• Welcome to RCTalk! 🚀

    Join the #1 RC community where hobbyists connect, share, and get expert advice on RC cars, trucks, boats, drones, and more!

    • Friendly & passionate RC enthusiasts
    • RC tips & troubleshooting
    • Buy, sell & trade RC gear
    • Share builds & upgrades

Build Thread Build Complete! Vanquish VRD "Flat Rail" Carbon Build

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

MB401

THIS IS THE WAY
Supporter
Active Military
Messages
91
Reaction score
209
Points
640
Location
Alexandria, VA
RC Driving Style
  1. Bashing
  2. Crawling
  3. Flying
Just assembled the frame yesterday. My OCD was kicking in, so I decided to shave off 6mm of width from the stock skid. Took it down from 78mm to 72mm, since all the other hardware is 70mm. In the stock config, this put a lot of flex on the carbon rails. I understand why vanquish designed it that way, just didn't like it. Opted to ditch the stock shocks and picked up a set of 90mm In The Works shocks. Wheels are BT Bull Belly 1.9s w/ scale hardware, and PL Krawlers (Predator). Inserts are SL3D. Went with the Reef's Triple 8 direct power and some Vanquish 128g portal covers.
On order is a Holmes Hobbies V3 Revolver (2200kv) and a VT3K ESC. Will post more pics as I get this rig completed!

IMG_0791.webp


IMG_0792.webp


IMG_0794.webp


IMG_0795.webp


IMG_0796.webp


IMG_0797.webp
 
Last edited:
Looks good. VRD kit is a solid machine.
Thank you sir. I was on the fence between the VRD Carbon or the Axial SCX10 Pro. Both great kits but I went with the VRD since i have never owned a Vanquish product.
 
So they actually make the skid 6mm wider than the rest of the crossmembers and such? That's really weird.
This design puts tension in the rails to increase stiffness as well as improving clearance angles for shock compression. In my opinion, it makes the chassis more predictable when working through technical terrain.
 
This design puts tension in the rails to increase stiffness as well as improving clearance angles for shock compression. In my opinion, it makes the chassis more predictable when working through technical terrain.
It seems they could have achieved all that by molding the rails accordingly. Like they did in the front. This is a very short area to expect the rail to bend 4mm outward, then immediately back in as the two skid screws are tightened.
Untitled721_20241228205212.webp


If carbon fiber needs to curve, it needs to be molded in. Not forced into a bend. That's contradicting what the fibers in those rails are designed to do, which is not stretch. And there is just no way to bend the rail around that tight of a transition without stressing those layers. Just my opinion, but I would have cut that skid down too, regardless of any performance increase. Because when I saw that, I would have been on the phone with Vanquish asking them wtf was wrong with their engineer 🤪
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, but there is a bit daylight between us on this concept.

VP is intentionally placing it under stress, and there are many applications where carbon fiber is placed under stress for an end result. Carbon fiber wrapped scuba tanks, rifle barrels, ect. They are designed to function under tension and not in their formed shape.

Someing like a crawler frame rail is an excellent static setup to place under tension. When the fibers are laid lengthwise as the are in these rails, it's an excellent use of the technology. If the fibers were perpendicular to the rail, then it would fail quickly. Their design is deliberate and my guess is their SW modeling told them how much to curve it; I'd wager a few rounds of beer that there is nothing random about their numbers. I have yet to watch a video where Josh reminds everyone he's an engineer at some point.

Back to the rails, the compression amount is minimal, and carbon fiber really shines under tension. The external forces applied to the crawler are also minimal, so unless you fall from a tall rock, those rails are never going to fail unless there was a manufacturing defect. For this application, ( quality ) CF is superior to so many other material, and it's cheap.!

When I saw it on my VRD, I loved the idea right away. As the truck twists under load, the pre-tensioning of the rails resists the movement. Think shocks to shock tower. You've seen the trucks with all the supports between the perfectly flat rails? It's because they bend too much and need the supports, or the driver thinks they look cool and doesn't care about the weight. This pre-loading by tensioning the rails removes that need for extra bracing. I only have a few supports on my entire VRD. Fewer parts = less weight.

In my opinion, the VRD is a competition crawler, not a trail truck. To that, VP designed for competition where every gram matters and precision in movement is key. They have shaved away grams and stiffened up the chassis. Will most crawlers notice this? Maybe not. Dollar for dollar, it's easily the best kit on the market. Excellent engineering and design work. On the next batch of carbon rails we make, I'm gonna experiment with placing our rails under tension and seeing what happens.
 
I uderstand how it adds side load strength to the chassis, right there at the bends, and I uderstand why they are doing it. But they could achieve that in a number of ways without twisting the rails into a spring. I'm still waiting to see someone go the next step and mold a c-channel CF rail, as opposed to simply cutting it out of sheet.
 
