2016 season Radio Control Rock Crawling rule changes

[Robbob]

I like the Modified change - Pro kind of paints the image its for professional drivers/builders where as Modified better describes the truck and not the drivers.


Personally I dont like the Body rule for 2.2S though ........ Your gonna have guys showing up with 1:24 lexan bodies and legally they fit into the rules. Might as well be bodiless at that size.

I think we need at least a minimal length that keeps it in a 1/16 or 1/12 scale area.

 

[Fishmaxx]

Via text I had a conversation with JRH about driver safety. My personal situation was the opposite of the truck falling into me....I almost fell on my truck.

I had a penalty called on me for accidentally stepping on my truck. Time was stopped and I was climbing to my new driving postion. My back foot slipped, and I put my lead foot down earlier than planned resulting in me stepping on my back tire. Little or no movement occurred, and certainly no advantage occurred.

I only mentioned it something to consider for your current rules safety update

He indicated that that was along the lines of his view point.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

I like the Modified change - Pro kind of paints the image its for professional drivers/builders where as Modified better describes the truck and not the drivers.


Personally I dont like the Body rule for 2.2S though ........ Your gonna have guys showing up with 1:24 lexan bodies and legally they fit into the rules. Might as well be bodiless at that size.

I think we need at least a minimal length that keeps it in a 1/16 or 1/12 scale area.

Strangely enough, bodiless was voted down by almost everybody while the removal of body measures was supported by almost everyone. The good thing about having just me oversee rules changes- I can change it back next year if we have such an issue.

The end goal has always been to keep them looking kinda scale. It's failed so well that it doesn't matter what we try to measure.

Along the lines of 2.2s measures, we will have overall measures of body plus chassis the same as 2.2 mod. I don't think it is patently obvious with the way I modified the rules. I will be back at a desktop computer on Monday to review wording.

 

[Robbob]

Strangely enough, bodiless was voted down by almost everybody while the removal of body measures was supported by almost everyone. The good thing about having just me oversee rules changes- I can change it back next year if we have such an issue.

The end goal has always been to keep them looking kinda scale. It's failed so well that it doesn't matter what we try to measure.

Along the lines of 2.2s measures, we will have overall measures of body plus chassis the same as 2.2 mod. I don't think it is patently obvious with the way I modified the rules. I will be back at a desktop computer on Monday to review wording.

Ya, Im with no bodiless in 2.2S as well ..... That's it though the wording lets you 'interpret' what you want.

No dimensional requirements

Right there I can slap even a micro body on it and Im legal. Remove the grey areas people always look for.

 

[cboggs]

How about wording it that the body must be as long as the chassis?

 

[Erik D_lux]

What would the problem be with running a small or micro body?

I thought the consensus was that if you want to scale, you should go to the scale scene?

 

[Robbob]

What would the problem be with running a small or micro body?

I thought the consensus was that if you want to scale, you should go to the scale scene?

Whats the problem with running a body that covers the whole chassis and looks more realistic?

 

[Erik D_lux]

I dont have a problem with running a larger body, I dont have a problem with a smaller body. I dont have a problem with bodiless. I guess I dont really have a problem with whatever you want your car to look like. I guess my problem is why others want to force me to make my car look scale just because they like a scale looking car.

Just curious why you are concerned with what other peoples cars look like.

 

[Erik D_lux]

BTW, I think a 1:18 body looks more realistic than a 1:10 body that most use anyway. If you take the 1:10 scale to the tires, you have close to a 53- 60" tall tire! The body should look tiny compared to the tires.

Speaking of realistic, do some of the 1:10 even resemble anything close to a rock buggy? Some are way out to lunch.

I am sorry if what I am saying offends but scaling is only pertinent to the person who is judging everybody else and their cars. Its a huge turn off to the hobby and turns people away. I know I personally dont do anything scale because of all the B.S. that it brings.

"Scale this" "Scale that" just gets really old really quick and it really boils down to a guy wanting his car to look a certain way but he must force everybody else to make their car look the same way or he will be at a disadvantage since scaling is the opposite of performance.

 

[tapped-out]

Maybe body specs should be the same in both 2.2M & 2.2s I think it would be easiest. 3x3x8"
That's just me these are minimum sizes .

 

[Curcal]

There's a perfect example of this in the scale rules section right now.

One builder wants scale points for separating his coil spring and his shock, like many real trucks have..... the guys with leaf springs are saying this mod doesn't hinder performance enough to warrant scale points. so on and so forth.

 

[Robbob]

I dont have a problem with running a larger body, I dont have a problem with a smaller body. I dont have a problem with bodiless. I guess I dont really have a problem with whatever you want your car to look like. I guess my problem is why others want to force me to make my car look scale just because they like a scale looking car.

