BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[rock hard]

Intent rule has been around as long as I can recall. ~2004.

"A Jeep must look like a Jeep."

However I'm not sure if that remains in the rules. And come to think of it, maybe that was the scaler rules?

I wasnt around in 04, but I was around in 08, and there was no violation of intent rule as is now.

That came up after the disney nats as I recall.
I think what you may be refering to is that they wanted our trucks to reseblle trucks.

That may not have refered much to bodiless at the time as it may have had to do with people ( like myself ) hacking away at the bodies of our lexan topped crawlers.

alsoo back in 08 I could read nearly all of the past rules threads and read the debates of various situations.
I enjoyed the read, seeing how the rules changed over time, and the debate over hot topics.

Now there is little left in the rules thread to go back to, its been mostly all removed from the thread.

 

[Ty]

I think the most important function of a cab it the increased ridgity they provide to the chassis. Just the same way a cage does on a drag car, bolted or welded they both serve a function! Not sure on welding carbon? Ty

 

[EeePee]

I think what you may be refering to is that they wanted our trucks to reseblle trucks.

Correct. I'm misunderstanding, nevermind me. Actually, I guess it's somewhat relevant in the sense that we had some things still loosely worded, yet understood in a sporting manner. And it went on for years.

 

[JeremyH]

Would you turn away a 1:1 with a soft top instead of a roll cage?

I am pretty sure anything without a cage would be turned away at a 1:1 comp...they have minimum safety standards at most events.

Because people would pick at it (like they do) and pretty soon you'd need a lawyer to decipher it.

What if the guy teching trucks at a comp said to you as you walked up to the table "I'm sorry, but the intent of rule 2.1.11.39.2.1....8 is that we don't allow people with RCC screen names that start with the letter 'D' to compete at these events"?

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

What if the guy teching trucks at a comp said to you as you walked up to the table "I'm sorry, but the intent of rule 2.1.11.39.2.1....8 is that we don't allow people with RCC screen names that start with the letter 'D'"?

Then I would, in no particular order, yell and kick and scream and stomp my feet and hold my breath and call him a big doody head.



And then tell him that he is interpreting the intent wrong and that according to MY interpretation, screen names starting with "D" belong to truly special people who deserve nothing less than total respect and have unquestionable authority. And maybe have rose petals thrown at their feet as they walk...

 

[JeremyH]

Then I would yell and kick and scream and stomp my feet and hold my breath and call him a big doody head.
....
And then tell him that he is interpreting the intent wrong and that according to MY interpretation, screen names starting with "D" are truly special people who deserve nothing less than total respect and have unquestionable authority. And maybe have rose petals thrown at their feet as they walk...

Exactly. And THAT is what is wrong with rules of "intent".....there can be a number of interpretations of vague rules. Rules are best written clearly and concisely and leave no room for interpretation.

 

[rock hard]

Correct. I'm misunderstanding, nevermind me. Actually, I guess it's somewhat relevant in the sense that we had some things still loosely worded, yet understood in a sporting manner. And it went on for years.

I think your right about some things just being understood. But there alwasy has been debate on this or that, and often when a rig comes up with new ideas impleamented, if frowned upon, the rules are modified to suit.

Like the telecoping chassis, it was frowned upon. As I recall thats when the wording of ( same length, width ,ect ) was added.
But I cant tell for sure, since I can no longer go back and find all these topics anylonger.

which is what should happen to a point
IMO if a rig is legal at the time rulles are written, it should stay legal until the next yrs rules come out.
There shouldnt be any changing of rules mid swing IMO

But rules should insure to help point the sport in the intended direction. That justifies not allowing things the commiite feels will hurt, and allwoing what they think will help.

I may disagree with what they decide, but so long as they have the best for the sport.

I do strongly feel though that the sport IS its current members, not its potential new members.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Exactly. And THAT is what is wrong with rules of "intent".....there can be a number of interpretations of vague rules. Rules are best written clearly and concisely and leave no room for interpretation.

I agree 100%, but as I said earlier, people like to find an poke holes in things. Even the utmost clear and concise rule, unless it is explained exhaustively and extensively, will still leave room for someone to argue its intent.

 

[JeremyH]

I agree 100%, but as I said earlier, people like to find an poke holes in things. Even the utmost clear and concise rule, unless it is explained exhaustively and extensively, will still leave room for someone to argue its intent.

Then why even have rules? Just put one that says "you must do what we say" and then leave it up to the tech guy and course judge to determine the intent....

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Then why even have rules? Just put one that says "you must do what we say" and then leave it up to the tech guy and course judge to determine the intent....

The tech guys and judges should be aware of not only the rules, but the intents behind them. Isn't that what a rule is, a way to enforce what you intend?

 

[rock hard]

Then why even have rules? Just put one that says "you must do what we say" and then leave it up to the tech guy and course judge to determine the intent....

Thats funny you say that, I remember when the intent rule came out, it was questioned.

It was described very simulare to how did by a rules rep.

" Cuz we said so "

Even if he was kiding, its still arragant.

 

[JeremyH]

Isn't that what a rule is, a way to enforce what you intend?

As I said earlier.......the rule (and therefore Rules Committee) should say what it means and mean what it says.

 

[rock hard]

The tech guys and judges should be aware of not only the rules, but the intents behind them. Isn't that what a rule is, a way to enforce what you intend?

