PDA

View Full Version : Prototype 98-102mm Motor Mount


Ronac
2010.01.20, 12:09 PM
http://i46.tinypic.com/fxe43p.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/aom1y9.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/2wlujav.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/21o3r86.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2nvw5tz.jpg

I’ve attached some pictures a motor mount I design and built myself. I call it the “Reverse Sidewinder” in reference to the side winder layout of slot cars.

The difference about this motor mount is that the motor position is fixed (no slots to move the motor). There is an idler gear (which does NOT affect the gear ratio) being supported by two bearings to adjust the meshing. The purpose of the idler gear is to change the direction of the motor rotation relative to the chassis. If we look at the car from the passenger side, the conventional motor mount has the motor spinning counter clockwise. With this motor mount, the motor spins clockwise. The reaction moment from the motor (which is opposite of the motor direction) now contributes to rearward weight transfer rather than forward weight transfer. Since one direction biases forward and one biases rearwards, the total change can be up to 15-20% in load on the rear wheels depending on the torque of the motor and gearing being used. The idea with this mount is to increase the rearward traction through on power sweepers. I found that the lack of rear traction with mod motors to be a problem so my motor mount is the solution to that.

The differential has been switched to the other side to prevent the user to have to swap the motor wires backwards.

dxm2
2010.01.20, 01:05 PM
Looks like a great modifciation.

How would you characterize the improvement? Slight improvement or Substantial improvement?

Ronac
2010.01.20, 01:10 PM
When I first tried this mount with a Mazda LM body and an Atomic Stock R motor, I was able to power through the wide sweepers much faster than I was able to before. My setup has changed a bit since then and so has the track. I've been struggling a bit with the Lamborghini recently so my testing progress had been slowed.

I'll post a video later on to demonstrate the effect of the motor mount. Even with motor that isn't particularly powerful, you can visually see the motor mount moving down under forward acceleration.

ianc
2010.01.20, 01:33 PM
Looks like a brilliant idea. Another head slapper.

In addition to loading the rear wheels more, it looks much easier to set the mesh via the idler gear rather than moving the motor in slotted holes.

I foresee two potential problems however; increased friction in the idler gear's bearings causing driveline loss, and possible slippage of the idler arm under load if the method of adjustment is not secure.

How do you prevent the idler arm from rotating?

Are you using standard wheel bearings for the idler gear?

What are your plans for the mount? Do you intend production and sale?

Great idea and execution!

ianc

Ronac
2010.01.20, 03:06 PM
Adjusting the mesh requires you to only loosen one screw.

I do agree that there will be additional drivetrain losses. The amount that it adds is hard to say but there are bearings in there to attempt to reduce the rcition. As I've mentioned before, this mount is a bit more focused towards mod racers and with mini z's you can usually get more than enough power but the problem is putting the power down. So with more losses, you could potentially just use a more powerful motor to make up for it.

I've raced over 6 weeks with this motor mount and the idler arm coming loose hasn't been an issue I've used a bit of loctite on the screw and screwed it in very tight. It doesn't come off even in accidents. The friction from the screw will prevent the idler arm from swinging up.

As for bearings, there are two standard front wheel bearings that are buried inside the orange idler gear.

For plans for the mount, I've shown Pn and they seem to think the market for this mount wont' be big enough to justify a production run. Hopefully with some good results from a trusted test driver, that opinion might change and it can become available to the public.

ianc
2010.01.20, 03:58 PM
Hi Ronac,

Thanks for the info. Hopefully Phil and co. will see this thread. If enough people express interest, it might change their mind,

ianc

Felix2010
2010.01.20, 05:14 PM
Ronac, I saw your reply on the other threadand I think I see what you are talking about reversing the torque from being biased towards the rear with your new mount than the front with a normal mount.

Keep up the good work bringing new ideas to the scene Ronac:D Inventors are always welcome:D:D

color01
2010.01.20, 06:21 PM
As you might imagine, the market for a Mod-only motor mount is pretty small... so I wish you the best of luck in convincing PN. But as a one-off solution to the unique track conditions where you race, it is a good idea and well executed at that. How is your idler gear made? If you machine a spacer to put between the bearings in the idler gear, you may be able to get rid of the swing arm. Just have the axle slot into the motor mount and you can tighten the nut on the end of the idler gear to secure the whole assembly. If you give the end of the axle a rectangular shape to slot into the mount, like such,

_
| |
|O| (the "O" is the cross-section of the actual axle)
|_|
then when you tighten up the whole axle you can actually make a stiffer structure that what you have now, that will definitely not bend or shift when you apply Mod power through it.

