Originally Posted by billdelong (Post 12004494)

It was pointed out to me via PM that the problem with the design is only for folks using brushed motors (in a spec class) which only has 2 threaded holes directly opposite from each other on the can, then if you don't have an open slotted spur, it's nearly impossible to tighten the screw closest to the rear diff because the screw is blocked by a solid plastic spur (I think this is what Tommy was trying to explain earlier). Those drivers were at the mercy of only one properly tightened screw, unless they painfully guessed several screw settings while removing the spur and tightening the screw behind with each successive guess.

Why not have a motor mount that fully encloses a circle around the shaft of the motor and have angled slots above and below such that there is no interference from the spur? Or at least raise the front hole so that it's directly opposite from the bottom hole. Those with brushless motors can get away with the current design because there are plenty of extra pre drilled holes in most brands of brushless motors.

Another argument can be made that brushed motors are going to soon be extinct anyway so why bother making a product backward compatible? Or simply buy a spur with super size holes to get to that rear screw.... I digress.

I'm just happy to learn I shouldn't expect any problems since I'm running a brushless motor, thanks everyone :)

Originally Posted by HollywoodRC (Post 12003476)

Thanks for the response Dog. Can you post up your website or send me a PM where I can buy one.
Thanks :)

Originally Posted by Team Grid RC (Post 12004759)

Maybe we can develop a mount that can utilize all the holes like we did a few years ago for the RC8e. The mount can use two and up to six mounting screws with precision spur/pinion meshing. Would that work?

http://www.rctech.net/forum/electric...ts-thread.html

Originally Posted by Team Grid RC (Post 12005440)

That mount is for a 1/8 motor is overkill and too heavy for a 1/10 touring car.

The mount needs to weight a few grams for a touring car. We need to design something from the ground up.

Eccentric style mounts will not move in a crash and more precision when adjusting for 64 pitch.

Originally Posted by YoDog (Post 12006097)

One thing to consider with this type of mount is that the touring cars are sensitive to changes in C of G. It is optimal to keep the motor as low in the chassis as possible. If it rotates eccentrically the height would change as well as forward and aft. I don't think it's impossible but could be quite a challenge none the less.

Originally Posted by billdelong (Post 12004008)

I've seen at least 3 local drivers have problems losing their mesh after hard hits on the track and I never got a really close look into the root of the problem until now. If the glue fails to hold up to the heat, and I experience the same issue as I've seen other drivers suffer from, then I plan to use my plastic welder which should theoretically form a reusable shim to fill the void. perhaps I could make several shims for varying mesh combinations ;)

I've worked with Amazing Goop before and it peels away from aluminum with semi-medium effort which seems to be the appropriate product for this application. I'm not so sure a plastic shim will stay in place without a captured backing.

Hopefully the cases I've seen on the track were all isolated and had nothing to do with the design of the car but merely loose screws because the drivers didn't use any thread lock. I didn't ask each driver if they had used any thread lock or not.

Originally Posted by KHoff7 (Post 12007068)

My sentiments exactly, have you ran with the goop yet? How did it go?

Originally Posted by DesertRat (Post 12005924)

Has anybody else tried a no sway bar setup? I run on carpet without a heavy groove and for some reason my tc6 is massively more grippy with the sway bars off than it was with them. It looks funny cornering on its doorhandles but it actually corners now instead of alternating between push and oversteer.