BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

JRH, its a body plane and simple, and must follow body requirements. If we need to add a section in to the rules explaining what a body then so be it.

I'm fine with it being a body, but you will need a rule to back it up. Or adjust the dims so it won't matter and the rules can become simpler instead of more complicated.

i do see both sides but i think we should be bery carefull not to limit a formed cab in whatever we decide.

like i said earlier the execution might be off but i do think there is a viable and legal way to use this idea.

I agree here. In execution this cab has "looks" enough to make people pull the intent card since there is no other rule violation. Change it up just a hair and the concept could be used. I don't like the idea of limiting construction techniques either.

 

[Fishmaxx]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I'm not a big fan of intent either.

Its not something that I use lightly, but I know what was said in the original discussions in Rules Committee and if this was thought of then the wording would have reflected that. We know we can't think of every single combination drivers/builders can come up with, and that is why the intent rule is in there.

Put lipstick/stickers on it if you want its still a pig/body"thumbsup"

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

.. Or adjust the dims so it won't matter and the rules can become simpler instead of more complicated.

I'd really like to see this in the future. I think things could be made simpler, and more open to ideas, if the current bodied dimensions were brought current with what people would like to do.

Honestly, I really like the look of the truck in question. I think it breathes new life into bodied vehicles, and has definitely sparked some interesting discussion "thumbsup"

However, with the current rules as they are, I think it's illegal which is a shame

 

[Fishmaxx]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Or adjust the dims so it won't matter and the rules can become simpler instead of more complicated.

Bodiless the same as bodied.....I like it

▪ 2.? All vehicles must have a roof, hood, and sides. 3” minimum height on sides. 1 inch rise from the hood to roof at a pillar. 12.5” minimum length.

 

[EvilTwin v2]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Bodiless the same as bodied.....I like it

▪ 2.? All vehicles must have a roof, hood, and sides. 3” minimum height on sides. 1 inch rise from the hood to roof at a pillar. 12.5” minimum length.

Only if you are trying to get rid of the bodiless chassis. It's not like the bodiless has an advantage over bodied rigs at their current size. If you require that bodiless grow by 4", it'll kill them.

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Bodiless the same as bodied.....I like it

▪ 2.? All vehicles must have a roof, hood, and sides. 3” minimum height on sides. 1 inch rise from the hood to roof at a pillar. 12.5” minimum length.

i think he means the other way around...

making bodiless dimensions bigger would be the dagger through the heart of rc crawling IMHO.

 

[Fishmaxx]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Only if you are trying to get rid of the bodiless chassis. It's not like the bodiless has an advantage over bodied rigs at their current size. If you require that bodiless grow by 4", it'll kill them.

Body riggs were around first so they should take priority over the second generation bodiless specs.

 

[articzap]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

A whole set of new minimums that could encompass bodied and bodiless would be ideal and really allow for some new ideas.

The only rule needed for bodiless then is body panels.

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I'm fine with it being a body, but you will need a rule to back it up. Or adjust the dims so it won't matter and the rules can become simpler instead of more complicated.



I agree here. In execution this cab has "looks" enough to make people pull the intent card since there is no other rule violation. Change it up just a hair and the concept could be used. I don't like the idea of limiting construction techniques either.

I intentionally made this out of Lexan, and intentionally did the panels the way they are to know what the limits were when we had this conversation.

There needs ot be something put in place to specifically identify why this is not legal. Not just intent.

I have .060" Dlerin on order. I will vac form that from the same mold. I will cut out the windows. I will cut out the sides. I will use zip ties to mount the body panels.

It will no doubt be rigid, it will not be the same material as a body, it will be structurally complete.

Then where do we stand?

Are we really goign to shoot this in the heart and say that all cabs have to be constructed using panels, stand-offs, and fasteners... Forever....?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Body riggs were around first so they should take priority over the second generation bodiless specs.

I'm sure you are just stirring the pot here, but Thumbs down. Bring all specs to bodiless size. There were tubers at 2006 nats too.

 

[articzap]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

One should be able to pick it up and say this is not a body. This is a rigid frame for other panels to attach. Take a car for example, remove all body panels. The frame a unibody car looks nothing like the body. It is a structural system designed to support the vehicle and serves as a place to affix body panels for cosmetic purposes.

