Recently one of the metal inserts (that are used to attach motors to the robot) got damaged one of our V5 motors (see attached picture).
It was damaged when the spokes of a wheel rubbed against it and this raises a few points:
1/ This issue was reported during beta testing, why was a fix not found? A redesign of the insert or even just including a couple of spares with each motor that wasn’t possible.
2/ Is modification of these inserts legal? The only way to make this motor useable is to file down the broken bit of the insert or replace it with a standoff. These fixes aren’t ideal but at least it will make our motor useable again. I would ask myself if this is legal but its the school holidays here in the UK so I can’t ask my mentor to do it for us.
3/ Will VEX sell replacement inserts? These components are pretty simple and clearly easy to damage so will VEX make these available to buy separately.
I’m pretty concerned how easily the insert got damaged, it looks like they can be damaged by accident in a whole range of ways and this should have really been fixed. It would also be great to know if anyone else has had this issue with their motors.
The issue in beta testing was that the thread ran all the way to the end of the thinner part of the standoff (that locates into the metal) which caused them to get stripped easily. Is that the same issue you are seeing here?
Well, that was quick. Within 5 minutes of opening my V5, the insert on our motor has broken. I was testing the motors and the gear brushed the insert and it was warped and separated. This is incredibly frustrating due to how easily the motor was damaged. I hope they will sell replacements Admittedly i was being dumb but…
From that photo, it definitely looks like the pilot part of the insert is still threaded. This was raised in beta and the production motors were not supposed to have thread in the pilot.
Please don’t do this. This is a forum, not a chatroom, meant for productive and constructive discussion. If you’re going to post, make an effort to ensure your post contributes something meaningful to the discussion.
Bring back #6-32 motor screws? That would resolve it because the wall thickness then becomes appropriate for the application, just like the 393. Such a thin wall is asking for trouble and someone appears to have had #8 screw tunnel vision when attempting to find a solution to #6 screw head issues.
Maybe but I suspect if such an easy fix really was actually feasible, within all the usual constraints of time and money, it would have been implemented since this issue was picked up early on in beta.
Admittedly i was being dumb but…