Excellent points about associated structures! However for the motors, isn't it the case that the support structure design is dominated by the thrust loads, which should vastly exceed the motor mass? For sure, there is some non-thrust-related structure to react the motor's mass, e.g., inertia from a harsh landing, but how much extra is it? This is much more the case with power/mass optimized motors like yours.
Consider an ideal case - you achieve the same power with negligible mass, say 1kg. How much structure in my aircraft using your motor could I really eliminate vs your current model?
And the real case, switching from a competitor's similar-power motor to yours, how much additional structure weight can I save by switching, beyond the obvious great advantage of your motor's weight savings?
(Obviously, these answers massively depend on other factors, but... )
Consider an ideal case - you achieve the same power with negligible mass, say 1kg. How much structure in my aircraft using your motor could I really eliminate vs your current model?
And the real case, switching from a competitor's similar-power motor to yours, how much additional structure weight can I save by switching, beyond the obvious great advantage of your motor's weight savings?
(Obviously, these answers massively depend on other factors, but... )