• Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.

    It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

    Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

Petition for unified body/bodiless measurements

Should body/bodiless measurements be unified

  • Total voters
    99
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

krawlfreak said:
I suggest 3 tall 6.5 long and 2.5 as a minimum for all
Click to expand...

I like your thinking, it would allow people some freedom to explore new designs that might not be obtainable under the current numbers/rules. Also, I don't feel that it would be in a guys best interest to run out and design the newest/smallest chassis possible. Just because its the minimum size doesn't mean that its the optimum size.

ROCKEDUP RICKY said:
What measurements would you think would be good for bodied, bodiless oh and unibody to share. Do we go with something in between and and make every one start over.(this would fair)

The intent of the measurements we have now were put in place to try and keep the rigs looking somewhat like a real truck.
Click to expand...

If you implemented a new minimum, like others have said, that doesn't disqualify any current setups then no one would have to "start over". Unless they wanted to.:mrgreen:

On your second point I quoted... I think we need to look into the mirror and decide if 2.2p is a class that promotes and showcases the latest advancements in r/c crawler vehicle dynamics or a competition class of already piss poor looking scaled down 1:1's. If new blood is looking for "scale" then they sure as hell aren't interested in the comp classes as they stand. With that said, it seems reasonable to me that you rework a few rules here and there to promote advancements in vehicle performance.
 
I voted yes & gotta say that I'm with Ted. Who cares how the end product LOOKS as long as it falls into the unified dimensions?

The thing about supposed advantages & disadvantages...they cease to exist as long as there are set dimensions. ANYONE can make use of that available sizing.

J.D.
 
DickyT said:
You should click the poll at the top Will "thumbsup"

Voted Yes. But it will need to be clear and not lose sight of them being 'trucks'. Things like minimum height from where the hood and windshield meet to the roof line should stay. With defined hood, roof, and sides with minimums for each, so that they continue to resemble vehicles and don't become just abstract shapes on wheels.
Click to expand...

I agree and that would go for the body side as well
 
I voted yes but I am hoping the body come down to the bodyless size and not the other way around. But like Dicky T said it should still look like something.

But I don't care if you want to run a body with a really short hood and deck lid.
 
I would say if they are going to unify the sizes, it should eliminate the difference between the two. Just an overall size. There is no need to have them look scale. Push the envelope and make what works best regardless of what it looks like as long as it meets the minimum size. If I want to run a brick, as long as it is the proper size I should be allowed to.
Click to expand...
what he said... - voted yes
 
I voted no, at the end of the day these are 1:10th scale crawlers so they need to look 1:10th scale not like some kids cheap monster truck
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
My capra "build"
Replies
6
Views
983
Jefferson87
J
C
AX10 Scorpion RTR turned NMRCC Trail Class Build
2 3
Replies
45
Views
609
Chingon
C
T
WE RC ROCK Rules 2024
Replies
1
Views
2K
cooper_xl
cooper_xl
OSRC
The HPI Project
Replies
14
Views
1K
Saltrock
S
C
c0bra’s MFab comanche conversion build
Replies
0
Views
654
c0bra
C
Back
Top