2016 season Radio Control Rock Crawling rule changes

[JohnRobHolmes]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10CIfQa6-vUjvvIaiWI1uBqxU9lA7m7SuFnnfpTTEDKo/edit

This announcement will inform you of the major changes that are effective immediately for RCCA events. At Worlds this year, I announced some changes and also took votes on other changes. At next years worlds, we will also take votes on specific issues which will be announced prior to the event.

*2.2S class is now called 2.2 Shaft Driven. AKA 2.2 Shafty or 2.2S.

*2.2P class is now called 2.2 Modified. AKA 2.2Mod or 2.2M.

*Touch penalties shall not occur when the driver does not intentionally interact with the rig.



*Body panel requirements- These have been removed for bodiless vehicles based on feedback from drivers.

*2.2S body requirements- Dimensional requirements have been removed based on feedback from drivers, it was an overwhelming majority vote. We will reassess the affects of this change carefully for next years rules.

▪ 2.5.6 - Bodied Vehicles only, typically a lexan body that is removable from chassis. Bodiless vehicles are prohibited. Bodies must be of original width and resemble a 1:1 vehicle with cab, door, and hood panels. Chassis and body overall measurements must meet 8x3x3" length width height.

2.2S Motor mounting ▪ 2.5.8 - Motor must be chassis mounted. Motor mount cannot be part of or directly coupled to an axle.

2.2mod motor limits ▪ 2.3.7 - Limited to two motors


Judge Requirements: As of 9/15/2015 there is not a requirement for individual course judges. Events without individual judges shall have three or more Marshalls to walk and randomly inspect courses, vehicles, and participants. Drivers can self judge in groups, similar to playing golf. Group size shall be determined by event Marshall(s), and should typically be four or more drivers. Groups can be modified or created at event Marshall discretion. Participants not actively driving must help time and score to fulfill the role of Judge. Any group found to be cheating will be disqualified from the competition, and can be disqualified from all sanctioned events if deemed necessary by the RCCA.

 

[Solitaire]

*2.2S body requirements- Dimensional requirements have been removed based on feedback from drivers, it was an overwhelming majority vote. We will reassess the affects of this change carefully for next years rules.

▪ 2.5.6 - Bodied Vehicles only, typically a lexan body that is removable from chassis. Bodiless vehicles are prohibited. Bodies must resemble a 1:1 vehicle with cab and be of original width and length. No dimensional requirements.

Just for clarification...
Most shafty drivers use the XCiter body and have been cutting it down to meet the minimum 12.5" length.

As I read this new rule, any body can be used as long as it's not trimmed lengthwise (or widthwise). So if a driver wanted to use a mini body on a shafty he could, but cannot cut down an XCiter body as done in the past?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Error on my behalf, was supposed to just be width. Thank you for the quick catch. Changed for clarification with hood and door section added.

▪ 2.5.6 - Bodied Vehicles only, typically a lexan body that is removable from chassis. Bodiless vehicles are prohibited. Bodies must be of original width and resemble a 1:1 vehicle with cab, door, and hood panels. No dimensional requirements.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

I would also like to address the removal of body panels as a requirement. Nobody voiced that they wanted to remove panels from the rig, as that makes them catch on rocks easily. But now we don't have to measure complicated shapes or compromise chassis design because of requirements on mounting panels.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

A small change to the group judging wording. Instead of defining it as two or more, which is the bare minimum and how judging currently works, I changed the wording to reflect what a typical group would be- four or more drivers but at the discretion of the marshals.

 

[Solitaire]

Thanks for the clarification and the change to the 2.2P bodiless panel rule. The 2.2P body panel dimension rule made absolutely no sense.

Not sure why 2.2P has to be changed to 2.2M. Any reason for that?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

There was nothing "pro" or "sport" about the classes and they needed better description for new folks to understand the difference. Surprisingly, 2.2P was not actually named 2.2 Pro in the rules, just 2.2. Maybe I changed it by accident and forgot. We have shaft driven class, and then the other class. What better name than modified? I certainly couldn't come up with one. It really describes what the MOA rigs are these days, completely modified creations that are just a few rules short of an unlimited rig. The other glaring option is to call it an MOA class, and technically that isn't a requirement.


I would liken it to how I name motors. I could call them 540 A and 540 B motors, or TorqueMaster and CrawlMaster. Hopefully, one could figure out the difference a little better with more descriptive names.

