[mark christopher]

Originally Posted by Oscar

I can see why there is a degree of ambiguity and confusion here. If you were to take the brushed rules regarding armature/can combinations,
5.3 Replacement armatures are allowed, providing they have been approved and are available from the manufacturer of that motor.
It would be possible to create and legally run a motor which was impossible to buy off the shelf, even though you probably would not want to.
For example to put a Reedy Ti arm (small comm motor, stand up, brush dual magnet) in a Reedy KR can (Large comm motor, laydown brush, quad magnet).

I can see why we need to wait for clarification on the matter.

Originally Posted by Slowcoach

4.4 If an approved type/range of motor is changed in any substantial way, it must be resubmitted for approval, and must be available at retail outlets incorporating such changes. Examples:- can colour, label design, brush dimensions, orientation of the brushes or design change of end bell assembly major components. This will include any design changes or additions to the armature or commutator by the manufacturer.Addition or removal of screw-fixing heatsinks is allowed. Change of end-bell colour is allowed providing all design features are maintained

Having changed a bonded for a sintered rotor, I can tell you that they are two completely different items.

I have seen that Novak are going to go all sintered. If that is the case and their motors are resubmitted, with no other changes, then there is no reason why you can't retro fit a sintered rotor (to the Novak at least).

unfortunatly those rules mention nothing about rotors, and brushless dont use a armature! so unless the EB are making the rules as they go................................................ ..................