MantisMMA
2010.01.20, 06:41 PM
if you want to produce them seriously contact me and we can talk about it.

herman
2010.01.21, 01:59 AM
pretty cool motor mount... can't wait to read the reviews... hoping and wondering when this will come out commercially...

herman
2010.01.21, 02:00 AM
hmm... will a 90-102 version be available?

Ronac
2010.01.21, 02:54 AM
color01: I wouldn't say that this motor is specifically for mod class since it could benefit anyone that lacks rear grip under acceleration. Although it is less of a problem with stock motors, it could still prove beneficial. Regarding you idea with a rectangular slot, I've though of trying that however I actually need two degrees of freedom (x and y) to adjust the mesh. Thats the reason the idler arm can swing around the screw and also slide along the slot on the arm.

Mantis + herman: I'm going to see how the thurough testing of the mount goes. If it proves to be a winner then I'll have a more serious look into production. However, I wouldn't mind getting a quote for a small run of these actually. Could you pm me and we'll figure something out?

Ronac
2010.01.21, 03:12 AM
Here's a little teaser video ;)

Sorry for the poor quality..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm1QGhB1dqY

addicted
2010.01.21, 05:48 AM
looks like a cool idea! :)

color01
2010.01.21, 06:01 AM
color01: I wouldn't say that this motor is specifically for mod class since it could benefit anyone that lacks rear grip under acceleration. Although it is less of a problem with stock motors, it could still prove beneficial. Regarding you idea with a rectangular slot, I've though of trying that however I actually need two degrees of freedom (x and y) to adjust the mesh. Thats the reason the idler arm can swing around the screw and also slide along the slot on the arm.
I see your point, I was going to suggest a slot in the shape of an arc but there are different spur gear sizes to consider too... :(

The thing about stock motors is that you need to be smooth, i.e. the less weight transfer the faster you'll go, period. Your motor mount design deliberately accentuates the weight transfer response to throttle inputs, so you'll be hard-pressed to keep up with the standard-motor-rotation cars in stock. The drivetrain efficiency also hurts a lot. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it doesn't make sense given that stock-motored racing has no traction problems anymore anyways unless your setup's REALLY off (in which case this motor mount ain't gonna save you).

ianc
2010.01.21, 11:20 AM
Your motor mount design deliberately accentuates the weight transfer response to throttle inputs, so you'll be hard-pressed to keep up with the standard-motor-rotation cars in stock.

It doesn't accentuate it, merely reverses its direction.

The drivetrain efficiency thing might matter with stock motors, but as Ronac says, it's primarily for mod, and with powerful motors the trouble is getting the power to the track, so it shouldn't be an issue in that regard...

ianc

Ronac
2010.01.21, 12:47 PM
I did some testing with this motor mount yesterday at the track. We use the smooth side rcp and I was using the 20 AW tires in the back. What I found was that I used a slightly different driving style than normal. It's actually a bit similar to driving a MA-010 in that you can turn in and control the turning radius with mostly the throttle. When I can drive like that, I find that I can hold the driving line that I actually want much easier. Regarding the weight transfer upsetting the car, I was actually able to drive the car pretty recklessly without having it spin out on me at all. I could literally just let off throttle, turn in hard and power on (the right amount ;) ) to hold the line.

Anyway, I'll be sending off this prototype off to San Jose for Tj to try out and do a comparison with a regular style mount. Hopefully then I'll have a more unbiased list of pros vs cons of this mount.

ianc
2010.01.21, 01:54 PM
One other thing strikes me: if the user didn't mind reversing the motor wires on the board or motor, then the setup could work similarly with everything else stock and as-is provided an existing motor mount could be modified to accept an idler gear to reverse the direction of rotation.

This would mean that a custom motor mount need not be manufactured, only the idler gear and arm. Might be much easier and cheaper to get into production if only the gear, bearings and mounting arm were needed.

Perhaps a reduced cost option for people willing to do the modification themselves? You'd have to test with different motor mounts to see what could be worked out...

Just a thought...

ianc

HaCo
2010.01.21, 02:10 PM
There was a setup with belt for Mini-Z, this has the same effect.

