26 replies to this topic

[stu m]

On the old motors, which is better: the endbell or the can side screwed to the frame?

[Bill from NH]

Stu, the can side will always provide more support. However, not all old motors can be easily can-mounted.

And if you're talking about anglewinder chassis, you also have to be cognizant of the motor's arm timing so the motor will rotate in the correct direction.

[MattD]

both

[Pablo]

Show us a photo and we can give you a better answer

[MSwiss]

As Bill said, can side is always better.

 

Regardless, if the car is an anglewinder, or an inline with a hotter motor, and you are serious about running the car more than a few laps, here and there, on occasion, you should solder a piano wire brace between the motor can and somewhere on the chassis, to triangulate your retention.

[Rotorranch]

Triagulation is something not thought about much in slots. It was VERY important to my full size race cars. I used to catch a lot of flack from the race shop I worked at, for over building, until they crashed a couple of my cars!

 

Rotor

 

 

[NSwanberg]

I always wondered why we ever had endbell drive?

[havlicek]

All other things being equal, Bill and Mike gave the correct answers, but all other things may not be equal.  On many motors, you don't have a choice because the shaft is only "there" on one end, and on many vintage motors, that end is the end bell side.  On those motors, and even with a really mild factory wind, doing something to brace the motor from moving around while running is a really good idea.  

BTW, it's not *just* the fact that a connection to plastic at the end bell isn't as solid as a connection to the metal at the can end that makes can-drive better.  The end bell also only has a narrow "face" at the connection point which makes that connection much more suceptible to the leverage of the entire motor's mass wanting to move.  The can end has the entire width of the motor at the connection point.  In either case, bracing the bracket is an important and related issue.

[havlicek]

I always wondered why we ever had endbell drive?

 

I can only guess that using tapping screws made it easier for racers the install motors?

[Pablo]

There are those who believed there is a certain element of vibration management having the endbell secured to the bracket instead of the metal can.

[Bill from NH]

Endbell mounting was popular because the early Mabuchi can motors only had screw holes in their endbells & the other oriental manufacturers followed suit. Obviously, these motors had applications other than just slot cars, but i don't know what they were.

 

Plastic endbells can have a tendency to twist & bend.That's why I always use 4 screws when mounting them to cans instead of just two. Depending upon how many times you remove a tight endbell, it will eventually loosen up due to wear.

[Mike Patterson]

On an anglewinder/sidewinder style chassis, using the can side for mounting/drive places the mass of the motor closer to the chassis' centerline, theoretically making for a better balanced car. YMMV.

[Jairus]

The Mabuchi 2nd gen cans from 1966 have the brass bearing holder with the recess slot for clipping the motor into the bracket.  So engineers back then knew what was best. But they provided both options to the manufacturers for any number of reasons.

[havlicek]

 

 

Endbell mounting was popular because the early Mabuchi can motors only had screw holes in their endbells & the other oriental manufacturers followed suit

 

 

???This didn't make end bell mounting "popular" Bill, it made it the only choice for most everyone, and it still doesn't explain why end bell mounting was even offered, much less the only choice.  More, if the motor was to fit into a chassis specifically designed for end bell mounting, it made it even more necessary to continue to use only end bell drive motors.

 

There are those who believed there is a certain element of vibration management having the endbell secured to the bracket instead of the metal can.

 

 

...   Yeah Pablo, those Mabuchis weren't just slow, they buzzed and vibrated like nobody's business.

[Pablo]

For the OP:

 

http://slotblog.net/...-motor-chassis/

[Bill from NH]

John, you think Mabuchi created their can motors for slot cars?   They made adaptations & are still doing it today.

[S.O. Watt]

Pretty much all the reasons for endbell drive have been given, the switch to can drive is still a bit vague..
Yes, it was all that Mabuchi offered, and their “Bearing” can wasn’t at all popular with chassis builders. There were no motor brackets that were embraced by he pro or advanced builders of the day. If you didn’t like stripping out the end bell mounting screws, the snap ring mounts were worse.

