MOA question

[Charlie-III]

Originally Posted by sloppy

I dont know about the rest of the Rules committee.. But this was definitely one of things I considered MOA even before this was done.. Our club has had a local talking about doing this for years..

I will state this does NOT impact me, so I'm just stating.

We are getting into "intent" vs. "wording". Sometimes, "What you say vs. what you meant" create other issues.

I will "guess" the question raised in this thread fulfills the "intent" of the rules but NOT the "wording".

In my mind, I don't give a rats butt where the motor is mounted, since it goes through the other bits BEFORE going to an axle it fulfills the "intent" of the rules. The "intent" (in my eyes) is to prevent mounting a motor on an axle AND DRIVING that axle and somehow also driving the other axle.

I am not on the rules commitee, so I have NO final say.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by Charlie-III

I will state this does NOT impact me, so I'm just stating.

We are getting into "intent" vs. "wording". Sometimes, "What you say vs. what you meant" create other issues.

I will "guess" the question raised in this thread fulfills the "intent" of the rules but NOT the "wording".

In my mind, I don't give a rats butt where the motor is mounted, since it goes through the other bits BEFORE going to an axle it fulfills the "intent" of the rules. The "intent" (in my eyes) is to prevent mounting a motor on an axle AND DRIVING that axle and somehow also driving the other axle.

I am not on the rules commitee, so I have NO final say.

I don't feel it is a moa either, I'd let him run it.

[TURTLE]

I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by TURTLE

I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.

I think that is the intent.

[Locked Up]

Originally Posted by ToyZuki

Kinda like to move forward with the build. Looks like so far it's not black and white. Some look at it like me where the rule is there to keep moa axles out that prevent torque twist and give independant drive. Then there are those that think the rules is writen to prevent me from gaining a low cog and unsprung weight over the term moa. Is there a discusion behind the scenes between the people that wrote the rules? I know I can get away with it at club level and not have an issue but I'd like to have a national ruling so that at the end of the series it's not deamed a cheater truck by the guys that are behind it in points.

Yes, it is being discussed by the committee.

[skid]

Originally Posted by TURTLE

I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.

or did they not want the batteries to be seen. I don't think weight is the issue. You can add as much weight as you want to an axle and be within the rules.

[gdb85]

C'mon guys, what is the problem or issuue here?! We all know that this is not the MOA that was meant to be kept out of the scale world! It's starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers speaking legalese crap!

The man has his motor/tranny going to a t-case and a drive shafts to the fr. & rr. axles, sounds good to me! I mean some don't even incorperate a t-case on their builds!

Judist Preist!....this should be a non-issue. (just my 2 cts.)

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Show us a 1:1 set up like this.






I like the band Judist Preist...........

[skid]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Show us a 1:1 set up like this.






I like the band Judist Preist...........

Show me a 1:1 with foam in the tires for support, or plastic crossmembers, or plastic rod ends., When do he draw the line? That's up to the committee's for events that want to follow their rules.

Just for giggles, the description of following link describes a 4wd MOA buggy(golf cart)
http://www.brushcountrybadboybuggies..._Boy_Buggy.htm
So, would a scale version of this be legal becuase it's done in 1:1? No, becuase it is MOA and can act as a dig setup. Would it be scale? Yes.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by skid

Show me a 1:1 with foam in the tires for support, or plastic crossmembers, or plastic rod ends., When do he draw the line? That's up to the committee's for events that want to follow their rules.

Just for giggles, the description of following link describes a 4wd MOA buggy(golf cart)
http://www.brushcountrybadboybuggies..._Boy_Buggy.htm
So, would a scale version of this be legal becuase it's done in 1:1? No, becuase it is MOA and can act as a dig setup. Would it be scale? Yes.

I have foam in my bobcat tires. We aren't talking about what materials you use , it's more about design. Turtle nailed it.
I will be one of the events following SORCCA rules.
I just talking out loud, not trying to start a fight.






Still would like to see a 1:1 MOTOA (MOTOR ON TRANNY ON AXLE) SET UP.

[dezfan]

Were did I put that popcorn.

[microgoat]

Originally Posted by skid

You can add as much weight as you want to an axle and be within the rules.

Yes you can. But at the same time you're taking it off the chassis, eliminating (or reducing?) torque twist, and lowering your CG. A lot like an MOA comp rig.

It's a motor, on an axle. The rules are pretty clear. I don't see it passing tech at the Nats. Even at a local event I'd make you put the battery on the roof, or something.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by dezfan

Were did I put that popcorn.

What

[skid]

Originally Posted by microgoat

Yes you can. But at the same time you're taking it off the chassis, eliminating (or reducing?) torque twist, and lowering your CG. A lot like an MOA comp rig.

It's a motor, on an axle. The rules are pretty clear. I don't see it passing tech at the Nats. Even at a local event I'd make you put the battery on the roof, or something.

No arguement on the weight, lower is better.

I do believe the biggest reduction in torque twist on a comp MOA is the direction of motor rotation doesn't have to turn a 90. Except for a losi MOA, which is reduced by a 20 something to 1 gear reduction in the axle and worm drive. As for the O.P., he will still have symtoms of torque twist exerted from the rear axle.

[ToyZuki]

Originally Posted by Locked Up

Yes, it is being discussed by the committee.

Thank you.

For the rest thanks for the input weather it helps the decision or not. I honestly don't think it's going to prevent torque twist at all because the power to the axles is still coming from the center of the chassis. My goal is to keep the weight off the springs cause they are weak and sagging from the weight of the chassis alone. Pretty sure after the body, electronics, and tube work it's gonna bottom out and act as full droop. Using the mrc axles doesn't give me any room for shocks to add springs to help the issue either. I'm just trying to keep the motor weight off the springs. The way I understood the rule was to prevent moa axles that remove torque twist and run independantly of each other.

[foproy]

ami the only one seeing a tone of logistical problems with this set up? you will have all three drive shafts constantly moving when on that rocks no one else see's any problems there?

[ToyZuki]

Originally Posted by foproy

ami the only one seeing a tone of logistical problems with this set up? you will have all three drive shafts constantly moving when on that rocks no one else see's any problems there?

You lost me. Of coarse all drivelines move. Why would that be a problem?

[slobin3d]

Official response... Although the truck design is unique and not the traditional MOA design, by the letter of the rules it would not be legal. We are reveiwing the rules for next year though.

[skid]

Originally Posted by slobin3d

Official response... Although the truck design is unique and not the traditional MOA design, by the letter of the rules it would not be legal. We are reveiwing the rules for next year though.

Now that is out of the way, technical question for the masses. Would this setup actually reduce torque twist, not change it or make it worse?

I start thinking about it, and for the motor to tranfer power, the motor housing is pushing against the axle housing, through the links to the chassis, then to the axles. I invision the chassis/ tcase as kind of a worn out carrier bearing now. Just it is supported by shocks now. Depending on rotation of the motor versus axle drivelines, I' think this could make things worse if they spin the same rotation, or better if they oppose direction?

[rybredd]

can i chime in?

flip the bracket over and its motor on leaf spring

either way....Nice Project!