Ronac
2010.01.21, 02:16 PM
ianc: I've actually though about modifying an existing pod before I resorted to build my own from scratch. The problem is, the normal pod just don't have the clearance required for the idler arm.

HaCo: Yup the belt drive system does achieve the same effect. I've also considered going the path of a belt drive but I found that with the same motor to diff spacing, I couldn't quite get the same range of gear ratios as I could with the gears. I would be interested to compare the drivetrain losses associated with both systems.

MINI-D
2010.01.21, 03:10 PM
you have a Great test driver with the talent to evaluate. :cool: :D

all the Best to you Ronac :D

D

benmlee
2010.01.21, 03:25 PM
Not quite convince there is enough of an advantage yet.
When I first heard about it, did a quick check on how much effect it will have. It was something like a gram more force on the rear tires. Verified it by taking the pinon off and running car with rear wheels on a scale. It gained about less than a gram or so when accelerating with a mod motor.

Mainly, 3 things will happen during acceleration. The pinion will try to "climb" up the diff gear. This will lift the front of the car up for more rear wheel traction. That effect will be there no matter which side motor is on.

Second thing is with the acceleration of the rotor in the motor, it will twist the motor mount. This will lift up the rear end of the car with the new mount. However, only during the split second that the rear end is being lifted up that you gain some more traction due to inertia of the chassis being lifted up. After that, it will be just as if you raise the ride height of the rear end.

The third thing is during steady state acceleration, the acceleration of the rotor will put a backward rotating torque on the chassis that put more force on the rear wheel while the motor rotor is accelerating. This is the most useful performance gain, but due to the size of the rotor in this scale, the effect is minimal. You just as well put an extra gram of weight in the back of the car.

It may be worth a try anyway. I actually drew up an adaptor plate to fit a pinion on the motor plate of a 94mm mount, but haven't given it to PN yet.

Just for curiosity, may be I will run a simulation at work next week after work. We have a dynamic simulation program that Ford and some race teams use to run simulation on suspensions among many other uses for other industries. It will tell you the whole story (If you set it up right).

HaCo
2010.01.21, 04:40 PM
The Turkish drivers that did the beltdrive system also said that because the motor turned in a different direction, the timing of the motor was different.

HaCo
2010.01.21, 04:46 PM
It were the TGR guys:
http://www.minizz.com/fotos/noticias/transmision_correa_belt_TGR.gif
Wonder what happend with these guys?

Anyway, the thing you made looks really good, always nice if ppl make stuff by themselves!

EMU
2010.01.21, 05:12 PM
Looks like an interesting mount.

Ben, great response.

I look forward to reading about this more, I have thought about trying the belt drive for this reason, but at the same time, if you are adding rear grip, wouldnt that reduce steering on power? I may actually prefer to gain steering on throttle, and gain rear grip off throttle. Which should give a more consistant feeling of how the car takes the corners. It should allow me to brake later into the corner, and accelerate sooner after the apex.

Ronac
2010.01.21, 05:32 PM
The problem with the method you used to test the effect is that with no load on the motor, there will be minimal reaction force. Every force has an equal and opposite reaction force. With the pinion in place and having it on the ground, the load on the motor will be substantially greater and so will the rearward weight transfer.

The only way to test this somewhat accurately is to have the car on weighted rollers and accelerate on there while the rear wheels are on a scale.

Regarding the first point, I agree. Having the gears on the left side and right side offer no differences at all. The reason for me doing so is so that the user doesn't have to wire the motor backwards.

There are 2 forces at play when under acceleration. One relates to what causes a car to do wheelies. Thats just the torque from the wheels accelerating the car. That torque is equal to the torque of the motor multiplied by the gear ratio (5:1 for example). The other force is the reaction from the motor. For a normal motor mount, assume transfer is 100%. The reaction negates ~20% (1/5) of this because the reaction torque is about 20% of the drive torque. With the sidewinder mount, the 20% torque is added to the 100% drive torque. So in essence, you're going from ~80% to ~120%. That could be up to 50% difference in weight transfer.

Just a little side story, the reason I got this idea is from an idea from Nascar. There was a team that built an engine that rotated opposite from the competition. This actually allowed them to transfer more weight to the outer wheels and they were cornering at speeds much faster than the competition. Although you may think the effects are negligible, every little bit counts when you're in competition.

