MBS Matrix iii (3) discussion

[Tamatoa]

@jack.luis

Any mount that relies on a big grub screw digging into the hangar is outdated and not worthy of these hangars or anything with more than 1kw of power

If the brakes threaded hole is still there we can use that like with the moon drive.

[ShutterShock]

This tolerance stack up doesn’t work well for motor mounts that need to be aligned to a specific place, unless MBS tightens up the tolerance on the brake hole

There aren’t many mounts that I know of that use the brake hole at all. I heard that tolerance was like 0.2mm since it didn’t matter at all for brakes

[jack.luis]

I like the brake hole as a way to mount lights or mud guards. I wouldn’t use it to mount the motors only because there are better ways to do it. Being able to take an entire drive assembly off via the axle nut is a killer feature imo.

@MBS Please consider milling 0.5mm off the ends <3 Maybe charge a premium for versions with milled ends?

[moon]

@jack.luis

Also, is paying a welder really cheaper than CNCing the entire thing?

100%

[ShutterShock]

It really has to do with the complexity factor, tool changes, and other factors.

I bet they can make the hanger part pretty cheap and then separating it from the upper makes the operations much more simple

[Tamatoa]

@MBS

The 22.5mm profile was the smallest I could go to meet my constraint. Same weight as MII, but stronger. I can’t find my original calcs right now, but here are some quick ones that are close (coordintate system not quite right, but gets the point across).

if 0.5 gives such an increase in strength compared to 22mm maybe all the hangers should be bigger, like a few grams more wouldn’t be noticeable, would it? I can bear carrying a heavier board if it means the robot won’t bend them.

Guys like @boardnamics can probably adapt pretty easily to these specs once the trucks are out.

[Boardnamics]

@MBS Since the 22.5mm profile is hollow, would it be worth downsizing to 22mm and adding wall thickness to compensate for the smaller area? Strength to weight ratio is not quite as good but should be very very close. Weight would increase slightly.
I don’t know how far you are in production so maybe this is completely not possible.

As for the mounting holes, my mounts have two halves that come together to get rid of the whole gap issue. The gap from set screw mounts isn’t critical, but the profile’s size tolerance being tight is, of course, desirable.

An important tolerance for (for ESK8 only) not mentioned much is the positioning/straightness of the axle relative to the hanger profile. On my hangers for example, I have GD&T on perpendicularity and positioning on the axle in attempt to keep the axle close to the center so gear drives run concentric.

Also, any chance Matrix III will have longer axles? Or at least no 1/2" diameter step that cannot be utilized?

[jack.luis]

@Boardnamics

I don’t know how far you are in production so maybe this is completely not possible.

Skatan I hope we’re not too late! This sport is growing so fast, and I’d love MBS to be one of the leaders (of course they already are, but competition is coming)

I really like how they do business, seem like good people.

[Lee_Wright]

I agree, big love for MBS. I would just love it if the supply chains were a bit better, bindings being out of stock almost constantly is a problem!

[moddedlife]

I like that we have a discourse here so mount makers and truck makers can collaborate this makes the best situation for consumers

[xsynatic]

Do you guys want me to split this into its own “mbs matrix 3 discussion thread” in the green room?

Done

@MBS

If you promise to keep it within this forum

[Boardnamics]

[Tamatoa]

@Boardnamics

adding wall thickness to compensate for the smaller area?

Wall thickness? Like the hanger is actually hollow?

[Boardnamics]

Yes. Matrix II is hollow.

[Lee_Wright]

That’s right and we should deffo use this to encourage as much standardisation as we can. I know it isn’t going to be possible for everyone but if we can do as much as we can then everyone wins a little.

[A13XR3]

I might be the only one, but I would honestly prefer not to have the captured nuts in the baseplate. Nylocks are easy to use and it’s really not that much of an inconvenience. Plus I don’t have a single Matrix 2 baseplate that still has them in it after removing them from decks a couple times the seem to just fall out.

[Venom121212]

@Boardnamics

any chance Matrix III will have longer axles?

Just came here to mention this also. 9" tires clip my toes on those hard hard leans.

@A13XR3

I would honestly prefer not to have the captured nuts in the baseplate.

I’ve had both versions on matrix 2s. One that had all captured and one that had only 2 recessed for smaller than standard headed nuts. You are not the only one who desires this.

@MBS any change to kingpin pivot point area? Metal on metal rotating always made me nervous.

I’ve had no issues other than needing to double nut the kingpin to keep them from coming loose on some of the wider toleranced baseplates.

[Tony_Stark]

@A13XR3

I would honestly prefer not to have the captured nuts in the baseplate.

+1 to this. You cant really run wedge risers without having separate nuts to allow bolts to sit on an angle.

Also nylon lock rings are more effective than loctite in general, and people like to use both metric and imperial hardware

[Tamatoa]

@Tony_Stark

people like to use both metric and imperial hardware

At the same time? That seems really confusing

[Tony_Stark]

Not at the same time😂