 

[Erik D_lux]

*Touch penalties shall not occur when the driver cannot be expected to safely dodge a falling rig.

▪ 1.4.1 - Vehicle Touches: include but are not limited to: repairs, repositions, and intentional touching of the rig by the driver.
Special considerations: Driver safety is most important and touch penalties should not occur when a person cannot be expected to safely avoid a falling rig. Touch penalty will occur if driver interacts with intent to control how the rig falls, or more than one fall into driver occurs at the same location. When vehicle comes to complete rest on driver in any position regardless of penalty, standard vehicle repositioning occurs.

Red question:
So, even with safety concerned, if the car hits them 2x in the same spot its a touch penalty?

Green question:
If the car hits them and its safety related, the call is no penalty, no points, repo to last gate? Or this only happens if it touches them and keeps touching them? If it does not keep touching them, they simply continue driving with no penalty no points?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

red question, if the person has the rig fall into them once, then they should move a bit so it doesn't happen again on the same climb. I want to avoid people intentionally using their body to block the rig. One time can be chalked up to safety, the second time they should be better positioned. Maybe there is a better way to word this.

Green question, if the car hits them and bounces off, the driver could keep driving, no points or repo. If it lands on them and doesn't bounce off, its a no penalty repo. Might be better to just make any driver interaction a repo to make it cut and dry? I would like to avoid unnecessary repo and time wasting, but after sleeping on it and having you bring it up I can see this becoming a grey area where people would try to drive the rig off themselves quickly to avoid the "coming to a rest" portion.

 

[Erik D_lux]

"thumbsup" Got it. Thanks

Maybe in both instances, if the judge deems there is an advantage to the driver touching the car, repo no penalty can be called. If no advantage is found, drive on?

Maybe if a repo is an advantage itself the judge can make a judgement call to place the car where it would have fallen and not to the last gate? I dont know if thats too complicated but seems like a calculated touch could be a serious advantage in many situations.

 

[Curcal]

Quick chime in on the judges rule.

I think judging and method should be determined by event coordinator(s). and within reason they should consider all viable options.

I was one of the first to speak out on the judging thread for the worlds even to have consistent and dedicated judges to each course as opposed to a team of 8 or 9 inconsistent individuals or a self judge (golf course style).

When a course work load is carried by 2, 3 or even 4 people (depending upon the number of attendants) it ensures that each driver who comes to that course should receive a some what consistent judge. Because they know the course (hopefully they helped set and vet it) and they have been watching how the course has played out through out the day. Any calls that might be on the judge (floating on a shooter gate, where to repo after a touch penalty, so on and so forth) would be determined by the judges on the course and thus resulting in a consistent result for driver performance.

Now on to what occurred at worlds in the 2.2pro/mod class

6 courses. 48 drivers. 12 to 14 judge volunteers. Sounds completely reasonable. We even ran in groups to help speed up the process. Should have been a pretty good day.

However of those 12 to 14 volunteers, 6 actually stepped up and followed through.

That is by far the problem. The weight of the many was carried by the few. That is why we (the judges) finished in the dark, that is why we (the judges) were all exhausted.

In all reality it was the only thing I was really disappointed in at this event.

This result is in no way the fault of JRH. The only call he could have made when seeing 6 judges actually step up is "Okay we're only running 3 courses today" How disappointed would you all have been if worlds was 3 course and a final? My guess? Pretty damn disappointed.

Maybe this is the wrong thread to air this out, but I don't want to see what should be an event (worlds/nationals) where the highest quality of drivers required the highest quality of judging is reduced to "golf scores"

I think this rule makes sense for local comps and some regional qualifiers, but I would hate to see something like this implemented for an event that determines a champion.

That said, I'll see ya on the rocks.

 

[Erik D_lux]

You said it much better than I could have Curt!

I am at the point where I see crawling like I see a animal becoming extinct. If you put a male and female of the last two species on Earth and its either too lazy or dumb to have sex, I say "it is what it is, it was great having you here, moving on". Do I want to see crawling survive? Yes, but we all need that motivation to save ourselves.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

"thumbsup" Got it. Thanks

Maybe in both instances, if the judge deems there is an advantage to the driver touching the car, repo no penalty can be called. If no advantage is found, drive on?

Maybe if a repo is an advantage itself the judge can make a judgement call to place the car where it would have fallen and not to the last gate? I dont know if thats too complicated but seems like a calculated touch could be a serious advantage in many situations.

