PDA

View Full Version : **New** ATM 94mm WB Motor Pod Version VI


Felix2010
2010.05.08, 01:29 AM
Just saw this. As usual with Atomic, no details...:(
Looks cool, with a redesign of the DPS post arm. It appears the DPS post arm is attached via the rear of the pod giving extra reinforcement maybe? Rear diffuser too, like the 96 pod.
I like the diffuser, now with most racers using homemade rear spoiler designs (usually lexan lightweight wings) this ATM diffuser might compliment the top wing:cool:

Besides what my opinion is I wrote above from what I can see from the pic, any more details from Atomic? Can you help Atomic-USA reps???:D

Thank you in advance.

Good job Atomic coming out with new innovative Mini-Z hop-ups, looking good!:D

EMU
2010.05.08, 04:44 AM
http://www.egrracing.com/shop/images/large/atomic/AR-271_l.jpg
I think that the damper post mounting position is to increase clearance against the chassis. Previous 94mm mounts had little clearance which meant restricted movement. I doubt that there is enough mass in the upper arm to change the handling characteristics too much. The wires should also be able to be run cleaner as well.

I will get a test sample and let you know how it works.

The only negative that I can see so far is use on low RML bodies like F50, F355, Testerossa... You may have to cut away the body for it to work. With bodies that have clearance, this should not be an issue.

Felix2010
2010.05.08, 04:57 AM
Thanks EMU:) Looking forward to your review and thoughts on this motor mount:D

Any updates on the ATM 96mm pod? As far as the problem with diff bearing spacers being loose? Also I was told by a pal of mine that when adjusting the motor's gear mesh the pinion meshes with the spur at an angle, resulting in the car running very loud:(
Have you experienced this issue? I am hoping (fingers double-crossed) that these are just early production flaws and that they have been ironed-out in the latest batch(s) of ATM 967mm WB pods....

EMU
2010.05.08, 05:25 AM
Has your pal shimmed the bearing spacers? If not, the diff will be pushed at a slight angle. Which spacers is he using?

I am driving down to a race in Carolina on Thursday, and by the time the package comes in, I may be gone for the race. I should get it after Sunday when I return from the race and try it out. I ordered with EMS shipping, so I hope it will be here before I go, so I can try it at the race...

Felix2010
2010.05.08, 09:18 AM
I understand what you're saying about the diff, maybe the diff spur gear is what is causing the misalignment of the pinion-to-spur gear mesh. My friend shimmed the diff bearing spacers using tire tape to eliminate the play between the bearing spacers and the motor mount.
However, I believe it is where the motor is screwed-down onto the adjustable guides where the motor pinion crookedness / misalignment is occurring, not the differential spur being crooked at an angle. If possible I would really, really like to see if I can confirm that Atomic has fixed these issues on the 96 pod before I go and order one. :D I am a perfectionist at setting up my car and this small issues I just know will drive me batty:(

Thank you EMU for your help:)

EMU
2010.05.08, 09:42 AM
I should be getting the newer version soon, and will let you know. Please try to keep this thread for the 94mm mount, and if you want to speak about the 96mm mount use the appropriate thread. That will prevent confusion between the two mounts.

Check the diff shaft distance to the rear support arm of the mount when looking at the mount from the top. It should be the same distance on both sides to the rear of the mount.

What motor is being used? Check with another motor that it is perpendicular to the mount where the screws are holding it in. My motor is completely perpendicular, so this should not be the problem with the mount. It could be a slightly warped motor, or the bearing adjusters. I am going to build up another first release 96mm mount today just to look at possible issues. I had a chance to check out a new 96mm mount the other day with the diffusor, and there was a little play, but not nearly as much as I had. I am going to try bearing adapters that are sold seperately and see if they fit better...

When I build my cars, every little thing matters. Having that play is aggrevating, and is something that should be resolved for the next production run.

The 96mm mount despite this flaw is great for stock class racing, being very light, I use it with an ATM Stock BB, and the car handles well... I assume that ATM will pay more attention on the 94mm mount, and should not have the same issue, but I will test that when the mounts come in (I ordered 3).

You should be able to adjust the damper arm height with shims between the arm and the mount, rather than between the arm and the post if you need it higher. If the arm is high, then you will need to raise the damper plate. The higher the damper plate, the more damping effect there will be, since the discs will travel further on the same amount of articulation of the mount. Low damper plates will have less damping effect, and will be less consistant in their damping since they are traveling less distance.

I am hoping that the damper arm is lower than the 96mm mount, but I cant tell until I have the mount to test.

Felix, if you can take some pictures, and send them to me about the issue, I should be able to help out better. I would like to help fix the issue, but I want to see what the root of the problem is. A straight down shot would be best. If you have a setup board, that would help figure it out as well.

Felix2010
2010.05.08, 11:35 PM
EMU - I appreciate the time you took to reply to my questions. You're right about keeping threads on one issue - my bad:) .

Because the new 94mm Atomic pod has the damper post attached to the back on the pod "brace", how do you think this will affect the function of the pod? Most every other pod's damper post arm has always been located underneath the damper plate, and attached to the front of the pod, not the rear.

