BC-Brian
RCC Addict
I am curious to knwo why people are resistant to creating such differentiation instead of just unifying the two under one requirement. What is the percieved advantage of a smaller body on the crawler?
-
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.
BC-Brian build body or bodiless
- Thread starter Robbob
- Start date
I am curious to knwo why people are resistant to creating such differentiation instead of just unifying the two under one requirement. What is the percieved advantage of a smaller body on the crawler?
The perceived advantage of a smaller body is just that, a smaller body. 3" is almost half as narrow as the required 5" body, which IMO is the biggest drawback to running a body.
C*H*U*D
No idea what I'm doing
I've been going back and forth on this since it started. I hear one argument and think, "Hey, that's a good point". Then I hear another and think, "Hey, that's also a good point".
I think I like the body/bodiless confrontation because it makes people think and mixes it up a bit. Take NASCAR for example. There was a time when stock car racing really was about "stock" cars. They were all different and everyone had their brand loyalty. Now, it's kind of evolved into everyone driving the same thing...the so called "Car of the Future".
I see the blending of the two leading us down the same path.
EvilTwin v2
I wanna be Dave
CHUD hit the nail on the head.
That and the current differentiation between bodied and bodiless really does balance the equation. There are other disadvantages to running a bodiless vs a bodied rig. The bodiless is more solid and has height restrictions where the bodied rig can have a body more loosely mounted to push out of the way to clear an obstacle. There are pros and cons to both. By having one set of specs, there would then be even more advantage to running a body.
That and the current differentiation between bodied and bodiless really does balance the equation. There are other disadvantages to running a bodiless vs a bodied rig. The bodiless is more solid and has height restrictions where the bodied rig can have a body more loosely mounted to push out of the way to clear an obstacle. There are pros and cons to both. By having one set of specs, there would then be even more advantage to running a body.
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
There are certainly advantages and dis-advantages to both, but it seems like nearly everyone is runing Bodiless these days. The dis-advantages of the body are too great. It is much large (especially if you talk about area) and it is heavier than bodiless (unless you swiss cheese the thing and then its performance starts to deteriorate). I think joining the two specs would put some fire back in the body designs, without heavily throwing the advantages in the bodiless area.
"thumbsup"
I am all for progression, and I've always viewed the comp classes as the place to push the performance envelope with little regard to scale realism.
Some don't like the bodiless rigs because they don't look realistic enough, some go as far as calling them robots. If that is the way comp rigs are evolving, so be it. Let them.
But factory support has to be considered. Fish's comment about continuity is very important, but when manufacturers show waning interest in comp rigs, shouldn't that be a green light to take the foot off of the brake and see where the gas pedal takes us?
How many full bodied rtr or artr rigs are available from companies who actively support us? One? Two? How many other companies offer comp crawler bodies? Two, maybe three?
If we're going to blend the two classes I'd say that now is the time to do it. 2.2s can stick around as it is for those that want to comp full bodied shafties (they are fun!), but loosen the reigns in 2.2 Pro.
EvilTwin v2
I wanna be Dave
Sorry, but that's just not true. I've been to quite a few large and small events and I've seen a pretty even number of bodied and bodiless rigs. Not to mention, do you know how many bodiless rigs have won Nationals in 2.2 Pro? Look it up. You might be surprised.
The one advantage the bodiless has is that its easily recognizable and more memorable what a competitor is running with a bodiless. A spectator can look and recognize what chassis is on the course. With a bodied rig, it could be anything.
In our area, we've actually had several guys switching to bodied rigs in their lightweight builds due to the ability to get them light and mount the body at the height they want. Not a single one of them is Swiss cheesed or even has any holes other than needed to mount them.
I have my opinion on the subject and its that it will cause a further decline within the hobby to lose any differentiation within the class.
Thing is, If there's a vote and it goes against my views, I'll accept it and move on.
There are far bigger issues that need addressed than this and I refuse to get worked up by it or further feed the drama.
Fishmaxx
I wanna be Dave
Having my foot on the brake for so long it was ingrained in me. I am a still not sure about putting the pedal to the metal without getting intell from major manufactures first.
rock hard
dnf
I can see your points,, and understand how you and others can come to such a connclusion.
I myself dont think this is the time to change the rules.
Noow is the time for leaders to refllect on how we active mebers feel like we are being left out of the loop some times.
Now is the time for John to reorganise.....then the rules commiitee can start fresh, with a clean slate. The commitee can listen to the concerns/opinions oof those within thier regions.
Then after serious consideration, would be the time IMO to makke such a change.
As of right now, simply clarify the rules ( intent ) to tell us if our moonbugies, bj, and lexan cabs are legal or not and lets go back to crawling.
as far as deminsions, I dont think they should be the same....I can see the wider body is a disadvatage, but it can bend up, or even help.
I think the taller hight of the bodilless ( higher cg ) help to balance out the differance
I can understand bodied drivers wanting to run smaller bodies, and think that if thats what the rules commitee does to, to meet the needs to those cometitors, then they should also in turn alow a shorter cab for bodiless....
There is alot to consiider, annd to do it right, we dont want to act in hast, thats why I dont feel we should shange any rules
simply over bc rig and these conversations.
Clairfy if that rig is legit....move past it.....then llet rules commitee get restructured, and refocused.
Last edited:
There's only one company that I know of to really be concerned about. If the rest make a new move in the crawler market, it'd be a shock to us all.
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
That's all I was ever loking for :lmao:
Well then good job. I hope you're happy with the mess you made. :lmao:
Erin
I wanna be Dave
Its all your fault lol stop being innovative
I do agree that the relationship between the committee and public needs to be seriously addressed and a ruling on this subject for now clarified clearly. Then future rule changes can be made with the publics voice involved.
rock hard
dnf
:ror:
seriously, this has been a very civil conversation"thumbsup"
I have had my ars handed to me before for asking questions, and exploring the grey-t unknown:mrgreen:
I hope some good will come from this ( commitee wise ) and feel it will. I have aloot of faith that John will be taking the recent constructive criitisism in a positive manner and use it to shape the way things are handled in the futur to the benifite of all.
Last edited:
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
I am going to see if I can get my handle changed to "Trouble Maker" :twisted:
Erin
I wanna be Dave
Rootar
Rock Crawler
Just a thought, wouldn't this one piece topper fall under a unibody topper rather a bodiless topper, since I personally run a lexan bodiless topper, I would consider this one piece idea a unibody because it requires no supports. Under my interpretation of the unibody rules 2.1.6 it does fall under the same dimensions as bodiless but for it to be legal in my eyes his lexan unibody would need to include his side plates of his chassis built in then it would be with out a doubt legal under rule 2.1.6 as is it does not fit the bodiless rules.
Rootar
Rock Crawler
And no I didn't read the whole thread if that was already discussed
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
I am pretty sure that for it to be considered unibody I would need to be only constructed of the lexan and not have the scret agent underneath.
I'd think you'd have to do more than that. Unibody typically refers to something that is all one piece, so while you could make it from lexan, it'd have to be one continuous piece top/bottom/side/side. Like a unibody car, the frame and main body is all one structure and cannot be separated.
I don't know that anyone has managed to pull that one off yet.
