Thinkpads Forum

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:40 pm**

For those of you have have handled both a T4x and a T6x, does the rollcage make a diffence ?

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:15 pm**

Yep, this make the laptop very rigid. But, the palmrest may looks more flexible then in the T40. It's because now, plamrest is just a *skin* not a chassis part.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:15 pm**

There's definitely added system stability. If you had one in each hand, you would definitely feel a difference when picking them up with one hand.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:56 pm**

My T43 seems solid enough but I'm hoping the screen on my T61 (when it comes) will be stiffer.

I was in WorstBuy the other day and just for fun tried flexing the T61 screen and body. It was rigid as could be. Then I tried the same with HP and Sony models and they flexed like a sheet in the wind. In fact it was scarey how much the screen casing could be bent.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:35 pm**

pipspeak wrote:My T43 seems solid enough but I'm hoping the screen on my T61 (when it comes) will be stiffer.

I was in WorstBuy the other day and just for fun tried flexing the T61 screen and body. It was rigid as could be. Then I tried the same with HP and Sony models and they flexed like a sheet in the wind. In fact it was scarey how much the screen casing could be bent.

Lets not just bash sony and HP now.
I was also surprised how much the screen casing bent on the T42.
T30 casing seems to be much stiffer.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:40 pm**

wearetheborg wrote:Lets not just bash sony and HP now.
I was also surprised how much the screen casing bent on the T42.

And my Sony K23 is more solid than most Thinkpads I've owned.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:50 pm**

wearetheborg wrote:Lets not just bash sony and HP now.
I was also surprised how much the screen casing bent on the T42.
T30 casing seems to be much stiffer.

Well it was BestBuy so we're not talking about the highest end models from HP, Sony and others. For the money, however, the T61 was the stiffest I could find in my unscientific test.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:07 pm**

pipspeak wrote:
Well it was BestBuy so we're not talking about the highest end models from HP, Sony and others. For the money, however, the T61 was the stiffest I could find in my unscientific test.

The stiffest lid I've found is on Dell Precision M90s.
I cannot produce any flex in the lid while open with one hand.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:57 pm**

I have a T40, T41, R51, T60 and R61 here and I have had a few T42's, T23's, 570's and a 600. The R61 is stiffer than anything else with the T60 running a close second. The 570 is the most flexible with the T4x running a close second. The T23 and 600 fall in the middle. The R51 is stiffer than the T4x is. Thinner=more flexible.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:06 pm**

Johnny posted this in the other forum:

IMO the rollcage is a cost-cutting measure + marketing gimmick.

A lot of literature back when the Z61 was released talked about how the roll cage mimicked the rollcages in race cars and what not, adding extra framework protection, etc., etc. Thing is though, that race cars are made out of tough metal in the first place, and the strong roll cage is just icing on the cake, err....in the cake.

But for the ThinkPads? What happened is that Lenovo changed the outer shell to plastic when they implemented the rollcage. In sum, less magnesium was actually used than before because the rollcage isn't a complete underlying chassis, it's just wrapped around certain internal components. The rest of the holes are now covered by our "carbon-composite" plastic. Whatever.

If rollcages were the end-all solution, HP and Dell would implement them in their business laptops already. It's not like roll cages cost more or are patented by Lenovo.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:14 pm**

pianowizard wrote:And my Sony K23 is more solid than most Thinkpads I've owned.

But at 8.1 lbs, surely it's made of cast iron!

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:17 pm**

wearetheborg wrote:Johnny posted this in the other forum:
A lot of literature back when the Z61 was released talked about how the roll cage mimicked the rollcages in race cars and what not, adding extra framework protection, etc., etc. Thing is though, that race cars are made out of tough metal in the first place, and the strong roll cage is just icing on the cake, err....in the cake.

ThinkPads aside, Johnny clearly does not understand race car design ... so his analogy really doesn't work at all.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:18 pm**

tomh009 wrote:
ThinkPads aside, Johnny clearly does not understand race car design ... so his analogy really doesn't work at all.