Interesting design:)

Thanks again:D

Atomic-USA
2010.05.16, 10:38 AM
I ran this 94mm setup at both a high grip / lower grip track for the past two days. I normally don't like 94mm cars but this thing is phenomenal. The damper arm is very sturdy and doubled as a heat sink for my very hot 70T motor. Highly recommended.

http://mini-zracer.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29845&stc=1&d=1273811817

herman
2010.05.16, 11:25 PM
looks pretty cool... would this work with the stock rear shock?
more pics pls...

pfcparts
2010.05.17, 12:39 AM
Looks like it should be able to.

Tires backwards?

I was actually worried about this mount and how
fragile it looked, but with better pics it looks good.
Atm pods have always been pretty strong, relatively
problem free, and well designed.

This seems no different.

No problems with the screws vibrating loose? Looks like
you could fit longer screws and some nuts on the bottom
(or inverted)to be safe. Any weight comparisons with
other mounts available? Also, the spring spacers were
great, why the switch back to flanged screws?

Very cool mount.


parts

Felix2010
2010.05.17, 08:39 PM
Thanks for your feedback Sai. this is definitely a cool mount. Not just a re-hashed design.

It seems like this mount would put more downforce directly on-top of the rear axle. But I thought that a problem with running 94mm WB is the reduced steering? I have always experienced better steering with 98 and that's why I like the idea of the ATM 96mm pod for increased steering.
Are my thoughts on the VI 94mm pod backwards? Does this VI mount give more or less front steering?

Thanks again for the info. Good stuff, keep it up guys.

Atomic-USA
2010.05.17, 10:35 PM
Pfcparts:

The tires are backwards because I think there's more grip when they are pointed backwards. This is a personal preference.

I put a little bit of thread lock on all metal to metal contacts. It's all good. Nothing vibrates loose.


Felix:

I have the most on-power steering with this 94mm mount compared to other 94mm mounts(including other brands) I tried in the past. However, I must admit I was never a 94mm enthusiast except for narrow class 70T with F355 body. I always felt that 94mm does not give me enough on-power steering compared to 98 or 96mm. I could be wrong.

color01
2010.05.17, 10:50 PM
I believe you can use a softer top spring/no top spring to generate more on-power rotation with the 94MM config. That's been my typical adjustment going between 94 and 98mm (I don't play with 96mm a whole lot). It lets the on-power weight transfer to the rear happen just a bit slower, so you keep the car's weight on the front wheels for just a bit longer.

94MM cars also benefit from more roll resistance in the rear. So getting a very wide T-plate will improve steering a bit. Note, wide doesn't necessarily mean stiff... thin but wide fiberglass T-plates do a good job of increasing roll resistance without locking up the rear suspension.

Anyways, the point is that even if this new 94MM mount gives you significantly more rear traction, you can re-tune the car to correctly utilize it. Heck, if you get enough grip that you can use a harder rear tire, you can even save money over time and you won't overheat them during a race. :)

Felix2010
2010.05.18, 12:15 AM
Thanks Sai for your input.:D

color0 - I agree with you, I just was doing things to increase on-power steering and I was going to try swapping the springs on my DPS from soft bottom/hard top to hard-bottom/ soft top. I have tried a bunch of various things for the front suspension but I am want to try to get more on-power steering by tuning the rear-end this time.
About the increased-width T-plate , would this increase on-power steering in 94mm config? I have found that when I increase lateral stiffness at 98mm I actually lost front steering, the car had terrible turning radius on-power and off-power. As funny as that may sound. I think it might have to do with my track having a lot of traction, and I rarely break full-loose in the rear even with my diff set tight.:)

EMU
2010.05.18, 01:05 AM
Felix, are you using a top shock, or only DDS? Most of the time, I use the same spring top/bottom. If I want a little more on power steering, I add a top shock and preload the upper DDS spring a little more. You want to make sure that the bottom disc is touching the damper plate, but can adjust the preload of the upper spring to adjust where in the corner you get more of an increase in steering on throttle. The more preload of the upper spring, the later after you apply throttle you will get the increase in steering.

Typically if you have less lateral stiffness on the DDS, the car will roll a little more in the corners. This will put more load on the outside front wheel, and will give you a little tighter turning radius at the expense of steering reaction speed. The car will transition slower, but give you more steering mid/late in the corner. It also makes the car slower to recenter. I prefer a t-plate that is laterally stiff, and softer fore/aft (Kyosho carbon), so I can adjust the fore/aft with my top shock. The PN plates are a little too stiff fore/aft for my driving style, but can be used without a top shock without a problem.

I assembled the 94 v6 mount, and it looks very good. I should get some track time with it this weekend. The DDS plate position is the same height as the 96mm mount, which means that it should have a good damping effect. At 94mm, you want to keep the damper plate higher than you would at 98mm anyway, otherwise the lower disc is very close to the chassis, and can rub if you dont either raise the plate or shave away some of the PCB cover for clearance.

There is more fore/aft clearance than other previous mounts, which means that as the suspension loads, there wont be any rubbing of the damper post with the chassis as there is with previous 94mm mounts.