It seems they could have achieved all that by molding the rails accordingly. Like they did in the front. This is a very short area to expect the rail to bend 4mm outward, then immediately back in as the two skid screws are tightened.
View attachment 212996

If carbon fiber needs to curve, it needs to be molded in. Not forced into a bend. That's contradicting what the fibers in those rails are designed to do, which is not stretch. And there is just no way to bend the rail around that tight of a transition without stressing those layers. Just my opinion, but I would have cut that skid down too, regardless of any performance increase. Because when I saw that, I would have been on the phone with Vanquish asking them wtf was wrong with their engineer 🤪
As a side note, the cross member you circled was modified by me as well. The ends were angled (am guessing at about 15 degrees). I cut/sanded the skid first and once I was satisfied with the fit, I went to work on the rear cross beam.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, but there is a bit daylight between us on this concept.

VP is intentionally placing it under stress, and there are many applications where carbon fiber is placed under stress for an end result. Carbon fiber wrapped scuba tanks, rifle barrels, ect. They are designed to function under tension and not in their formed shape.

Someing like a crawler frame rail is an excellent static setup to place under tension. When the fibers are laid lengthwise as the are in these rails, it's an excellent use of the technology. If the fibers were perpendicular to the rail, then it would fail quickly. Their design is deliberate and my guess is their SW modeling told them how much to curve it; I'd wager a few rounds of beer that there is nothing random about their numbers. I have yet to watch a video where Josh reminds everyone he's an engineer at some point.

Back to the rails, the compression amount is minimal, and carbon fiber really shines under tension. The external forces applied to the crawler are also minimal, so unless you fall from a tall rock, those rails are never going to fail unless there was a manufacturing defect. For this application, ( quality ) CF is superior to so many other material, and it's cheap.!

When I saw it on my VRD, I loved the idea right away. As the truck twists under load, the pre-tensioning of the rails resists the movement. Think shocks to shock tower. You've seen the trucks with all the supports between the perfectly flat rails? It's because they bend too much and need the supports, or the driver thinks they look cool and doesn't care about the weight. This pre-loading by tensioning the rails removes that need for extra bracing. I only have a few supports on my entire VRD. Fewer parts = less weight.

In my opinion, the VRD is a competition crawler, not a trail truck. To that, VP designed for competition where every gram matters and precision in movement is key. They have shaved away grams and stiffened up the chassis. Will most crawlers notice this? Maybe not. Dollar for dollar, it's easily the best kit on the market. Excellent engineering and design work. On the next batch of carbon rails we make, I'm gonna experiment with placing our rails under tension and seeing what happens.
Great explanation on why Vanquish did this (and this was my assumption as to why it was designed that way). I originally assembled the frame before I cut the skid down and thought I would just leave it, but for my own personal preference I didn't care for the design and decided to go ahead an hack at the skid.
 
Last edited:
So they actually make the skid 6mm wider than the rest of the crossmembers and such? That's really weird.
Its actually 8mm wider but I opted to take only 6mm off because I wanted to ensure that there was enough clearance between the transmission and the side rails
 
As a side note, the cross member you circled was modified by me as well. The ends were angled (am guessing at about 15 degrees). I cut/sanded the skid first and once I was satisfied with the fit, I went to work on the rear cross beam.
That makes a little more sense then. So it's not as drastic of a change as I was thinking.
 
That makes a little more sense then. So it's not as drastic of a change as I was thinking.
slightly more sense but not much IMO. in its original config the amount of flex imposed on the side rails drove me nuts and I simply did not like it.
To each his own...
 
I uderstand how it adds side load strength to the chassis, right there at the bends, and I uderstand why they are doing it. But they could achieve that in a number of ways without twisting the rails into a spring. I'm still waiting to see someone go the next step and mold a c-channel CF rail, as opposed to simply cutting it out of sheet.
I would be surprised to see this actually. Cost alone kills this idea, besides the math not working in favor of the effort.

If you take a look at the I-Beam and study why it is what it is, you can then see that the C-Channel is just a 1/2 I-Beam for all intents and purposes. The purpose of the I beam is driven by the base material. Fundamentally it is weight savings. Solid steel beams are heavy, thus the I-Beam provides a high level of rigidity with a much lighter weight. Just keep in mind that a solid beam will always be stiffer than any I-Beam of the same external dimensions; removing material makes the beam weaker. CF, this wouldn't apply. The weight savings would be very minimal due to the light weight of CF.

CF material science properties would just tell you to make the CF rail thicker and remain flat if you wanted a more rigied rail. It would be much more rigid than any C channel rail of the same external dimensions and cost just a small fraction more. In fact, you would need a larger C-Channel rail to match the strength of a solid rail. This, in my opinion, is why we won't see C-Channel carbon rails in RC crawlers.

Further, molding CF rails when compared to a flat rail would almost assuredly 3x the cost at a minimum. Molding CF chassis rails would be a challenging to say the least. A hand-laid CF sheet would need to be placed in a mold, and then vacuum formed. From there it would need to be machined for finish work ( cut to length, trim off excess edges ). It can be done, but I'm not sure how popular $300 rails would be. I have a hand-laid MTB carbon frame, and that was a $1000 bump over the standard carbon frame; it's labor intensive.

