how to shave weight on rocks????

xjpaddler · Jul 6, 2011

I know rocks and light weight dont go in the same sentence, but I also know that some off you have lightend up your rocks. ive seen some of this discussed on Pirate, but wanted to post here instead.

I am fixing to start on my next rig and plan to run steering rocks. I want to build my own housings, and I think that I can get some weight out of the third itself. I know some of you have shaved some weight on the stock hubs, would love to see some pics of those.

I guess my real ???? is can you truly get a steering rock to the weight of a d 60 front. I am going to try like hell, but starting to wonder if I have lost my mind.

TURNEROFFROAD · Jul 6, 2011

I wanna be second!!!! If it can be done that is

gbrookie71 · Jul 6, 2011

If im not mistaking this is what TC was trying to do with Hell Raiser and pretty much go them to the lightest point i think. And at the end of the day i heard he still thought they where too damn heavy. I could be wrong maybe someone will chime in and correct me.. :fish:

BamaTJ · Jul 6, 2011

Swap to tons :flipoff1:

Elliott · Jul 7, 2011

No one still hasn't posted weights on any of these yet. As far as the hubs go look at patoyees on pirate he cut the **** out of his, they looked good. But it seems most of the weight is in the thirds.

gomer pyle · Jul 7, 2011

i went to aluminum hubs and they saved a little bit. the knuckles, spindles, etc all weigh about the same as a d60. all the weight is in the third and i don't know of any way of dropping weight there.

Elliott · Jul 7, 2011

I always worry more about getting the motor, trans, and tcase as low as I can and not the axle weight. If you get everything low rocks don't seem to be bad at all.

xjpaddler · Jul 7, 2011

Low is not a problem, I can build around that. I am thinking about gutting the third, and trying to take as much out of the casting as possible. hopeing I can make a stud girdle to help with any stress. may not be worth the hassle but we will see. going to try and make some aluminum parts for the third as well. the covers and inspection plattes, as well as the caps on the pinion shaft. I remember seeing patoyees thread.
but couldnt find the hubs when looking through it.

thanks for the replys, and keep them coming. I hope to be starting on this within the next few weeks.

TBItoy · Jul 8, 2011

IMO the "big" problem is that the 3rd is very top heavy. Hell the bull gear in a rock is only like 9"...

All that sprung weight gets to swinging around above the axle centherline and it take quite a bit to control it. That's why "bigger" buggys seem to tame rocks, they have the sprung weight to control the axle.

gomer pyle · Jul 8, 2011

what about an aluminum third? i'm sure it would be expensive to have made but it would save alot of weight

gubni · Jul 8, 2011

The advantage or rockwells over 60s is strength. If you take off crazy weight then you would end up with the strength of a 60.

BUG-E J · Jul 8, 2011

Yall aren't thinking of this correctly. Horsepower to wieght is the key. Heavier buggy just add some more power! :dblthumb:

doctordick · Jul 8, 2011

I wonder what happens when sprung weight equals unsprung weight. Would it be like driving a bowl of jello? :dunno:

Sit der an shake like a ol houn dog shittin a peach seed?

xjpaddler · Jul 8, 2011

gubni said:
The advantage or rockwells over 60s is strength. If you take off crazy weight then you would end up with the strength of a 60.

I disagree here. theshafts and componets are staying the same.

ive been toying with the idea of alum thirds and housing. Probly going to saty with steel the first time around.

Bronco Buster · Jul 8, 2011

TC told me that Hellraiser was 2,000# heavier than he was used to. He also said the rocks were too damn heavy and he had them as lite as they could be even had the first and only open knuckle rocks.

Elliott · Jul 8, 2011

There is no way in hell his Buggie was 2000 lbs heavier because he had rocks.There isn't that much difference in weight to justify that statement. And it's pretty obvious he just doesn't know what he likes.

454tbacon · Jul 8, 2011

What I've seen between rocks and 60's is not the weight but the horsepower lost,it takes more power to turn the rocks because of the gears.The 60 has a ring and pinion and the rock has a worm gear,which is harder to turn.

gomer pyle · Jul 8, 2011

454tbacon said:
What I've seen between rocks and 60's is not the weight but the horsepower lost,it takes more power to turn the rocks because of the gears.The 60 has a ring and pinion and the rock has a worm gear,which is harder to turn.

there is a weight difference but this is the reason for me to get rid of mine. that and the high chunk

xjpaddler · Jul 9, 2011

454tbacon said:
What I've seen between rocks and 60's is not the weight but the horsepower lost,it takes more power to turn the rocks because of the gears.The 60 has a ring and pinion and the rock has a worm gear,which is harder to turn.

ok this i can agree with. really makeing me rethink my axle choice. I am only gonna have a 5.3 in the next rig so major whoomp pow is not gonna be there.

gbrookie71 · Jul 9, 2011

Bronco Buster said:
TC told me that Hellraiser was 2,000# heavier than he was used to. He also said the rocks were too damn heavy and he had them as lite as they could be even had the first and only open knuckle rocks.

Elliott said:
There is no way in hell his Buggie was 2000 lbs heavier because he had rocks.There isn't that much difference in weight to justify that statement. And it's pretty obvious he just doesn't know what he likes.

He said the buggy was 2000lb heavier than he was used too. Not that the Rocks where 2000lb heavier.