Hard to say if it will be more difficult or less to make the judges or judging group make decisions in that regard. I'll mull it over for a bit. I think it is obvious what the intent of this rule is, we just want to avoid people dancing around the rocks when it could lead to injury.

Quick chime in on the judges rule.

I think judging and method should be determined by event coordinator(s). and within reason they should consider all viable options.

I was one of the first to speak out on the judging thread for the worlds even to have consistent and dedicated judges to each course as opposed to a team of 8 or 9 inconsistent individuals or a self judge (golf course style).

When a course work load is carried by 2, 3 or even 4 people (depending upon the number of attendants) it ensures that each driver who comes to that course should receive a some what consistent judge. Because they know the course (hopefully they helped set and vet it) and they have been watching how the course has played out through out the day. Any calls that might be on the judge (floating on a shooter gate, where to repo after a touch penalty, so on and so forth) would be determined by the judges on the course and thus resulting in a consistent result for driver performance.

Now on to what occurred at worlds in the 2.2pro/mod class

6 courses. 48 drivers. 12 to 14 judge volunteers. Sounds completely reasonable. We even ran in groups to help speed up the process. Should have been a pretty good day.

However of those 12 to 14 volunteers, 6 actually stepped up and followed through.

That is by far the problem. The weight of the many was carried by the few. That is why we (the judges) finished in the dark, that is why we (the judges) were all exhausted.

In all reality it was the only thing I was really disappointed in at this event.

This result is in no way the fault of JRH. The only call he could have made when seeing 6 judges actually step up is "Okay we're only running 3 courses today" How disappointed would you all have been if worlds was 3 course and a final? My guess? Pretty damn disappointed.

Maybe this is the wrong thread to air this out, but I don't want to see what should be an event (worlds/nationals) where the highest quality of drivers required the highest quality of judging is reduced to "golf scores"

I think this rule makes sense for local comps and some regional qualifiers, but I would hate to see something like this implemented for an event that determines a champion.

That said, I'll see ya on the rocks.

The only call I wish I had made, was to split the judges into two groups of three so yall weren't running into the night. The event really illustrated the bottleneck that is created with judging and forced me to address it.



We are all used to the one on one judging style, and so it will take a while for people to get used to the concept of being personally accountable for your score. I agree about a high level event being tricky to implement group judging, which is why I am making it an option and not THE standard. But at the same time, I would rather a National or World event without exhausted judges driving into the night if given the choice.

There are a few ways to curb cheating. Firstly, it puts the entire group at risk of being ejected from an event, so there is an incentive to be honest and keep your fellow crawlers in check. Groups can be created with competitors that would keep each other in check. Break up clubs a bit, mix them with others. Denote certain individuals as private marshals, you don't know who they are. Also, the finals could include a half day of driving (and regular judges) instead of just one course. Even if somebody managed to cheat a bit unnoticed, an extended finals would weed out the ones that didn't have skill and ensure the top three were genuine. I think we would have more people wanting to be a part of judging finals day as compared to the regular event days as well.


The reason I bring up golf as a comparison with judging, is that both regular golf and disc golf have had the same problems, and have successfully addressed them with similar methods. If we get to the point where folks are winning money regularly, then I would hope we have enough money to run the event with paid judges during finals at least. Otherwise, we are mostly playing for bowling trophies and bragging rights, and if somebody manages to cheat their way to the top, then they will deal with being a piece of shit person at risk of being blacklisted from competing. I would personally ensure that they lose all sponsors, ability to sponsor, ability to compete, and credibility of character. If that isn't a reason to keep yourself and your peers straight, then I don't know what is.

 

[Curcal]

We are all used to the one on one judging style, and so it will take a while for people to get used to the concept of being personally accountable for your score. I agree about a high level event being tricky to implement group judging, which is why I am making it an option and not THE standard. But at the same time, I would rather a National or World event without exhausted judges driving into the night if given the choice.

Cool.

There are a few ways to curb cheating. Firstly, it puts the entire group at risk of being ejected from an event, so there is an incentive to be honest and keep your fellow crawlers in check. Groups can be created with competitors that would keep each other in check. Break up clubs a bit, mix them with others. Denote certain individuals as private marshals, you don't know who they are.

I like running with my guys and so does everyone else. But the secret marshals sounds pretty cool.

