn't be an issue where his sides are dished out. so he wouldn't have to redesign it.

i wouldn't drill it both, though. not everyone wants a bunch of holes in their tower that don't really need to be there. i'm sure if someone really wanted to to put it on an rpm bulkhead, they can handle drilling 2 holes. hell, the rpm bulkhead even came with a nail to center punch the holes in a standard rc10 shock tower for that very reason.