BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Eh, "rock stacking" wasn't legal at the time. It was merely a bad call by the judge that it was a touch instead of course modification, after being primed by the competitor with a leading question.



So we need a "frame". If the cab had windows cut out it would look like a stereotypical frame and there would be no questions. It bolts on, so it would not be unibody- but if it was unibody it follows the same rules as bodiless. But we use "monocoque" frames in daily life all the time where the frame is a stressed skin member. There is nowhere in the rules that define the cab has to be skeleton or monocoque design. Either construction method is equally a "frame" based on the requirement of rigidity.



The rule makers can either make more rules defining "frames", or just unify the body, bodiless, and unibody designs into one sizing requirement. I'm with krawlfreak on this one, there is nothing in the rules that state his cab is illegal. Nothing against vacuum forming parts, nothing against doing a layer construction, nothing that specifies skeleton vs monocoque parts, nothing that specifies pillar requirements.


Here are the important parts

▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. check The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. check The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). check Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle. does it better than most bodiless


If you want to argue "intent" about it, we no longer have a set of rules that matter because his cab meets every requirement stated in the rules.

very good points, i couldnt agree more on this.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Must be a self supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame.

Thats a small body with panels on it. the only frame is under the body. I feel this is way into the gray to where it's looking more black than gray.

I see it as a rigid monocoque framed cab since it attaches to the frame rigidly and meets all the bodiless requirements. It is likely more rigid than 1/2 of the cabs I see at comps these days.


It may LOOK like a small body, but it still meets the specs for bodiless. The grey area is that "frame" isn't defined in construction.

Lets look at a cutting edge motorcycle frame of today:

Bolts together, is formed to be structurally rigid, doesn't use a skeleton design with small members. Not a frame?

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Eh, "rock stacking" wasn't legal at the time. It was merely a bad call by the judge that it was a touch instead of course modification, after being primed by the competitor with a leading question.



So we need a "frame". If the cab had windows cut out it would look like a stereotypical frame and there would be no questions. It bolts on, so it would not be unibody- but if it was unibody it follows the same rules as bodiless. But we use "monocoque" frames in daily life all the time where the frame is a stressed skin member. There is nowhere in the rules that define the cab has to be skeleton or monocoque design. Either construction method is equally a "frame" based on the requirement of rigidity.



The rule makers can either make more rules defining "frames", or just unify the body, bodiless, and unibody designs into one sizing requirement. I'm with krawlfreak on this one, there is nothing in the rules that state his cab is illegal. Nothing against vacuum forming parts, nothing against doing a layer construction, nothing that specifies skeleton vs monocoque parts, nothing that specifies pillar requirements.


Here are the important parts

▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. check The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. check The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). check Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle. does it better than most bodiless


If you want to argue "intent" about it, we no longer have a set of rules that matter because his cab meets every requirement stated in the rules.

Exactly, this is exactly why I made it.

Show me the rule that it breaks...

 

[articzap]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Well if everyone wants to deem his body acceptable as a bodiless chassis, then all bodied rigs are bodiless and thus don't meet specs for being bodiless.

Either this creation isn't bodiless and illegal, or all bodied rigs are actually bodiless and illegal. You can't have it both ways.

Sharing common dimensions is the only solution. It was also push new creative levels, period. If you want to push the sport foreward, this is the only logical choice.

I'll restate my opinion, its still a body. I see and understand both sides of the argument, which is why I suggest what I am.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Bodied rigs don't have the panels needed to meet bodiless specs, whereas brian's does. His lexan cab is also rigidly attached and structurally rigid, whereas there is no requirement as such for bodied rigs. A body can be floppy, have a million holes drilled in it, and be attached however the driver wants.

 

[binaryterror]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Lets assume this is legal based on some Bodiless dimensions, then all the Bodies currently on the edge of legal are giant and will cease being sold. What a great way to make vendors happy with our very small niche market and keep the aftermarket companies with experience and tools to help us quickly just say EFF you to our hobby. You'll like lose fewer people in the sport doing this, but you will lose large vendor support levels.

The other idea is to force all bodiless to bigger dimensions of bodied rigs. This will piss off the smaller vendors and the current drivers of a bodiless rig you just made obsolete. This you'd lose the smaller vendors of RCC and lots of drivers.

I guess the rules committee needs to discuss this and pick their poison:
1. Keep it as is and this body stays illegal - new wording will need to be added.
2. Make a switch to bodiless rules as the standard size for all
3. Make a switch to bodied rules is the standard size for all

The only thing I recommend is the rules committee works on this, its clearly an issue of debate. I'm not in the rules committee but I would think those guys would be happy to finalize whatever of the 3 options that works.

 

[HARDKNOCKZ]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

John H. makes GREAT arguments but I still cant agree that this isnt just another case of a guy trying to get around a rule. True...I believe that the definitions need to be adjusted & a little more detailed but if thats the case...this same argument will go on every season. Every year someone will try to find a way around the clear INTENT of the rules.

Its hard to say that because JRH DOES make a very sound argument. Maybe it would be more acceptable if the windows were cut out? Maybe it would be more acceptable if it were thicker or made of delrin? I honestly cant say. I can only say that great arguments aside...hes stepped outside of pushing the boundaries & has entered loophole land...& I think that by doing so...the rules WILL get adjusted & we'll ALL pay the price in the end. Just my opinion.