Those are my thoughts as to would it would take to make it bodiless. Although, at that point, you won't be saving any weight over a standard design. It'd be done for asthtics.

 

[binaryterror]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

i think he means the other way around...

making bodiless dimensions bigger would be the dagger through the heart of rc crawling IMHO.

One side is going to get hurt either way...

 

[articzap]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Take the lowest minimum of two categories. So bodiless width and length, with bodied height. That wouldn't screw a single person over.

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

One side is going to get hurt either way...

i dont see that at all.

manufacturers can keep making the bodies for 2.2s since the way it seems there will never be bodiless chassis allowed in that class...

they will actually be gaining momentum with that class.

and on a side note, just out of curiosity, who actually makes a comp 2.2 kit at this point?

 

[Hardline]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

It clearly meets every specific written rule, until you start arguing semantics. What the meaning of "is" is. But do you really need to care? Does this represent a technical leap forward that will cause him to have an advantage over the rest of you? If you want a featherweight bodiless cab, surely you can build a conventional one out of 1/16 CF lighter than this one. What's the big deal? So it looks different...when did we start caring about that?

 

[crawlinghulls]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I intentionally made this out of Lexan, and intentionally did the panels the way they are to know what the limits were when we had this conversation.

There needs ot be something put in place to specifically identify why this is not legal. Not just intent.

I have .060" Dlerin on order. I will vac form that from the same mold. I will cut out the windows. I will cut out the sides. I will use zip ties to mount the body panels.

It will no doubt be rigid, it will not be the same material as a body, it will be structurally complete.

Then where do we stand?

Are we really goign to shoot this in the heart and say that all cabs have to be constructed using panels, stand-offs, and fasteners... Forever....?

This is what I'm wondering too. Brian and I had the discussion this past weekend. We went through the rules and studied the rig- Based on the written rules I let it run. I think an answer needs to be given or all intent must be written out before the season starts. When is the intent of the rule explained? When someone sees something they don't like? Or is different?

 

[The Violator]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

One should be able to pick it up and say this is not a body. This is a rigid frame for other panels to attach. Take a car for example, remove all body panels. The frame a unibody car looks nothing like the body. It is a structural system designed to support the vehicle and serves as a place to affix body panels for cosmetic purposes.

Your asking people to use common sense. You lost the majority right there.


If that car was put on my tech table I would not pass it. Thats me. Maybe some would. That is the issue with pushing the rules.

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I don't think having a thermoformed cab is going to be the "A-Bomb" to the crawling scene. Big manufacturers already have the tools and setup to make whatever body they want. You know how long it takes them to make a new plug..... Ever see how many bodies Pro-Line releases and kills off in a year..

On a side note, for what it is worth, this was based on my previous years bodiless chassis, not a RC crawler body.

Last years rig with custom Carbon Kevlar chassis.

 

[BC-Brian]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Don't change the rules on body/bodiless. Lotsa angst and drama, no payoff. It ain't broken, don't fix it.

Im not asking for a rule change to body/bodiless. The fact is this meets all the current rules and requirements. So by all records it is Legal, all be it controversial. Using the intent rule does not offer enough clarification, and I don't think people want to put the Kaibosh on inovation. So things need to be clarified.

Why is this not legal, what is legal? I don't think it is a black and white answer but there needs to be some kind of answer.

 

[Harley]

I don't like it.

However I see every one of his points and agree that it meets all requirements.

Someone could make a worse looking, more rudimentary top with the same purpose and it would get much less flack. If you cut out the side windows and windshield l, and etc then you really aren't far from some things we see now.

Looks like rules changes are clearly going to be required. I see body dimensions clearly needing to come down to bodieless dimensions to keep things fair.

I will say that the trucks will likely look even more ridiculous and further from the original intent of crawling which is sad.

I do think the 2.2S class is our brightest hope at the sport continuing with a positive future. Keeping manufactures and competitors at the cutting edge happy for so long has caused the sport to go in a direction that isn't what it once was.

I'm still a competitor. I still love crawling.