26 replies to this topic

[Rick Moore]

Okay. Got it. The addenda change things quite a bit. The rear axle tube being considered a part of the motor bracket is a needed clarification. The allowed decrease in the number of wires per side for the main rail forward of the “front of motor” should allow for design and structural variations in this regard. It puts my chassis back on the track, and Haruki’s too. I measured a bunch of RH’s in and out of cars, and, from what I can tell, that would mean the “Rail count may reduce…” starting about 0.99 inch (25.15 mm) forward of the motor bracket face.
 
Hopefully this will still accomplish the desired outcome for the kit, or any kits and parts, that had come into question. I’ll leave that discussion for those more familiar with that particular matter. Good luck.
 
Thanks a lot guys. I’m sure this was about as enjoyable as a stick in the eye. Now I can get back to starting that next chassis that’s been on hold…
 
Have fun!
 
Rick / CMF3

[MSwiss]

The addenda change things quite a bit. 

 

It puts my chassis back on the track, and Haruki’s too. 
 

 

Yes.

 

It definitely puts the Kamo style, back in business, and I'll take your word, on yours.

 

The point of this was just to prevent some extremely thin/minimal, faux main rails on the Razzo, as Bill F posted.

 

Having to install substantial "railage," albeit, at least only to the front of the motor, and still have to connect said railage, albeit, minimally, somehow to the front, should convince builders it makes more sense to just make the proper Z-rail connections, with the "real" rails, making the chassis more structurally sound in the process.