The release of the Mura “A” and Champion cans helped pave the way for the eventual take over of can mounting. As mentioned by Mike, the centering of the mass of the motor in the chassis was a big part of the changeover. Another big part was the original Mabuchi endbell bushing. It was the true Achilles heel with that stepped bore that only gave a very small bearing surface. Champion and Mura endbell bushing fixed that issue and the switch was on.

[Phil Smith]

Bill, I've always thought what you said is true, but maybe not. Mabuchi company history:

 

https://www.mabuchi-...ny/history.html

 

Motor designations decoder ring:

 

https://www.mabuchi-...ny/history.html

 

Note that "F" denotes a flat profile motor. That in some form or another was introduced in 1958. So at least that definitely predates slot cars.

 

And all the cool kids are wearing these:

 

 

http://yahoo.aleado....5457#enlargeimg

[Bill from NH]

Phil, can you recall a Mabuchi 13, 15, 16, 26, or 36 motor that was designed & built from the ground up for slot cars? I can't recall any.

[Phil Smith]

Bill, I have no idea. Like I mentioned, I always assumed they were designed for some other industry, as you said. But their website claims that in 1963 "A high-voltage, high-speed small electric motor (FT type) is developed, and is sold for use in model racing cars."

 

Another thing that dawned on me yesterday. As probably most of us on this board, I've worked on or tore apart a lot of stuff in my life. And I've never seen a vintage type Mabuchi slot motor in any of it. So if they were originally intended for a different application, I have never seen an example of it.

[Bill from NH]

A few years back, I got several Russkit 25 "industrial look-alikes" off eBay. They had a mounting plate of some type screwed to the aluminum endbells & the arm shafts turned down to 1.5mm with 64 pitch brass gears on them. These weren't made for slotcars, but I have no idea what their use was. I gave one of them to John Havlicek. He did a nice job converting it for slot car use & it may have ended up with Edo.

[Phil Smith]

I wasn't aware of the Russkit 25. Pretty cool looking. I'll add that to my ebay searches.

[Bill from NH]

Here's the link to John's build-up;  http://slotblog.net/...sskit-25-maybe/

[havlicek]

John, you think Mabuchi created their can motors for slot cars?   They made adaptations & are still doing it today.

 

Hi Bill,

     I have no idea what they created their motors for and never said I did (!?), why do you ask, do you?    In any case, my post about your contention "that end bell mounting was popular" is on point.  If the early Mabuchis were only suitable for end bell mounting  *without kids, rewinders (*no can shaft) and scratchbuilders jumping through hoops, then end bell mounting wasn't "popular", it was a necessary evil...all there was.  Also as I stated, there was some "chicken and the egg" going on with chassis design.  The chassis built specifically FOR end bell mounting perpetuated the end bell mounting bugaboo.  Die cast metal chassis (with the end bell profile molded into the pot metal and/or magnesium) and folded metal chassis didn't offer much of an opportunity to investigate can mounting.  The later C-ring can-mounting option had issues too, but it at least shows that Mabuchi was aware of the potential of offering that...but even that may have been driven by other industrial end-users' requests???  For all we know, they may have been made aware of the potential of can-mounting BY slot car racers, and the "light came on" that other end users might find that a better option.  The why and how have never been explained clearly as far as I've seen. 

     Back on to the side issue you brought up about what exactly Mabuchi made the can motors for, I *think* (*and this is only a guess) there was a fair amount of "if we build it they will come" marketing going on.  In other words, they had a product they felt was useful and were looking for various markets.  The Mabuchi History link above does seem to clearly state that they saw model car racing as at least a way to show the usefulness of their motors...a way to get the product "out there", after which they could leverage that increased product awareness.  Timing-wise, it seems likely they at least recognized that the slot car "craze" was important enough for them to focus on...at least a little.  Mabuchi seems to always have had a larger plan for their motors than just slot cars though, and that their designs for both flat and round can motors are still around today in pretty much the same basic form shows how focused they were on any and all kinds of uses.  There are even some variants with plastic end bells, although molded from better material....but "end bell drive" is (*I think) pretty much gone, with "can drive" (*or at least the opposite end of the motor from the brushed end) being the norm.

[Phil Smith]

Another possibility is if the FT motors were originally design for other industry, it's likely they were intended for much lower voltage. The load and stress on the endbell would be much less at lower voltage, and well within the design limits.