Only the commitie can interpret intent

Not a single commitie member at a comp, or 3 commitie members at a comp, and certainly not anyone who is not
on the commitie

THE commitie in a quarum setting as its mentioned in the rules.
Thats how I describe the intent of THAT rule

 

[Hardline]

I'm pretty sure that "structurally complete" means it can't be a transparent material. Of course Webster's dictionary won't back me up, so it's just an opinion. But it seems all our interpretations are based on personal opinions instead of the dictionary-meaning of the words, so mine is as good as any other.

Why don't the rules say what they mean and mean what they say?

This^^^

 

[rock hard]

I'm pretty sure that "structurally complete" means it can't be a transparent material. Of course Webster's dictionary won't back me up, so it's just an opinion. But it seems all our interpretations are based on personal opinions instead of the dictionary-meaning of the words, so mine is as good as any other.



This^^^

I read once on this topic, they was debating what is ok for side panels.
on a 1:1 rig a piece of expanded metel can be used, and is solid, even though it wont hold water, it will keep your hands and feet in and debre out.

A piece of cloth may not seem solid, but they are solid enough to hold wind and move tonage across the ocean.
cloth will also keep handa and feet in the 1:1 rig and keep debre out.

Both are solid, as there is more than one way to describe a solid material.
I have seen both on real 1:1 examples, and since we are attemtping to resemble 1:1 trucks, both should be deemed legal.

Is paper solid?
the samuri very successfullyt used layers of paper for thier armor
so yes, paper though at 1st may noot seem solid, can infact be used

so IMO what material is used to make an object complete should be left to the builder.
If it fails under load, the judge can say they have an unfair advantage if necessary.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

As I said earlier.......the rule (and therefore Rules Committee) should say what it means and mean what it says.

Yup.

Only the commitie can interpret intent

Not a single commitie member at a comp, or 3 commitie members at a comp, and certainly not anyone who is not
on the commitie

THE commitie in a quarum setting as its mentioned in the rules.
Thats how I describe the intent of THAT rule

The committee can determine and define the intent. A committee member or members at a comp can convey and explain that intent as it was defined at their committee meeting. Any other interpretation should be discussed at a later time.

I'm pretty sure that "structurally complete" means it can't be a transparent material. Of course Webster's dictionary won't back me up, so it's just an opinion. But it seems all our interpretations are based on personal opinions instead of the dictionary-meaning of the words, so mine is as good as any other.

:lmao:

If that is the case, then to me, "structurally complete" means it should include naked jello wrestling and free tequila. Of course, Websters won't back me up either, but it's my personal opinion so its just as good as any other.

 

[rock hard]

Yup.



The committee can determine and define the intent. A committee member or members at a comp can convey and explain that intent as it was defined at their committee meeting. Any other interpretation should be discussed at a later time.

well thats not in the rules

accourding to the rules, if you read it, ONLY ( THE ) commitie can determine intent.

Not any single person, or partial majority of the present members who happen to be there
violaton oof intent is in the rules, but desribing ones recolection of the intnet is what you are talking about, and its not in the rules"thumbsup"]

If the commitie makes a decission of intent, it should be public, so all know what that intent is, no reasns for secrecy.

its rule 8.3, did you read it?
the part at the end in the BIG BOLD LETTERS

its says " without exception " that makes it pretty clear that only the commitie, as a group can make that call.

( though that may not be what they intended;-)

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

accourding to the rules, if you read it, ONLY ( THE ) commitie can determine intent.

Not any singular, or partial majority"thumbsup"

That is what I said. The committee as a whole determines intent, and individual members should be able to explain that agreed upon intent if required to do so.

Look at it this way...there are traffic laws, there are judges, and there are cops.

If you get break one of those laws, the cop will explain which law you have broken and cite you. You can argue the intent and interpretation of the law all day long with him and it won't do you any good, its not his job to determine intent and interpretation, only to enforce the law.

So you go to traffic court and see the judge. You can argue intent and interpretation again, and you may actually make a case for yourself, maybe even get out of your ticket.

I know its not a perfect analogy, but its a simple one. Our rules are the written law, our committee determines its intent, creates and moderates those laws, and the individual members help to enforce them. You can certainly express your interpretation to an individual member, but you cannot expect him to deviate from the determined intent decided upon by the committee as a whole.

 

[rock hard]

That is what I said. The committee as a whole determines intent, and individual members should be able to explain that agreed upon intent if required to do so.

Look at it this way...there are traffic laws, there are judges, and there are cops.

If you get break one of those laws, the cop will explain which law you have broken and cite you. You can argue the intent and interpretation of the law all day long with him and it won't do you any good, its not his job to determine intent and interpretation, only to enforce the law.

So you go to traffic court and see the judge. You can argue intent and interpretation again, and you may actually make a case for yourself, maybe even get out of your ticket.

I know its not a perfect analogy, but its a simple one. Our rules are the written law, our committee determines its intent, creates and moderates those laws, and the individual members help to enforce them. You can certainly express your interpretation to an individual member, but you cannot expect him to deviate from the determined intent decided upon by the committee as a whole.

No one member should be at a comp lecturing what the commitie decided.
it should be public knowledge...I mean seriously.

Look, if this guy was at a comp with this truck, no judge, commitie member or marhall would have had the authority to call a violation of intent accourding to the rules.

They would have had to use the rules as written, determin if it falls within the
paramiters allowed wiithin the rules, and make a call based on that info alone.

 

[rock hard]

Look, only the commitie can decide if the truck violates intent, and they have to meet to do so.

so the guy showed up, and he ran, I say the truck fits the rules, some disagree.

I think the violation of intent rule is stupid, and is a root of more confusion than clarity.

Look, you guys keep at it, but my wife is looking good and I have ill intent.
later:twisted: