Originally Posted by leg iron
i know what this modification is as iv done some for the team drivers in the uk and it isnt much good. you still have the problem of the bulkheads bending with a hard impact and unlike my bulkheads the spur gear is still to far up in the air and they need to be the 5mm lower which helps the centre of gravity. ask any of the team drivers who are using my bulkheads.
Hi Greig, with Pablo's design we are finding that because the motor mount is not connected in any way to the current bulkheads there is no chance of the std bulkheads now bending because of a hit on the motor.Of course there is still the option of adding the inexpensive lowered Exoteck bearing holders to lower the CG,My personal opinion and testing is the layshaft is better left in its std position now with the reduced lipo weight limits around the world.
The current trend is to flip the belts on the TC5 and run your electronics and lipo as much down the centre line as possible,with leaving the layshaft at its std position it allows you to mount the cells way closer to the centre line without fouling on the 20t pulleys.
If anyone is running the Exoteck chassis with the option bearing blocks or Greigs lowered design would have found the most inward battery mount position is not possible to use for this reason.
Once again my testing tells me there is more advantage in running everything as central as possible than lowering the layshaft, i am sure Greig would agree some what here as the whole idea of his bulkhead is to also mount the motor more on the centre line, if this was not the case he would have only lowered the layshaft and left the motor in its existing position?
The moral here guys is both Pablo's and Greigs products improve you current TC5,I am sure neither of these guys is putting in an order for a new Ferrari because of the expected sales of there products,so go with which ever one you like best and fits your budget,i am sure you will be happy with the performance either way!