I'm probably seeing the problem more because I only race spec classes so the Novak 25.5 and 21.5 are the standard. They aren't the smallest can's out there + the sensor wire is on the left rear which makes maneuvering around the left brace a little dicey. maybe I can describe the idea. I have no photoshop skills.
1.Eliminate current location of belt tensioner.
2. eliminate left rear brace section.
3. Use a simple aluminum standoff (round tube) as brace for left rear.
4. Relocate standoff towards the left side of chassis.( don't have actual measurement but enough to provide more room for forward motor movement and sensor wire clearance.
5.A new upper deck would be needed. The only modification would be a redesigned left rear "ear" section to extend out to the new standoff support.
6. A new upper brace section would be needed. Again, because of the new location of the standoff. The rearward mounting would stay the same.
7. A new belt tensioner could be mounted to the chassis somewhere closer to the middle of the belt which would equalize tension pressures. ( to picture this, imagine a aluminum piece mounted to chassis outboard of belt. At the top, the tensioner pulley would face inward and contact upper belt. Naturally, the tensioner wheel can be moved up or down to adjust tension.

Just a thought that seems like it wouldn't take to much to do given the skills of someone like YoDog. :D

One of the main reasons the brace is like it is, is because they (TM) made it a priority to keep the mounting points somewhat symmetrical for equal tweak. Now, the tensioner should be close to the smaller of the two pulleys to be most effective. This should not be too difficult though. I will model up a couple of solutions as soon as I get the chance and maybe I will incorporate an alternative layout for the new chassis in addition to the stock setup.

Yep, I thought about the tweak issue too. I'm no engineer but it would seem that a reasonable "re-shaping" of the upper deck would equalize that. The tensioner pulley could be mounted almost anywhere along the left side of the chassis. Is there a mechanical reason for mounting it close to the smaller pulley ? Again, no engineering background but it seems like the middle would be the area of least resistance. On the other hand thats also where the belt has the most "play" so I can see where you might not be able to achieve the right amount of tension before you end up contacting the lower part of the belt.
Really appreciate you taking a look at this concept. :D

E4 js and castle 5700
 

I'm looking for a better touring car for my castle sidewinder 5700. It's out of an hpi flux and I was wondering how it would do in the E4 js.

actually I should have said that the tensioner should be close to the drive pulley not the smaller one. since in most cases the drive pulley is usually the smaller of the two. The reason for this is to maximize tooth engagement rather than adding tension per-sea. With such a long belt, putting the roller may not be as effective in the middle because the has the more deflection vs near a pulley. It is however true that the drag would be less near the middle of the belt.

Punch and speed up there with the Tekins. Didnt deel like i was in any way being slowed by the speedy.I can see where you might not be able to achieve the right amount of tension before you end up contacting the lower part of the belt.

Hello all

Kevin (Team Magic) and I (HRC Distribution) presented a new car prototype at the Nuremberg Toy Fair (03 to 09 Feb) based on all the modifications I made on my car since may 2010.

I have to validate the prototype, and we can expect a release for mid 2011.

The car look similar to the E4RS 09, but we changed many parts:

-New chassis design
-New upper deck with front flex adjustements
-New motor holder and rear axle holder, with rear flex adjustments
-New battery plate, for LiPos
-More space for the battery
-New front bulkhead
-New rear and front upper bulkheads
-New rear shock tower
-New front shock tower
-More lateral space for the motor (to install it on the car)
-Servo moved more to the front
-New rear upright (revised roll center)

The car is still at Nuremberg. I will get it back in switzerland tomorrow.

Pictures and track test result will come soon.

Well it's about time we hear some good news.

EUREKA !!!! Wow, that is such great news. For some of us new to the E4 , it means the chassis design will continue on. Must admit I had a bit of concern in the back of my head. Thank You !!!!!!!!!:D:D:D:D:D
Jeez, I think I just had my biggest RC Geek moment. :lol:

Here are some pictures: http://www.rcinfos.com/2011/2011_02_...type.php?pub=1

More will come soon.

Looks good... We all thought TM abandon developing the E4...

It's nice to see the factory guys are rolling new things out of the shed.

The top deck looks really trick expecially with the additional flex adjustment in the front.

There must not be enough clearance to get away with just sliding the battery in without using a battery tray.

My thoughts exactly. Its still a wait and see. Despite news of the new chassis, I'm still waiting for Yodog's product to upgrade my JS.

I spoke to Rick last race at our club Race he got a supplier for the carbon fiber and his planning on to get it cut in 2.5mm thick. He got 2.0mm CF waiting to be cut for us to test before it goes into final production.

What a great chassis !! I just bought this car used and since I'm not familiar with it yet I decided to run it in VTA class just as I received it so I could have a baseline to go from. I need to confirm but I believe it's set up just as it would be out of the box. I was stunned just how good it was. Not perfect but darned close. A great experience. Now to get my GT car running !!