Hello !
Great job for the chassis layout.
But to be honest; if the target is to finish with a "almost" standard layout (I know, the motor still remains on center) with battery on the right and electronics on the left, I can't really understand where would be the advantage to continue with the E4 3 belted basis.
There are still some disadvantages:
-More weight (extra belt, bearings, axle, holder and screws).
-Wrong flex (this is the most important problem on the E4, and why we changed to the E4RS II).
-Delay (the front end always get power with a little delay vs the rear end, due to the 3 belts, this is a problem with high power motors).
-More sources of problems (especially with the side belt which is very exposed).
I've been a huge supporter of the 3 belts layout during two years, and worked a lot with Kevin Ting @ Team Magic to improve it. We realized together a very modified prototype for the 2011 season to completely change the flex problematic. When Kevin told me he will switch to a standard 2 belts layout, I was very disappointed about that, as I was sure we could continue to develop the 3 belt car. So, I considered to switch to the AE TC6 (I'm working for the Swiss distributor of AE and TM, so I have the choice). But when I got the E4RS II drawings and discussing with Kevin about many little details, I understood this car isn't the 98297392th "remake" of many other cars. Now, after 10 months with the E4RS II, I can say the difference of performance between the E4RS (even with my prototype) is simply huge. I have no regrets about the switch from 3 belts layout to the 2 one.
But, I can perfectly understand how passionate many E4 users could be about the 3 belts design. We all thought at one time or another that we had something special (and it does), and we loved it. But right now, I'm very happy to work on the E4RS II, which is also a special car, even if it seems very similar to others.