BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[Duuuuuuuude]

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.

You're right, the intent should not be privately held knowledge. I would say it should accompany the rules we have now so that there is no question. Not included IN the rules, but publicly available to anyone at any time.

If a committee member does not have the authority to call a violation of intent, then what good is he? That committee member standing right in front of you is as close as you are going to get to the committee as a whole at that place and time, and they should be well versed in both the rules and the intent behind them. They should absolutely have that authority.

 

[Grandmasboy]

My brain hurts.

 

[BC-Brian]

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.
^^

Bullet proof glass is made of the same thing.... just saying.

I dont think color should be considered when making judgements. Nor should material for that matter. It needs to be determined by its performance/characteristics.

 

[rock hard]

If a committee member does not have the authority to call a violation of intent, then what good is he?

The intent rule is not there so a judge, or committee member can call a person on it.....in a moments notice, going on memory of proir conversations and topics. Not to mention, that yrs after a ruling, you could have different commitee members with different recolection of those conversations and reasons for the particulare rules.

It is there so the rules commitee as a group can use it in a moment like this.
They have the ability to call this new creation a violation of intent, even though its within the rules, if the group feels it truelly violates
the intent.

That power, to make such a call should not fall into any one person, especially to be made in short notice witout proper refelection.

The committee, acting as a group, not in hast, is the only way to properly insure the violation of intent rule is used as intended.

( my opinion of course )

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

The intent rule is not there so a judge, or committee member can call a person on it.....in a moments notice, going on memory of proir conversations and topics.

It is there so the rules commitee as a group can use it in a moment like this.
They have the ability to call this new creation a violation of intent, even though its within the rules, if the group feels it truelly violates
the intent.

That power, to make such a call should not fall into any one person, especially to be made in short notice witout proper refelection.

As a committee, acting as a group, not in hast, is the only way to properly insure the violation of intent rule is used as intended.

( my opinion of course )

Agreed. Since most of us do not know for certain the intent of a particular rule, we have to go by what is known and written.

In a perfect world, we would know the intent as well as we know the rules. That would make spur of the moment rulings much easier.

And, in a perfect world, marshals should know both rules and intent as well as anyone, and be able to make a judgement call confidently and without much conflict.

If there is controversy with such a call, it should come up for review by the committee or here in this forum.

But these are toys driven for bragging rights. It is not life or death...no ones existence is hanging in the balance. If a marshal or committee member acts in accordance with the written rules and their intent (when known), you should accept his judgement whether you agree with it or not, and get on with your day.

 

[Erin]

Whether or not this chassis meets or doesnt meet the rules, Im curious who would feel threatened on course running their current rig against it?

I feel the size discrepancy between bodied and bodiless doesnt make sense. Why should the body be twice the size to be legal? Just because it looks "right"? I thought we had scale for looks and comp rigs for performance. Supers arent required to run short course bodies just so it looks in proportion to the size so why does 2.2 need to?

I feel that dropping bodied size down and leaving bodiless where it currently sits is best for everyone.

And do away with intent. I know it will be difficult but get all the rules black and white. Then we all know where everyone stands...on the same playing field.

 

[EGRESSor]

IF he cuts out the windows then it pretty much resembles a frame. So whats the difference if the windows stay in?

it may be my bad english

but is this not a body on frame construction ?

http://www.masterfile.com/stock-pho...---GMC-body-chassis-exploded-view-parts-frame

is it frame on frame because something i cant see ?

it must be my english
i cant believe that you dont see a difference between a frame w. mouted panels and a body with mounted panels

 

[Dr.Frank]

it may be my bad english

but is this not a body on frame construction ?

is it frame on frame because something i cant see ?

it must be my english
i cant believe that you dont see a difference between a frame w. mouted panels and a body with mounted panels

Seams like the link doesn't work

Here are some other pics:

Top bodiless 3" high
Middle bodiless 3,75" high
Bottom bodied 3" high

Maybe a 3" high bodiless could look like this:

...per example.

Greetings Frank

 

[rock hard]

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

The cab is not needed in the integrity of the chassis itself.
Think of a old jeep ( the willis ), they had no cage, and you can drop the glass, so there is nothing above the hood, but the chassis still performs.
Roll cages are required undoubtably in racing or saftey of the racers. Any perfrmance gained ( stiffer chassis ) is not the reason for the requirment of a cage.

The purpose of the cab, when it comes to rigidity for rc crawling, is to insure you dont fall out of spec if you have a hard hit,
squezzing under a ledge, ect. You can put a body, or a cab on any "main" chassis.... slingshot, kamakazi.
Neither the body, nor the cab adds actuall purpose to the integrity of the "main" chassis itself persay, though it may stiffen the chassis with use off additional fasteners. It is not however required ( the cab ) for the proper function/support of the main chassis.