Just curious why you are concerned with what other peoples cars look like.

Just the 2.2S class because quite honestly I believe that class was let to get away from what it was (a lot of us were hoping for) to be intended for. Bringing new blood to our sport.

How soon before we see someone running a bodiless truck ........ with a micro body and calling it a roll cage? :roll:

Its gonna happen ..... then what, just say fark it lets run bodiless in this class too.

I guess my problem is why others want to force me to make my car look scale just because they like a scale looking car.

For the same reason you're forced to keep your 2.2M no longer then 12.5'' ..... Rules and you want to run in that class. If you don't like them then you don't have to run it.

 

[Robbob]

BTW, I think a 1:18 body looks more realistic than a 1:10 body that most use anyway. If you take the 1:10 scale to the tires, you have close to a 53- 60" tall tire! The body should look tiny compared to the tires.

Speaking of realistic, do some of the 1:10 even resemble anything close to a rock buggy? Some are way out to lunch.

I am sorry if what I am saying offends but scaling is only pertinent to the person who is judging everybody else and their cars. Its a huge turn off to the hobby and turns people away. I know I personally dont do anything scale because of all the B.S. that it brings.

"Scale this" "Scale that" just gets really old really quick and it really boils down to a guy wanting his car to look a certain way but he must force everybody else to make their car look the same way or he will be at a disadvantage since scaling is the opposite of performance.

You're reading too much into the word 'Scale' .......... take a step back and look at the Hobby and not your personal interpretation of a word.


The less (defined) rules you have for a class the quicker it gets out of control.

2.2S trucks should not cost as much as a pro rig and the closer they get to each other in rules the smaller the attendance is gonna be of NEW people helping the sport GROW.

Ask any one who has been in the racing world of RC's ...... Attendance didn't increase with new faces because of more classes, its just the same people running more vehicles.

 

[tapped-out]

For bringing new faces, I've seen another thread talking about a "box stock " class IMO this is what local clubs should offer so a guy can pick up a RTR & run with other RTR's. Could be a AX10 or a red cat as long as it's "box stock" come on out and compete.
If they enjoy the comp style course's maybe they'll try their luck in 2.2s or 2.2 mod class.

This way a guy can buy a comp rig off the self."thumbsup"

My definition of box stock. all parts component are original parts when rig was purchased RTR Electronics may be moved around for better COG and shock oil can be tuned & weight added inside wheels.

 

[Solitaire]

A number of 2.2 Pro drivers have been using mini bodies on their trucks and they look fine as well as fitting the 3x3x8 rule we've had. I don't think you could get a micro body on a shafty without some major hacking. Maybe keep the 3x3x8 rule for shafty for a start.

As far as enticing new drivers with "box stock" trucks, I think there should be a few added allowances such as steering and overdrive/underdrive.

 

[tapped-out]

As far as enticing new drivers with "box stock" trucks, I think there should be a few added allowances such as steering and overdrive/underdrive.

We should move box stock discussion over to the other thread.
With the upgraded above you should drive 2.2s class not "box stock" IMO "thumbsup"

 

[Solitaire]

We should move box stock discussion over to the other thread.

Point me in the direction of that thread, please. I haven't come across it yet.

With the upgraded above you should drive 2.2s class not "box stock" IMO "thumbsup"

Yeah, lost my head for a second there.

 

[Robbob]

A number of 2.2 Pro drivers have been using mini bodies on their trucks and they look fine as well as fitting the 3x3x8 rule we've had. I don't think you could get a micro body on a shafty without some major hacking. Maybe keep the 3x3x8 rule for shafty for a start.

No major hacking when you say 'No dimensional requirements' .......... Im more saying we need dimensional requirements. What was wrong with having them before that it needs to be thrown out now?

Its all on how you interpret the rules and when theirs vagueness how do you tech them.

 

[tapped-out]

Point me in the direction of that thread, please. I haven't come across it yet.

Remember this thread is for their local club. but has me wondering if it would actually bring new blood @ local level.
http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/california/545110-norcal-rcrc-possible-box-stock-class.html

 

[Solitaire]

No major hacking when you say 'No dimensional requirements' .......... Im more saying we need dimensional requirements. What was wrong with having them before that it needs to be thrown out now?

Its all on how you interpret the rules and when theirs vagueness how do you tech them.

From what I can see, most shafty chassis' won't allow too small a body. I doubt my latest SuckerPunch would accept anything smaller than 3x3x8 and that's with no spacers at the top right side due to using a different tranny. I suppose if one wanted to use anything smaller they could perch it on top of the chassis, but that kinda defeats the whole idea.

The more I think about this, I'd like to see 3x3x8 as the minimum just to prevent any "vagueness", but I think it'll be self policing.