[PaulCooper]

https://youtu.be/09GwJh64mEg

Please see the link showing how Thunderslot has changed its motor and the way they are mounted. 

[Kevan]

Is that honestly the best solution they can come up with

[PaulCooper]

What the issue is that there has been no warning, so if you purchased one of these you would be miffed as now the car is not compatible out the box as previous models. None of the dealers has noticed or given out a warning to this change?

[Graham]

It looks like it was something they were forced into, rather than a planned change. Perhaps their supplier decided to stop making the original type at short notice.

But it would have been more honest if Thunderslot had changed the motor label to reflect the change in spec ?

[Kevan]

I have drilled & tapped M2 fixing holes in quite a lot of motors, I certainly wouldn't be using this bracket.

Wouldn't it be better to utilise the hole in the can just below the bearing...

   

[Graham]

I have drilled & tapped M2 fixing holes in quite a lot of motors, I certainly wouldn't be using this bracket.

Wouldn't it be better to utilise the hole in the can just below the bearing...

To me the location of the motor is not the so much the issue, it is the fact that the performance of the new motor appeared to be less than the original one (on the video), but still with the same label on 

[GT40Racer]

Noticed the video is no longer available.
We might have to wait and see on the performance. 
Perhaps with the motors in the video one was a sweet motor and the other was a mild one.

We have found the Thunderslots pretty consistent but even so we have had examples of different performance between two of the same cars. 
It will be a shame if this motor turns out to be not on par with the other motors.

As for using the top hole Kevan - that would have required a change to the motor pod.
I quite like the livery on the blue and white #12 car but will waiting and see how it performs before committing my $$ to it.

From what I understand Graham the motor spec is the same - I am guessing that Thunderslot changed suppliers. I recall a post about getting motors made to spec - you tell the company what spec you want and they make the motors but there is usually some tolerances for this I don't know what the acceptable tolerances are but +/- 5% would give a potential difference between two motors of around 2000rpm

DM

[Kevan]

I've got NSR's with a hole in the pod that lines up with that hole under the bearing and a braid eyelet is a nice tight fit and have used it to retain at least one motor in the past.

[JMay]

Having spent more than 2 years off & on in China, working with, and validating product suppliers and their key subcontractors, can sympathise with Thunderslot if they were held to the mercy of the motor supplier moving the goalposts or even refusing to supply. Doesn’t excuse not re-labelling or changing the endbell colour of the motor to show its a different specification but they wouldn’t be the first Slot supplier to suffer from changing specifications and not highlight it. Hopefully the motor tested is a bottom specification one and the rest will be more equal to the old motor.

An interesting point to draw out of this is the bracket is quite useful for NSR SW pods and motors without fixing holes as I lost a race due to the glued in motor on my NSR 917 lifting. Not keen on drilling motor cans and liking the idea of an add on part easily accessible without taking the pod out, have drawn up a bracket on CAD that can be printed and fitted similar to the Thunderslot one.

   

Cheers John

[Kevan]

Bent brass sheet is another option, also can be made thinner and would be stronger.