I failed to mention that I am also running a Tekno ET48.3 with a 44T metal spur. Hence, 17 & 18 may be going into that, but 15 & 16 may be fine in the Losi. Idk yet - have to try them.

what motor are you running ? more specificly what is the what is the diameter of the motor ? i just put the 15 on that comes in the kit and it is a pretty close fit. close enough that i don't think a 16 would fit with the stock spur (46)

SMC 1900kv 42mm can

I tried the orings designed for the 43mm motor on my 42mm motor and the gear mesh was too tight @ 16/46, wasn't enough travel left to loosen it.

thanks for the info i guess i am going to pick up a 16 and try it out

The orings/adapters are motor can size specific. They are NOT meant to be used to adjust the gear mesh. It is vitally important that you use the correct size that fits your motor. If you use 43mm adapters with 42mm can you will not be able to get the tension required for correct motor constraint. Currently most of the team is using 16/46 with both Orion and Tekin 1900kv motors.


If you are having gearing fitment issues I would suggest trying the smaller dia 45t spur. This will give you a bit more room and still have the motor secured properly.


Additionally make sure you are getting the full movement of the motor mount screws/mounts on the chassis.


The same recommendation applies when going the other direction with gearing. If you were to try a 14t pinion with a 46 spur, you might find the mount is too close. In this case you would need to go up on the spur to perhaps 47t to maintain proper distance.


BK

I realize that Brian. I just didn't like the fitment of the SMC 42mm can inside the rings designed for 42mm cans. I tried the rings for 43mm cans and determined that wasn't gonna work either. Went back to the 42mm rings and I'll just deal with it.

Some motor manufacturers leave their final machining (usually the work done after anodizing to make shiny and fancy) very sharp, which can make fitting the motor into the mount with the correct adapter rings quite tough. I have found that I needed to deburr or knock the sharp edge of the fins slightly with a blade or sandpaper/scotch brite pad to allow assembly without catching or cutting the rubber material. Additionally, I always apply a dab of shock oil or diff fluid to help lubricate initial assy and ease adjustment.

This might help with your struggle of assembly.

Cheers!

BK

Was there any consideration for a clam shell style mount instead of the concentric rings?

First, I've never been a fan of hanging the motor off the center diff bulkhead, as the motor causes too much flex and almost always hits the chassis in extreme conditions.

And, Yes of course there was much consideration to what the best solution was, including clam type mount. The issue with this type of mount (cradle) is the wide variety of can diameters from all the different manufacturers. It is difficult to design a mount that will accept all the different can sizes in one mount. I wanted to design a mount that held the motor securely, yet gently, without damage to the motor can. Clam type mounts that accept multiple size cans use pinch points to accomplish this. Our design, while agreed, is a bit fiddly, still wraps around the can with more contact area, while still not applying concentrated stress points to the can. Agreed, assembly can be a bit of a pain, especially if your motor is a bit of an odd size, but in the end, I feel this mounting method allows for secure adjustable mounting while allowing for decent heat transfer to the chassis. And perhaps more importantly, no pinch points on the motor can.


Additionally, I really wanted to allow for some adjustability length wise primarily for setting gear mesh, when using the e-clutch system (which was a problem with the 4.0 e-buggy).


I hope this affords you some insight, to why we designed it how we did.

Thanks Brian! Totally agree on most of those points. We've never run the e-clutch so I'm not familiar with that setup. We've only had the car on the track for a few packs but can already tell it's a much improved car over previous generations.....and we've had them all!

Finally had a full day off from job (tho also had errands to run)...finished building the entire front assembly, and finished the rear assembly, except for the wing. Hope to have it on the track soon.

I am curious about something. In building the rear assembly, I noticed that the rear A-Arm is designed to allow the shocks to be installed behind (per the manual), or in front of, the rear shock tower. Has anyone installed the shocks in front of the rear shock tower...and, if so, how was the handling compared to installing the shocks behind the tower?

Installing the shocks in front of the tower will center the weight distribution more, and will allow the vehicle to rotate more easily. Typically a shock inboard setup would be run on a tighter/smaller track, or indoors on clay where grip is high and you can increase corner speed. Outboard will move more weight back, *technically* increasing rear traction, and make things feel more stable with the sacrifice of corner speed and less rotation. With how easily the rear end on these rotates out of the box... I'd be hesitant to run shocks in front of the arm.

Understood...will keep rear shocks behind A-arms. Besides, finished building it yesterday, except for installing electronics (motor is on backorder). Today, started building my 22 5.0 SR.