Ronac
2010.01.21, 05:46 PM
To elaborate a bit more on your testing method. Imagine just holding a motor and accelerating. You'll feel a bit of a kick back but not very powerful. Now do the same but hold the pinion gear with your other hand. Now you're feeling the full reaction torque that would be produced when the car is under acceleration.

HaCo: I not sure if I'd rather have the motor spin backwards or not. They claim that it will benefit because of the advanced timing but is that the case for all motors? I know for a fact that the Atomic Stock R is made specifically to spin the "right" way.

yasuji
2010.01.21, 06:19 PM
i have a few questions?
is there any additional drag due to the extra gear?
does it affect acceleration due to the additional friction or mass?
how does a TOP shock affect this set up?
is it affected by pod angle?
info is appreciated :)

Ronac
2010.01.21, 06:27 PM
To be honest, yes there will be extra drag to the drive line. I would think it is very minimal though because of the inclusion of bearings. I've raced mine against another racer with the same gearing and motor and the speed is exactly the same. Top shock works perfectly fine with this motor mount. I've had it with the new dual spring PN shock and no clearance issues at all.

Not quite sure what you mean by pod angle. Could you try to explain a bit more into that?

yasuji
2010.01.21, 06:45 PM
To be honest, yes there will be extra drag to the drive line. I would think it is very minimal though because of the inclusion of bearings. I've raced mine against another racer with the same gearing and motor and the speed is exactly the same. Top shock works perfectly fine with this motor mount. I've had it with the new dual spring PN shock and no clearance issues at all.
id like to know if the top shock affects the grip at all...with or with out the rebound spring

Not quite sure what you mean by pod angle. Could you try to explain a bit more into that?
(when on the car stand the t plate holds the motor pod flat. when u set the car on to its wheels u will get some droop and reduce the ride height, i will call that negative angle
if u add the top shock and add a bit of preload it will push the pod and increase the ride height i will call this positive angle.)
does the effect change with positive/ nevative pod angle?

benmlee
2010.01.21, 07:07 PM
There are two force at work here. One is the wheelie force or holding the pinion force like you talked about. For the wheelie force, every rear wheel drive car has it. Does not matter what kind of drive train you have. The force goes from the tire to the diff gear to the motor. Since right side motor or left side motor have the same wheelie force, there was no point testing it.

The other is inertia force from the inertia of the motor rotor. The inertial force has to do with the weight of the accelerating motor rotor. That was what differentiate this mount from others. The motor on this mount is turning the “right” way. That was what I was trying to test. If you put a flywheel on the motor, you will have more of the effect.


I was expecting more force transfer because on Slash trucks, the car tilts when you accelerate due to motor rotor inertia.

Ronac
2010.01.21, 07:17 PM
Ben: For the wheelie force, it doesn't even have to be rear wheel drive. Front or all wheel drive will see the same effect of weight transfer. I think we're on the same page about the forces though. The magnitude of the force will be larger when the car is actually trying to accelerate vs when the pinion is free to spin. So it may be premature to dismiss the advantages because the gains are too small from the free spinning pinion test. With a flywheel you definitely see more of an effect but what size flywheel will correspond to the actual load when accelerate will be hard to determine.

yasuji: I've had the car running with the center shock and without. I haven't tested them back to back but I think i preferred the setup with the center shock. The pod angle won't change the fact that this pod will increase the weight transfer to the rear wheels. It works completely independent of the angle.

color01
2010.01.21, 08:22 PM
Just for curiosity, may be I will run a simulation at work next week after work. We have a dynamic simulation program that Ford and some race teams use to run simulation on suspensions among many other uses for other industries. It will tell you the whole story (If you set it up right).
This, along with TJ's test results, should be very good info to look forward to. Please do, Ben.

Tjay
2010.01.22, 04:43 AM
Once received, the pod will be tested and compared to another laydown pod in 98mm config using one body, 07 NSX with PN 33 turn modified motor on my MR03 and It will be tested on low, mid and high traction RCP tracks. Ofcourse lap times will be posted as well.

Thanks!

