Motor / Encoder "Modification" and Rule Intent

[dougwilliams]

Hello all-

We would like to mount an encoder on the backside of a standard CIM style motor, which does not have an exposed backshaft. We were considering drilling a hole through the back cover, and tapping the back side of the shaft to port a small supplementary back-shaft which would turn a back-mounted encoder. This would be a benefit for teams using CIM motors, making available a standard, portable motor/encoder package.

This possibly violates "the mechanical system of the motor", but does not seem to violate the intent of the rule: maintaining the overall power and weight of the motor. We feel this can be accomplished without spoiling the structural integrity of the motor.

Do you think this modification would be in violation of typical rule sets?

Or - are we missing some other obvious method? (FYI- We don't typically wind up with gear boxes with spare rotating shafts, and didn't want to use up the main shaft length if unnecessary or add extension couplers to it. Back mounting seemed the most compact and portable solution).

Thanks for the help and advice!!!