Also, the finals could include a half day of driving (and regular judges) instead of just one course. Even if somebody managed to cheat a bit unnoticed, an extended finals would weed out the ones that didn't have skill and ensure the top three were genuine. I think we would have more people wanting to be a part of judging finals day as compared to the regular event days as well.

Judges run first or a mandatory breaks where only judges can run course.

The reason I bring up golf as a comparison with judging, is that both regular golf and disc golf have had the same problems, and have successfully addressed them with similar methods.

The rule book for golf is very thin. Their decisions book is very very thick.

If we get to the point where folks are winning money regularly, then I would hope we have enough money to run the event with paid judges during finals at least. Otherwise, we are mostly playing for bowling trophies and bragging rights, and if somebody manages to cheat their way to the top, then they will deal with being a piece of shit person at risk of being blacklisted from competing. I would personally ensure that they lose all sponsors, ability to sponsor, ability to compete, and credibility of character. If that isn't a reason to keep yourself and your peers straight, then I don't know what is.

Blackballed for cheating seems fair.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

I wouldn't want to break up clubs/friends unless absolutely needed, more of a stopgap that a marshal can call if something seems shady. Nothing is better than having fun with a group of friends, and that shouldn't have to change!


In regards to Worlds/ Nats for 2016, we will have to see how the judging situation stacks up. If we get another issue with just a few having to support everybody else, then we can always fall back on group judging for the general event and use the individual judges during finals.

 

[Krawler Kev]

My issue with "golf" style judging is as follows:

Course #2 - DLUX judged course

I know that Stephan was the only person to make gate 2 clean (until I arrived). If there was golf style judging, there would be allot of disbelief that this actually happened. However, with a proper judge in place in can be confirmed very easily.

I know that this was a bad example, however, I just wanted you ALL to know that only Stephan and I made gate 2 clean on Erik's course.

I always volunteer when I go to an event like this. My own club members give me grief for it "because they want us all to run together". I will keep volunteering because the more courses that are run at an event like this, the true champion will emerge (Jrock).

Keep the conversation going and I am looking forward to next year's Worlds, or BOTW, or NENC, or Eurocrawl. I'm just not sure which event I'll attend.

 

[Fishmaxx]

"thumbsup" Got it. Thanks

Maybe in both instances, if the judge deems there is an advantage to the driver touching the car, repo no penalty can be called. If no advantage is found, drive on?

Maybe if a repo is an advantage itself the judge can make a judgement call to place the car where it would have fallen and not to the last gate? I dont know if thats too complicated but seems like a calculated touch could be a serious advantage in many situations.

Maybe something like ....

Drivers having vehicles falling into themselves or spotter shall have no penalty called unless they are deemed trying posion themselves to gain an advantage if a fall occurs.
No Obvious Advantage = Drive On
Obvious Advantage = Roposition to Previous Gate


Still a little rough, but I think you get the point.

 

[binaryterror]

I still am lost on the advantage always given to Bodiless vs Bodied. 8"x3"x3" is the limit in 2.2P.

When I run Bodiless the chassis is used to take all these measurements, that's fine.

Now when you run Bodied, the body itself must measure 8"x3"x3". Given that not many here can or do make their own bodies we run existing ones which don't always fit perfectly so we trim, fold and all we can legally to get it to look good and fit the rules within the rules.

If the bottom of my Chassis is 1" below the lowest part of the Body itself as mounted, why isn't that 3" the height of the body plus the amount the chassis now extends below? Using Bodiless rules if my chassis is 1" extended below the body then I could legally run a 2" tall body (as all I need it 3" total height). This as I'm aware is not how Body dimensions are currently verified.

 

[crawlinghulls]

I know that as a group, whether it is with the Boston crew or here in CT, most if not all of this is handled/understood during the course walkthrough led by the officials."thumbsup". I think a course walkthrough should be something that is mandated by rules.

Maybe something like ....

Drivers having vehicles falling into themselves or spotter shall have no penalty called unless they are deemed trying posion themselves to gain an advantage if a fall occurs.
No Obvious Advantage = Drive On
Obvious Advantage = Roposition to Previous Gate


Still a little rough, but I think you get the point.

 

[Olle P]

... What better name than modified? I certainly couldn't come up with one. It really describes what the MOA rigs are these days, completely modified creations that are just a few rules short of an unlimited rig. ...

I'd suggest "Free", since the competitive shafty rigs are nowhere near stock, but also heavily modified.

2.2S is just a little more restricted than 2.2-/P/M.