J.D.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I would clarify a bit further. So far it hasn't been determined where the cab in question fails the rule set.

1. Keep it as is, make no action
2. Define "frame" to include or exclude monocoque and formed designs- new wording will need to be added.
3. Make a switch to bodiless rules as the standard size for all
4. Make a switch to bodied rules is the standard size for all


I would like to see the rules stay as they are, but wouldn't mind body dims being brought down to bodiless sizes. Sure it will make some bodies obsolete unless they are trimmed or dovetailed (which already happens), but it is a lot more expensive to purchase a new chassis VS a new body.

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I am not sure what else can be said, aside from getting the rules committee to come up with something. It's frustrating that something new, that has not been done before, and meets every rule in the book, is being called illegal and a malicious interpretation of the rules. This is how we innovate in the hobby. If typical bodies are no longer used then MFG's will make new designs. I will happily grab a blue star and make this available to others.

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

The one thing that separates it in the rules for me is "rigid frame".

What is a frame?

merriam-webster defines it as:
1-
to construct by fitting and uniting the parts of the skeleton of (a structure)

2-
the underlying constructional system or structure that gives shape or strength (as to a building)

So, to me, a stereotypical bodiless chassis would have a skeleton or a dimension to it,... structure, frame.

In my eyes, what you have is a body, skin a facade, but no structure/skeleton.

This is where I would also agree, but add the word "Complete". I know this is a very gray area, but I don't see this as a "Complete" frame.

I see it as a rigid monocoque framed cab since it attaches to the frame rigidly...

I can see this argument, but I don't totally agree with it.

This is how I've always interpreted the definition:

Definition of MONOCOQUE

1
: a type of construction (as of a fuselage) in which the outer skin carries all or a major part of the stresses



The chassis underneath is providing all the support, and the body is really just along for the ride. Yes it is rigidly attached, and it could be argued that it is providing support, but for me that support would have to be required in order for it to be a monocoque...the Secret Agent underneath can run without that body, so to me the body is not a structural requirement.


All that being said, I regretfully agree with JRH and Krawlfreak. The only argument I have is with the word "complete" and it's a vague argument which is open to interpretation.

Good luck with this one Rules Committee "thumbsup"

 

[Der Kampfer]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I think JRH keeps nailing it in this debate."thumbsup"

The simple fact is this setup does NOT break any current rules. Anything else is just personal taste. IF its that much an issue, rules can be changed. But why bother? One guy running a different cab component has not proven to be a superior winning design.

Finding a different way to play by the rules is how rigs will evolve. It will make rigs more capable in a competition setting.

 

[ROWDY RACING]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

the Secret Agent underneath can run without that body, so to me the body is not a structural requirement.

Most bodiless chassis can be ran with a cab or a body, the cab is not a structural part of most bodiless chassis.

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Most bodiless chassis can be ran with a cab or a body, the cab is not a structural part of most bodiless chassis.

Agreed. My point is I don't see this as a monocoque...just like I wouldn't call a Beetljuice, Switch, Moonbuggy or Fastback a monocoque. That was my only argument...with the definition.

 

[binaryterror]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

The problem I have is the hood/roof/windshield.

If we remove the panels, those exact pieces we claim need to be separate still in fact touch. Basically in my opinion he has a body, with outside stickers on it. Especially as its been admitted its just stuck on.

Since the hood, windshield and roof are all in existence on 1 plane connected it does break rules.

IMO
Body = has an external body mounted (screws) which is how this set up is.
Bodiless = has a frame structure built to mimic a tuber (tubes and lines set up like a tube chassis)

So according to my personal mindset and that of JRH, which I respect and understand, his claims state as well that Farmers current Chump with Gunner mount screwed on Parma body (for example) is a bodiless truck with a upper frame section attached and sadly is now illegal because it lacks panels.

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

The problem I have is the hood/roof/windshield.

If we remove the panels, those exact pieces we claim need to be separate still in fact touch. Basically in my opinion he has a body, with outside stickers on it. Especially as its been admitted its just stuck on.

Since the hood, windshield and roof are all in existence on 1 plane connected it does break rules.

So if I cut out the area under the body panels and then zip tie the red bull panels in place......

 

[ROWDY RACING]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

So according to my personal mindset and that of JRH, which I respect and understand, his claims state as well that Farmers current Chump with Gunner mount screwed on Parma body (for example) is a bodiless truck with a upper frame section attached and sadly is now illegal because it lacks panels.

Farmers rig is good, since it lacks panels its a bodied rig and as long as it meets those requirements there should be no issue.

 

[articzap]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

The way I look at is this. Unbolt the panels and the cab from the truck. Lay it all out. Forget every rule you are looking it.

When you lay it out, is it a body? Instead of reading into every rule, look at it from the most basic stand point.

Is the cab, by itself, a body? Answer the question as its worded. Then you should be able to determine which set of rules to follow.

 

[666]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I'm interested, how sturdy is it? Flexible?

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

When you lay it out, is it a body? Instead of reading into every rule, look at it from the most basic stand point.

Very good point. Regardless of the material, or how thick it is, the most basic definition of a body does apply. Putting an apple onto an orange tree does not make it an orange.

 

[EvilTwin v2]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

As Ricky pointed out, if we call that a cab instead of what it is, a small body, then why is it legal and this one not legal if mounted more securely and some panels placed under to look like skins?