HaCo
2010.01.22, 09:40 AM
Tjay,
I already ran on different RCP tracks from different clubs here in Belgium and they are always kind of different in traction. Because you mention low, mid and high traction RCP tracks, do you know what has an influence and how do you pick these?
Hope you understand my question :cool:

Tjay
2010.01.22, 10:50 AM
Tjay,
I already ran on different RCP tracks from different clubs here in Belgium and they are always kind of different in traction. Because you mention low, mid and high traction RCP tracks, do you know what has an influence and how do you pick these?
Hope you understand my question :cool:

HaCo,

I go to 2 tracks locally. One has mid to high traction (depending on temp) and one that has lower than usual. The mid-high traction is just your normal RCP track to where almost all soft rear tires from all manuf will work. The low traction on the other hand is very unique. Only those that knows "throttle control" survives the race. :) On this track, it is very hard to put the power to the ground on a 2WD even if you have the best set of tires and horsepower doesn't matter as much. Honestly speaking, this track almost has a "carpet" feel to it. When I use to play my AWD MOD fulltime, the car just loves this track. I didn't have to worry much about traction roll or having to super glue the sidewalls and i was able to use brand new kyo20 rear/kyo30 front with just double sided tape. Ask any AWD mod drivers, you must run glued tires and/or trued/worn down tires on a regular RCP track. Also, tires lasts 5x longer than it's normal runtime, believe it! If anyone mentions they want the car to roll or to drive their miniz with bigger scale RC feel, this is the track and all of you guys are welcome to try it this coming KO Grand Prix in April 24, you'll know what I mean but you may end up extending your vacation... ;)

*

MantisMMA
2010.01.22, 01:47 PM
open case ceramic bearings will eliminate your drivetrain losses and delrin idler gears will also help.

Tjay
2010.01.22, 02:21 PM
HaCo,

I go to 2 tracks locally. One has mid to high traction (depending on temp) and one that has lower than usual. The mid-high traction is just your normal RCP track to where almost all soft rear tires from all manuf will work. The low traction on the other hand is very unique. Only those that knows "throttle control" survives the race. :) On this track, it is very hard to put the power to the ground on a 2WD even if you have the best set of tires and horsepower doesn't matter as much. Honestly speaking, this track almost has a "carpet" feel to it. When I use to play my AWD MOD fulltime, the car just loves this track. I didn't have to worry much about traction roll or having to super glue the sidewalls and i was able to use brand new kyo20 rear/kyo30 front with just double sided tape. Ask any AWD mod drivers, you must run glued tires and/or trued/worn down tires on a regular RCP track. Also, tires lasts 5x longer than it's normal runtime, believe it! If anyone mentions they want the car to roll or to drive their miniz with bigger scale RC feel, this is the track and all of you guys are welcome to try it this coming KO Grand Prix in April 24, you'll know what I mean but you may end up extending your vacation... ;)


... Mid-High traction test: As mentioned above, this is your typical RCP track. I want to test on this track to see if the added rear traction is beneficial to the current tires being use (PN6= tons of grip but so little runtime in them) or will it make the rear end to "hop" (wheel hop), or will it make the kyosho 20 slicks feel like a PN6? (kyosho 20 rear slicks has the longest runtime of all stickiest tires available for miniz). Maybe it'll be the time for us to use that hard top shock springs, who knows?

As for Low Traction test: Obviously, I WANT REAR TRACTION!!! lol I'm really hoping that this "sidewinder" pod will give this extra rear grip that everyone needs on a low grip track. I am mainly concern on how this pod will do on a low track... I'm itching to try it, NOW! lol...

As for what Ronac had said regarding the drivetrain loss, well he is right. I myself will probably not going to be able to tell the difference between with idler gear and without idler gear. Especially not in mod class and add if you add what Marcus had just mentioned, this should eliminate the "loss" that you may feel.

yasuji
2010.01.22, 02:33 PM
looking forward to hear the results....

Ronac
2010.01.22, 02:44 PM
Tjay: I can't wait for results either! For the different grip levels of RCP, what side of the track are they?

MantisMMA: Ceramic bearings would be a great upgrade since its at faster RPM's then the wheels so the difference from regular to ceramic will be more noticeable. When I made my prototype, I would ideally have used delrin. The problem was I couldn't find an off the shelf pinion in 64 pitch. So in the end, I resorted to modifying an aluminum pinion design for larger scale cars.

Tjay
2010.01.22, 02:47 PM
Tjay: I can't wait for results either! For the different grip levels of RCP, what side of the track are they?


I haven't tried the back side Ron so I would refer to it as, "the correct" side. :D

Ronac
2010.01.22, 02:50 PM
I guess the back side you're referring to is the smooth side? It's weird cause the racers here in Vancouver have gotten accustomed to the smooth side. :confused:

Honestly, I prefer the rough side but like everyone else here, I've just gotten used to the smooth side.

