My new chassis design - bodyless tvp design.

[monkeyracer]

I have been looking at different chassis for the ax10, and I like certain things from each of the different designs that are out there.
I looked at the GC-2, SWX, FLM SPV2, TVG Edge, etc and picked out a few features that I liked.
I've liked the body-less or "hybrid" designs the most (mix of tvp and tuber style, like the SPV2.) but wanted to make one on my own.

So, here's what I came up with:

JCAD MRRC Prototype

Revision 1:


I did want to get some opinions on the design before I send it to get cut (waterjet cutter.)
Here's some things that I considered while designing this;
- I wanted something that allowed adjustability, but actually looked like a truck. (But still keeps a good amount of articulation)
- It retains the stock holes of the original chassis (except body post holes, since it's designed to be body-less, but it can be used with a body)
- It allows for shorter touring car shocks and many other shock designs.
- It easily allows for inboard lower links without having to cut the stock plate.
- Holes placed to allow for double triangulation, and other anti-torque-twist geometries.
- It's approximately 14.5" long, and 3 5/8" tall.

This would be for my own personal use, since I don't have the appropriate stars to ask about interest in this. But if you have constructive criticism on the design, let me know.

[MEDiC]

Nice try man.. looks like you and I posted at the same time... Already looks like my trucks body.. heres a link.. MEDIC's Final Product... AX-10 Crawler Fanclub


Good idea man.... good try at least!

[josh hayes]

nice i like your idea and by any chance if you need any testers or drivers im here

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by MEDiC

Nice try man.. looks like you and I posted at the same time... Already looks like my trucks body.. heres a link.. MEDIC's Final Product... AX-10 Crawler Fanclub


Good idea man.... good try at least!

This design would be for chassis plates rather than the helios body that pro-line sells. It's unique.

[TURTLE]

FYI, might want to be careful with threads like this, dont want to get into trouble.
Looks like a nice start though.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by TURTLE

FYI, might want to be careful with threads like this, dont want to get into trouble.
Looks like a nice start though.

Changed it after I realized it looked like a feeler thread. Thanks, I was trying to get ideas for my own personal benefit from the guys that have been doing this forever.

[axman2010]

Originally Posted by MEDiC

Nice try man.. looks like you and I posted at the same time... Already looks like my trucks body.. heres a link.. MEDIC's Final Product... AX-10 Crawler Fanclub


Good idea man.... good try at least!

Dude read before you post. It says he is designing a chassis. It is a good try, a good try at being unique and creative.

[TURTLE]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Changed it after I realized it looked like a feeler thread. Thanks, I was trying to get ideas for my own personal benefit from the guys that have been doing this forever.

Good call.
Alright for the shock postion, you probably have way to many holes to actually produce for 1, plus I dont think anymore then two rows and three long for the shock postions is needed. Just remember 3m.
Next while adjustability is really nice some of those positions will never serve much of a purpose besides being speed holes.
And finally it would be a little better of a design if you made it for with usrrca rules fitting in the tube section, E.I. smaller.
Like you said you can always run a body over it, but make it smaller for now.
Does that make sense?

[goobs]

i love it!
my only change would to make the front lower radius(fender wells) match the rear.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by TURTLE

Good call.
Alright for the shock postion, you probably have way to many holes to actually produce for 1, plus I dont think anymore then two rows and three long for the shock postions is needed. Just remember 3m.
Next while adjustability is really nice some of those positions will never serve much of a purpose besides being speed holes.
And finally it would be a little better of a design if you made it for with usrrca rules fitting in the tube section, E.I. smaller.
Like you said you can always run a body over it, but make it smaller for now.
Does that make sense?

I looked at the rules, and didn't see anything I didn't meet except the 3.75 overall height rule, I'm .075 too short, easy fix.
What dimension are you talking about?

What about the link holes? Too many?

Thanks for the suggestions, this is what I was after.

[TURTLE]

Rule 2.3.5
http://www.usrcca.com/rules2008.pdf
8" overall length, 3" overall length, and 3.75" height.
I would make it as close to these rules as possible. So that it may be run as a bodiless rig without hindering the articulation or links and just having alot of extra heavy material hanging over the axles and snaging on rocks.
I was not concerned with how large it is, but rather that is was to large...

as for the links I would probably do the same as I mentioned for the shocks limit it to two rows of three deep and just put a little more distance on the holes (not so close together)
Also the holes for the skid plate and the lower links isnt necessary.
Two hole for the links to mount front and rear should be fine then two hole on each side for the skid plate to mount to. More then that really just seems excessive.

Oh may I ask what are the holes in the chassis over the "wheel wells" for?
Ty

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by goobs

i love it!
my only change would to make the front lower radius(fender wells) match the rear.

I didn't want to do it that way to keep it from being too symmetrical, but I'll look at it both ways to see which one I like better.

Originally Posted by TURTLE

Rule 2.3.5
http://www.usrcca.com/rules2008.pdf
8" overall length, 3" overall length, and 3.75" height.
I would make it as close to these rules as possible. So that it may be run as a bodiless rig without hindering the articulation or links and just having alot of extra heavy material hanging over the axles and snaging on rocks.
I was not concerned with how large it is, but rather that is was to large...

Those proportions may look wierd for the truck body style I'm after (think chevy tracker vs chevy silverado.) I've mocked something up in cardboard, and I didn't have any issues with the articulation... That's what the prototype is for. As far as extra weight, it's going to be .090 aluminum, so the added weight would be under 1 oz compared to something closer to the minimums.