You can use balsa wood, plastic, hell use woven spider webs if you want, to build a cab, but it needs to hold its shape ( rigid ) as to insure it stays in spec while on course, to avoide you having an unfair advantage ( folding under in tight spots, like a body can )

on a side note:

the purpos of a raised cab itself, is visual ONLY ( must be raised from " main chassis " to reseble a cockpit ) nothing to do with chassis integrity or performance.
The key words is ( main chassis ), the main chassis is the integrity/perfrmance oriented part of teh crawler. The cab is visual only, to reseble a cockpit.

The reason for the higher spec of the bodiless is to purposly give a disadvantage.....like a handicap.
the legal bodies are longer and wider in camparison, the higher spec for bodiless helps to compensate for this.
The differences in the 2 measurmens makes sence, and always has....

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Whether or not this chassis meets or doesnt meet the rules, Im curious who would feel threatened on course running their current rig against it?

Not me. I've never been afraid of another rig, it was always the person wheeling it that was the concern.

But, if this sort of thing is allowed, you could slap panels on this and call it a bodiless too...out of the box they do not meet bodied requirements...

 

[C*H*U*D]

Whether or not this chassis meets or doesnt meet the rules, Im curious who would feel threatened on course running their current rig against it?

I would be but everyone threatens me. That's the price you pay though when you suck "thumbsup"

In all seriousness, that's not the point. What concerns me is the blurring of the lines between bodied and bodiless. We've already lost bodiless in one class (2.2s) because of the rules. I'd hate to see bodiless go away because bodied trucks are now allowed to be legal under bodiless rules.

 

[Erin]

Not me. I've never been afraid of another rig, it was always the person wheeling it that was the concern.

But, if this sort of thing is allowed, you could slap panels on this and call it a bodiless too...out of the box they do not meet bodied requirements...

This one is too narrow correct? So it would still need to be wider even if body size mins were shrunk to current bodiless widths, no?

 

[Erin]

I would be but everyone threatens me. That's the price you pay though when you suck "thumbsup"

In all seriousness, that's not the point. What concerns me is the blurring of the lines between bodied and bodiless. We've already lost bodiless in one class (2.2s) because of the rules. I'd hate to see bodiless go away because bodied trucks are now allowed to be legal under bodiless rules.

I totally agree, I dont want bodiless to go away at all. But we didnt lose bodiless in 2.2s because of sizes.....there were other....reasons as I recall

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

This one is too narrow correct? So it would still need to be wider even if body size mins were shrunk to current bodiless widths, no?

IIRC it was too narrow for regular 2.2 bodied regulations, but wide enough for bodiless. All it needs to have are the proper panels attached to the "cab structure". Wink wink, nod nod, and all that...

 

[Erin]

But there is no width provision for bodied rigs, 2.1.4, states any chassis?

Or do you mean the body supplied in kit? yes that was to narrow

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

But there is no width provision for bodied rigs, 2.1.4, states any chassis?

Or do you mean the body supplied in kit? yes that was to narrow

Yes, the body that comes with the kit was too narrow for our bodied standards.

The point I was trying to make with that was if all that it takes to make a bodiless rig is something semi-permanently attached to the chassis with separate body panels also along for the ride, that opens the door for a whole lot of other things. Things that would not normally be allowed.

IMO there needs to be more that differentiates a bodied chassis from a bodiless chassis other than a mounted cab.

 

[Erin]

But what benefit do you see to there being more sepration between the two?

I think in one of the other threads you stated making bodiless wider? To what will this help or fix?

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

But what benefit do you see to there being more sepration between the two?

I think in one of the other threads you stated making bodiless wider? To what will this help or fix?

Not necessarily more separation, just a clearer definition. Or something that makes a multi-piece bodiless chassis different from a bodied chassis other than what gets bolted on top.

I don't know that I stated anything about adjusting measurements for either style.

 

[Erin]

I guess I have never seen a clear explanation why there needs to be such a difference between bodied/bodiless, so thats my issue. Both have pros and cons, just like anything.

And I cant find what I read last night, lol, too many god damn pages/threads. It might not even have been you who said to change bodiless sizes lol

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I guess I have never seen a clear explanation why there needs to be such a difference between bodied/bodiless, so thats my issue. Both have pros and cons, just like anything.

And I cant find what I read last night, lol, too many god damn pages/threads. It might not even have been you who said to change bodiless sizes lol

I think all these god damn pages make a pretty good case for a more defined difference between the two. :lmao:

What needs to be explained really is the committees definition of "structurally complete" as it refers to a bodiless design. As it was explained to me, and I agree with it completely, is that the design has to work as an assembly, not simply an amalgamation of functional and nonfunctional parts to meet the required measurements. Otherwise the only real distinction between a bodied rig and a bodiless rig is how far you've got to run out the tape measure.