Tjay
2010.01.22, 03:08 PM
I haven't tried the "smooth/back side". It's probably better and more consistent than the rough side but most of the manufacturer designed their products with the RCP rough side in mind. Also, big events uses this side. This is probably why we use them as well. It's good to have drivers like yourself to run on different type of surface. This way guys like us may benefit from it just incase we do come and play with you guys and vice-versa. :)

Just a thought. Since you want more rear traction on that smooth RCP surface, why not have the motor sit up higher just like the ATM 96mm pod or PN's 94-98mm pod? This way you'll get more corner speed instead of having a motor that sits flat and low. Just a thought...

Ronac
2010.01.22, 03:17 PM
I actually think that the smooth side gets dirty more easily then the rough side so its actually less consistent. Unless you ALWAYS keep it dirty, which it seems like something we do here. :D

I'll be doing exactly what you recommended since my proto pod is in the mail. I'll be setting my MR-03 up with a SC430 body and 94 mid mount pod. I'm not quite sure how having the higher motor will translate to faster cornering speeds though. Physics is physics so I typically try to keep the cg as low as possible.

doug01n
2010.01.24, 11:27 AM
Hi guys...
I was reading this thread, and for me, it will work. One thing that I didn't read here is about "momentum". The test made by Ronac on the track was described as "a different way to drive", where you may live the trottle and in the meadle of the curve you may accelerate the car with less spinning probability.

For me, what makes sence is that at the exact moment that you accelerate during the curve, you'll get all the beneffits of both parts (mottor and wheels) rotating to the same direction. The moment you pull the trigger is when you need all the forces pushing your tires against the track, and when you have a regular motorpod, occurs the opposite. That milisecond with less traction is exactly the milisecond that your motor is passing from 10.000RPM to 15.000RPM (remembering that the torque is instantaneous on eletric motors).

I think is all about that milisecond, inversing the forces that may reduce the spin out probability over 50%, depending on the track.

My opinion. Good work Ronac! Following this topic!

Rune
2010.02.06, 07:40 PM
Any results form the testing yet?

color01
2010.02.06, 07:59 PM
I'm not quite sure how having the higher motor will translate to faster cornering speeds though. Physics is physics so I typically try to keep the cg as low as possible.
I shouldn't have missed this, as this is a good point to clarify:

Physics is physics, yes, but that rule about "less weight transfer = better" only applies to 100% rigid racing surfaces, like tarmac. In off-road, it's been experimentally tested that more weight over the tires helps the tire dig farther into the surface, hence more grip.

RCP is a foam surface, which means it's not rigid; you can test this by yourself by putting a thumb down on your track and pushing. It'll leave a nice little indentation. When you transfer more weight to one wheel, it does the same thing as your thumb, making an (albeit smaller) indent in the foam and providing that particular tire more surface area to grip with. So on RCP there is an optimal amount of weight transfer that you can hit to achieve the fastest cornering speeds: the one where you're not lifting the inside rear tire, but where you're putting enough on the outside tire to improve grip, and allow the additional grip to carry you through the turn. You may notice that the cars with the fastest cornering speeds on RCP almost always seem to be on the verge of traction roll; it's because they have the most traction (ta-da!). ;)


So anyways, raising the CG slightly is another way to get cornering grip and on-power traction for RCP. I also look forward to TJ's testing results on your motor mount. :)

Tjay
2010.02.06, 08:32 PM
I'm still waiting for the motor pod. :)

Ronac
2010.02.06, 09:09 PM
color: You're right, "less weight transfer = better" doesn't apply. That's the whole point of me making this mount. I have noticed better grip with a 84-98mm mount vs the LCG 98-102mm mount. I've always resorted to using the LCG in a 98 mm configuration just because of the low center of gravity.

The pod has actually been sent out to Philip from PN about two weeks ago. He's going to do an evaluation on it then he'll send it off to Tj. I'll fire off an email to Philip to see if he's actually received it yet.

Rune
2010.02.23, 05:46 AM
Any news yet?

Tjay
2010.02.23, 10:37 AM
Hi Guys,

I just recently received the pod on Friday. I haven't had time to test it due to all these new parts coming in for MR03s front end and I have been testing quite a few of them. Tonight I will put the car together and hopefully be able to test it on Wednesday.

Sorry for the delay.