Originally Posted by TURTLE

as for the links I would probably do the same as I mentioned for the shocks limit it to two rows of three deep and just put a little more distance on the holes (not so close together)
Also the holes for the skid plate and the lower links isnt necessary.
Two hole for the links to mount front and rear should be fine then two hole on each side for the skid plate to mount to. More then that really just seems excessive.

For the prototype I wanted to match the stock ax10 holes, and add some flexibility in the hole placement allow more options. For the waterjet the less holes there are, the lower the cost (less equipment time) but less adjustability... A trade off I want to try to balance.

Originally Posted by TURTLE

Oh may I ask what are the holes in the chassis over the "wheel wells" for?
Ty

Those are for the 1/10 Touring Car shocks. Sometimes I'd want to limit articulation, and it would allow for a little more options to prevent the shocks from getting in the way of links. I'm going to remove even more of them, probably just leave three at the 12.5ish wheelbase or so.

Thanks for the feedback so far, I figured I'd have something in mind, but that the members here would have awesome ideas to make mine even better.

[monkeyracer]

the first pic had really thick lines, so it made the holes look too close. I also added some post holes (to mount the posts between the plates)
Here's a better pic:



I also mirrored the fender lines, and removed even more holes...

[TURTLE]

Now Im starting to really like this.
So I see what your saying making the body size larger, But what time of ground clearance are you thinking of running just for adjustability sake.
What if (not that I would) you wanted to run droop, or a really low belly clearance, something around 2", would you still clear the front and the rear of the chassis? What if you ran taller tires? Somethings to keep in mind?
Oh and the big one... What if you went to a MOA type axle, would this chassis still clear the axles?
This is my main point in making it smaller. Yes it would change the look, but it would also make it more functional and easier to change from axle type to axle type.

[DeweyCJ5]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

the first pic had really thick lines, so it made the holes look too close. I also added some post holes (to mount the posts between the plates)
Here's a better pic:



I also mirrored the fender lines, and removed even more holes...

dude that is bad a$$

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by TURTLE

Now Im starting to really like this.
So I see what your saying making the body size larger, But what time of ground clearance are you thinking of running just for adjustability sake.
What if (not that I would) you wanted to run droop, or a really low belly clearance, something around 2", would you still clear the front and the rear of the chassis? What if you ran taller tires? Somethings to keep in mind?
Oh and the big one... What if you went to a MOA type axle, would this chassis still clear the axles?
This is my main point in making it smaller. Yes it would change the look, but it would also make it more functional and easier to change from axle type to axle type.

I did consider moa axles (I had bergs in mind), and I also thought about droop and other set-ups, but I don't have experience with the sizes, and the challenges associated with them yet. I thought about the other types of trannys available, but didn't have the specs on the skid plates (WK, TLT, Creeper, etc) I also thought about those that want to run a super class, where the minimum body length is 12", if it were shorter, it would have to have a complete redesign to resemble a 1:1 and have the required hood area.

The initial design was based on a stock 3" belly clearance, but could accomodate a 2.5" belly clearance with different suspension points. Taller tires would be no issue IMO, the body is small enough to clear them, 1.9s probably wouldn't work though due to the size of the body.

One thing to make a point about the size of the body would be that how ever much the "extra" body is beyond the minimums would be less weight than a lexan body.

I am fairly new to this part of the sport, and I am still trying to find out the pros and cons of each of the designs, so I would like to have this chassis allow me to experiment with the different set-ups. Also if it does go beyond my personal use, it would be a more 'universal' chassis.

Thanks for the comments, so far. Anyone else use their own bodiless chassis and have advice for me?

[speed goat]

Looks good.With all the tall tires avail.you might think about relocating top shock mounts to use 4" shocks.Would clean up the front body line.Nice layout.

[Mini]

The new design looks hella better than the first one my only suggestion is to bring it in more I see it too long and might cause some problems. But looks great I see a really sweet chasis in the near furture.

This is what most companys should do is get a bunch of feedback from diffrent driver's to make a chassis thart works for everyone, not just have one pro design it, not knocking the pros there not pros for no reason, but there gonna design it to there driving skill and what they like more than what everyone else is looking for.

Keep up the great work looking foward to the finish product.

[TURTLE]

I see what your saying, however from my experience I have never seen a chassis that has worked great for a super and a 2.2. I would design around 2.2 dimensions and try to accomidate most 2.2 axles.
As for GC I run a 2" ground clearance on my sw3 and it is great (no berg), but from my experience a 3" GC for a axial is really pushing it. 2.5 ok, 2.75, eh ok, 3... you will notice a huge climbing and side hilling difference especially from 2". Im tellin ya HUGE! Not to mention the suspension will act very differnet, and in my eyes its something I will never do to a axial.
I hope this helps.
Ty

[YouKneeBomber]

Originally Posted by MEDiC

Nice try man.. looks like you and I posted at the same time... Already looks like my trucks body.. heres a link.. MEDIC's Final Product... AX-10 Crawler Fanclub


Good idea man.... good try at least!

Man , your joking R I G H T ? Just like the post of your truck was a joke ,,, R I G H T ? I can't tell now , if you are serious , or joking . " good try " ? Dang rights it is . AWESOME ! Not near as awesome as the practical joke you played posting your rig all hillbillied up , but close . Dood , I hope your jokin . And it doesnt look like a moon buggy space age body like yours , mirrors the profile of a grabber body to my eye . Not even close to Y O U R rig ,, but " nice try " .

** sorry to jack this thread , awesome chassis ***