But it is of concern that now the outside material is plastic instead of the earlier magnesium composite.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:26 pm**

If Johnny knows as much about Thinkpads as he knows about race cars his opinion is worth what you paid for it. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
The outside has always been plastic except for the 600, T and Z series display covers.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:24 pm**

Yes roll cage makes a difference and I believe you won't be posting this if you and "Johnny" had actually seen T61/R61...

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:55 pm**

Way for you guys to assume I never laid my hands on a T61 when I actually own one and am typing on it right now.

My admittedly flawed race car example aside, tell me why the roll cage design would be any better than removing all the flimsy plastic panels and filling in the holes with more magnesium. In other words, have the chassis be made entirely of magnesium.

What engineering benefit comes from having holes in a magnesium chassis only to be covered up by "carbon-composite" plastic? None. What economic benefit comes from having holes in a magnesium chassis only to be covered up by "carbon-composite" plastic? Hundreds off the sale price.

Now that is totally fine by me.

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:02 pm**

Johnny, Did u just register to defend yourself ???

:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:21 pm**

wearetheborg wrote:Johnny, Did u just register to defend yourself ???
:mrgreen::mrgreen:

No, actually I registered because I considered asking for help about the fan issue. Haven't gotten to that yet.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:46 am**

wearetheborg wrote:For those of you have have handled both a T4x and a T6x, does the rollcage make a diffence ?

Hell yes. My data shop out here in Iraq takes T4x's in for software repairs (and a few hardware issues). They feel like complete crap compared to my T60.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:55 am**

Playmaker wrote:What engineering benefit comes from having holes in a magnesium chassis only to be covered up by "carbon-composite" plastic? None.

A 3-D metal roll cage covered by a sheet of lightweight material has much greater structural integrity than a flat sheet of metal; 2-D shapes (ie sheets of material) have very little strength in that third dimension.

Holes in a 3-D structure are often used to reduce weight without compromising the structural integrity. A hydro transmission tower is an extreme example of this: it's almost all "holes", but is still much stronger than a single thick pole (a sheet is not really applicable here).

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:03 am**

tomh009 wrote:
Playmaker wrote:What engineering benefit comes from having holes in a magnesium chassis only to be covered up by "carbon-composite" plastic? None.
A 3-D metal roll cage covered by a sheet of lightweight material has much greater structural integrity than a flat sheet of metal; 2-D shapes (ie sheets of material) have very little strength in that third dimension.

Holes in a 3-D structure are often used to reduce weight without compromising the structural integrity. A hydro transmission tower is an extreme example of this: it's almost all "holes", but is still much stronger than a single thick pole (a sheet is not really applicable here).

I totally agree ! In race car, we use tubular 3D chassis and composite or plastic part to make bodywork. Any one who studies material resistance know that it's useless to use plain parts. Well made 3D or even 2D structure with hole and/or vents is as rigid as a plain part. It's also lighter and can be cheaper.

In laptop, the new roll cage for screen is also a nice feature to avoid loosing wifi signal. Plain part of metal like aluminium screen cover reduce wireless signal.

Why not such a feature on other laptops ? They do not support this : http://www.lenovovision.com/lv2/mediapl ... eries_tour (see crash test).

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:11 am**

Many structural items have a frame for rigidity and outer panels attached for appearances. The holes in the frame actually add strength when done properly. A sheet looks smoother but is not as strong.
IBM used to use little ribbed plastic "windows" in the lid to let the wireless signal pass through the metal lid.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:58 pm**

Yes it makes a massive difference - there were major issues (i'm sure some of you must have been affected by them) with the T4* range of machines with the micro solder cracks on the ICH and Video chips, this was caused due to people handling the machines by the corner and causing flex on the system board, this simply cannot happen with the roll cage in place so will stop a lot of problems even in normal usage.

I'm not a fan of the LCD rollcage, although practically its better for wireless reception, i've never had a problem with reception or screens cracking and I liked that the outside casing wasn't plastic before.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:07 pm**

Any other people who dont like the outside plastic casing ?

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:30 pm**

Personally, I wish they were using a different material too, but the roll cage definitely makes up for it...

Thinkpads Forum

Does the rollcage make a difference?

Does the rollcage make a difference?

Re: Does the rollcage make a difference?