Yeah the cg is a little higher but given the components that are up there, it's not that much. The other versions I've seen have the battery mounted transverse which kinda hangs the battery weight outward. Notice the way I mounted the motor mounts. Essentially attaches to the chassis in a triangular pattern which should greatly improve rear flex with equal distribution. They don't attach to the rear bulkheads at all. Since the motor is even more centered in the chassis, you could run a shorty pack and still balance the car without too much ballast weight. I have another 3 belt idea but need to figure a few things out first.

yodog, you think offsetting the top deck mounting hole on one side of it would screw up the flex too much? im trying to modify my motor mount model into a new layshaft part with build in side tension.

it doesnt fit... lol. but if i move the pearch for the top deck mount back 2-3 mm, would it royally screw the car?

Well, since the flex is not symmetrical to begin with, it may not matter too much. If you can somehow link the 2 upright plates, you could make a new top plate to attach in the middle, between them. Sort of the approach I took in the latest pics I posted.

coming along.

Refined the hole positions a little bit and made a new layshaft bulkhead. eliminates that peice of plastic that has to be trimmed to fit a lipo in.
I also moved the lipo as far forward as possible without touching the front shaft carrier. maybe .75mm clearance there.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...d_layshaft.jpg

nice! where will the steering crankbell go?

Stock likely. I could move the frobt shaft up and put a swingrack under it but that might bit be any better than where it is now.
I have another layout idea that would require longer layshafts and differebt belts but i want to get this modeled close to stock first so i can mock it all up.

spent some hours today refining my chassis plate and building some bulkheads to check mates for accuracy. ive made all the parts that will screw into the stock hole locations so i can move stuff around and experiment now.

finished the side bulkhead and everything aligns! but for it to work the stock front shaft carrier will need to be modified, or i would have to supply one that deletes the angled extrusion on it.
the side bulkhead cuts in behind the lipo so there is no room for blocks behind the battery, or blocks between the battery and front shaft carrier as they will almost touch.
strapping tape is the likely solution, though i could add holes to use crc lipo blocks or similar to stop it moving left/right.
it definitely wont move between the shaft carrier and bulkhead though ha.

also looking at the placement of the side belt tensioner, you couldn't just pop the belt off and slip the battery out without removing one screw on the cf peice that carries the tensioner.
i might go back to this and make a new side tensioner thats unified to the bullkhead to eliminate this problem.

this is definitely not an easy car to modify. a lot of thought went into laying the components out in such a way that mere mm's are left unused ha.

if i make these modification parts im not sure they will enhance the cars performence a huge amount but they should make it easier to deal with. anyone wanna guinea pig? lol.
and without that big ass hole, it might be more predictable. hard to say, im sure someone at TM knew what they were doing with the hogouts on the electronics side which probably offer some equalizing effect to the flex.

well, here's another idea...
I've decided to go for a shorty pack design in order to drop the weight and get better side to side balance.

Great job !!

Yodog, I appreciate your effort but......

Can't you just keep it simple and keep the chassis as it was except that it would allow the shorty pack with the steering taking the space up front on the lower chassis in front of the shorty pack? The whole point of the three belt design was to keep the battery pack and motor centered. Now you're offsetting the pack and getting all weird with the belts by reconfiguring the pulleys.

Just keep it simple. Please! Otherwise, you'll have a very costly conversion for a not so popular car that won't sell. I don't think us E4 enthusiasts here on this thread are interested in plopping $200 plus on a conversion that may require special parts. Think more like Exotek where their conversions are about $100 or less but just enhances the existing platform that makes it better and easier to work on.

That layout would work but why not go transverse shorty pack. Just make deeper pullies so te side belt hangs off chassis

I'm just treating this as an engineering exercise. I already have a chassis designed that simply eliminates the battery tray. I built it, ran it and it worked pretty good. If enough people want a simple chassis replacement, I can make some. There was just not enough interests so I'm learning more Solidworks and experimenting with some ideas I had. I throw nothing away so the files are still just sitting here. That's why I sent Valk some of my stuff as he may have the motivation to actually make something of it.
Here is a picture of what has been peaking my interests lately.

Thats great! Got pics?

Trying to get 50/50 weight balance.
If I go transverse, the battery movement will be limited and I most likely will have to go with the over motor pulleys again like the previous layout.

Here ya go...:D