Not liking tensioned rails is no issue in my book; I agree that everyone drinks their coffee differently. That said, this design is driven by engineering and not throwing darts at the blueprints. They just handed us a little secret, and something that I had never thought of until I had a chance to see it. This won't be the last time we see this from a mfg.
 
The actual process to make CF is first the design is made. The shapes of the fabric are pulled right from the model, and cut on a cnc gantry machine (or by hand in small shops), then laid up in a clean room with resin in molds made on the CNC.

From there it goes into an autoclave after being sealed in a plastic vacuum bag. The autoclaves typically run a top secret curing program. Every shop has their own "recipe".

During this process, the CNC machines are tasked to machine another mold, but this time with grooves cut around the inner profile of the part, and around any holes, where you insert foam vacuum seal.

After the part leaves the autoclave, it is sent to the CNC department to machine in the vacuum mold.

All of thes above processes are done to make flat sheet, shapes, and full blown parts. The flat sheet molds are of course just flat sheets of tooling board, but the entire process is the same.

But...
A c-channel made out of carbon fiber would have no bend in either direction because the layers would also wrap around the C, creating a weave in two directions. Unless you are talking about machining it into a C-channel? Then yeah, that would be a worthless endeavor.

We made carbon fiber I-beams for a few military projects in the carbon fiber shop I worked at that did exactly that. We alse made a LOT of C-channel rails used in helicopters and other aircraft, like wing spars for drones. Trust me, it does not bend in any direction. It will twist, but not bend. And crossmembers would solve that twisting. Which we did use in a lot of our assemblies. C-channels, tied together with c-channels. Much like an automotive chassis.

And the cost to manufacture would not be much more than flat sheet, but that is doing it in house. You only have the additional mold and cutting mold to make, which could be done in a couple hours each at most, even if the rail curved in 3 dimensions.

But you can make carbon fiber at home. It's not difficult. So no reason a small machine shop couldn't take that on. You just need a vacuum table to pull the air bubbles out of the resin and an oven to finish cure it. An autoclave would do the job all in one. Small ones big enough to make a hundred or so of these rails wouldn't be terribly expensive. You can buy small ones for use at home for less than a couple hundred.

I made the mold for this cockpit area (if you want to call it that) start to finish my first day on the job. It's actually the electronics cover. We built this entire drone in-house in about 2 months and there are carbon fiber c-channel spars running through the wings. You could have a guy standing on each wing tip.
empresa-USTI-forma-aeronave-tripulada_MILIMA20140925_0032_8.webp


The actual process of laying the weave as well as time in the autoclave to cure the resin would be almost identical for flat sheet or c-channel. So in the end, the only difference is making the molds. Which as I said, wouldn't take long at all.

And the actual machine time to machine the c-channel rails vs the flat rails would probably actually be a lot less time cutting the c-channel, because you're only driving one tool down one face, as opposed to driving around the entire profile.
 
Last edited:
Knocked out the D Bag today. I'm building this rig out of sequence and wanted to get the transmission completed first to make sure it would fit/have enough clearance. Luckily it fit like a glove - if it hadn't I probably would have had a melt down...only other mod I had to make was to cut down the two forward brackets that attach the transmission to the frame. I was originally going to put a Holmes 2200kv Revolver in but changed my mind and dropped in a 540M 1800kv Revolver instead. Overall, I have been blown away by the quality of this kit - the machined gears are an absolute work of art and the transmission is buttery smooth. Only item I noted that was somewhat of a bummer was the lack of adjustment to go up in pinion size if I wanted. Pretty much had to bolt up the motor at the extreme end of the slots in the motor plate to get the correct mesh. I suppose I could mess around with the spur gear (that is if a smaller spur is available for this kit) if I really want to increase wheel speed but highly unlikely I will. Last photo is a quick mock up of what the beast will look like when I'm finished. I did cheat and picked up a pre-painted Stance body, but may pick up a Pro Line body and paint it down the road.

IMG_0802.webp


IMG_0803.webp


IMG_0805.webp


IMG_0806.webp


IMG_0804.webp


IMG_0807.webp


IMG_0809.webp


IMG_0812.webp
 
Front F10 Axle completed. Big difference in weight between what comes in the kit (cast aluminum) and the brass weights I installed. Vanquish apparently can't keep their brass portals in stock - had mine on back order since November and I noticed they are already on back order again.

Only two items I noted that I don't like but can be corrected. The servo mount is roughly 2mm too wide for the servo tabs and the holes don't match well. At first I thought the Triple 8 may be an oddball size but I compared it to another full size servo and it is the same dimensions. Nothing major.

Second, and although it really isn't an issue, it is just is a pain. The rod ends for the links are waaaaaay too tight when "attempting" to screw them on.
I had a helluva time getting them on the steering link - I'm a pretty strong person and I could barely twist them on...decided I will either take a drill bit to the rest and ream them out or swap them out for something else.

IMG_0813.webp


IMG_0814.webp


IMG_0815.webp


IMG_0816.webp


IMG_0819.webp


IMG_0820.webp


IMG_0822.webp


IMG_0821.webp
 

Similar threads

Back
Top