BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[Duuuuuuuude]

who would have thought what would become of a little post :shock::shock:

Oh...its not too surprising. :ror:

 

[Waiting Dragon]

Gotcha, this has been going on for nearly a week now and things have been twisted, skewed, and deleted to the point where I feel some are more confused now than ever.

I can see that, some things are quite confusing I agree. I don't know where this will all go in the end, but let's hope that it will only make the sport better.

I can imagine bodied, body less, and these new concepts all at a comp, it would be cool, there is no reason why we should live stuck with republicans and democrats only. Companies are not making new crawler bodies and body less chassis makers are using all their ideas to stay on top with their designs within the rules, seems to me that somewhere in the sport has to be room for options and cottage industry type stuff since we are not mainstream RC.

 

[Olle P]

One point that came up earlier in the discussion is that if the required dimensions for a body shrinks, the body manufacturers and those currently running bodied crawlers are screwed.

I can't really see that.
The current designs will still be perfectly legal., but perhaps go out of fashion...

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

...Some bodiless chassis' can run without the cab portion in lieu of a body.

Then it's not bodiless.

The problem is people are still trying to define this by the body, thinking that's what makes it a bodied rig. That's why there is so much controversy on whether it is legal as bodiless or not.

If the original definition of bodiless is used, there is no problem in figuring out what these trucks actually are.

If the cab, body or whatever you want to call it can be removed, and the chassis still runs it is not bodiless. This has been overlooked for so long, that it now becomes difficult to define what we have in front of us.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Then it's not bodiless.

The problem is people are still trying to define this by the body, thinking that's what makes it a bodied rig. That's why there is so much controversy on whether it is legal as bodiless or not.

If the original definition of bodiless is used, there is no problem in figuring out what these trucks actually are.

If the cab, body or whatever you want to call it can be removed, and the chassis still runs it is not bodiless. This has been overlooked for so long, that it now becomes difficult to define what we have in front of us.

So a chassis that can function with or without a cab is not a bodiless chassis?

Say I take a chassis meant for a body, and construct a cab structure for it. Is that not a bodiless rig?

 

[C*H*U*D]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

So a chassis that can function with or without a cab is not a bodiless chassis?

Say I take a chassis meant for a body, and construct a cab structure for it. Is that not a bodiless rig?

Read what I posted again.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Read what I posted again.

Ok.

Are you saying that the cab must be a functionally structural component of the overall chassis to qualify it as a bodiless design? Meaning that if it is removed, the remaining structure is incapable of maintaining the functionality of the rig?


edit: I got it 'splained to me. Edited my post.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

So here's my proposal on the issue...

1. Update and clarify the bodiless rule. Make it clear that if the upper portion of the chassis (the cab) is removed and the remainder of the chassis will still support a fully functional crawler, it is NOT a bodiless chassis. Note that this is NOT a change, just a clarification.

2. Since this will obviously render a ton of current designs illegal, grandfather them in.

3. Once a vendors stock of the non-compliant design is depleted, no more can be made. All future designs must be fully compliant, not either/or.

4. Vendors must redesign the old versions to coincide with the updated and clarified ruling if they wish to continue selling them. They could also offer a retrofit kit for previous versions already in use. (shouldn't be too hard to do).

5. After X amount of time, render all of the old non-compliant chassis' illegal UNLESS they have been retrofitted or modified to meet the rules criteria. (meaning a dedicated mounting point on the "cab" portion to attach shocks, links, etc)


This way everyone can still run what they have, vendors can still sell what they've got on hand, and newer, rules compliant rigs will be phased in.

 

[BC-Brian]

So here's my proposal on the issue...

1. Update and clarify the bodiless rule. Make it clear that if the upper portion of the chassis (the cab) is removed and the remainder of the chassis will still support a fully functional crawler, it is NOT a bodiless chassis. Note that this is NOT a change, just a clarification.

Sooo... the SA 3.5 would be considered a bodied only chassis?

I am still in favor of the other option. Make bodiless and bodied the same size requirements (8"L x 3"W x 3"T), then it no longer matters how you interpret the cab/chassis.

That however is seeming inprobable. So lets roll back to the other statement made.

Clarify the ruling on what a body is. We had said it could be clarified as A" single piece of material that has a roof, hood, and two side panels". Keep the current dimensions.

This way we know what a body is. Anyone who wants to make a carbon cab and attach it to a chassis can still run bodiless and you wont have to worry about what chassis are grandfathered in, what are legal, and what are illegal.

 

[HARDKNOCKZ]

So here's my proposal on the issue...

1. Update and clarify the bodiless rule. Make it clear that if the upper portion of the chassis (the cab) is removed and the remainder of the chassis will still support a fully functional crawler, it is NOT a bodiless chassis. Note that this is NOT a change, just a clarification.

2. Since this will obviously render a ton of current designs illegal, grandfather them in.

3. Once a vendors stock of the non-compliant design is depleted, no more can be made. All future designs must be fully compliant, not either/or.

4. Vendors must redesign the old versions to coincide with the updated and clarified ruling if they wish to continue selling them. They could also offer a retrofit kit for previous versions already in use. (shouldn't be too hard to do).

5. After X amount of time, render all of the old non-compliant chassis' illegal UNLESS they have been retrofitted or modified to meet the rules criteria. (meaning a dedicated mounting point on the "cab" portion to attach shocks, links, etc)


This way everyone can still run what they have, vendors can still sell what they've got on hand, and newer, rules compliant rigs will be phased in.

Hmmmmm....I think you may have something here. Seems to cover the bases & is fair in the end...IF change is to happen which I'd say it needs to.

 

[billet works]

Sorry to thread jack Brian, but since it is being talked about here I thought I'd ask here.

Where in the rules does it say the "Cab" has to have links or shocks mounted to it in order to fit into bodiless class?

▪ 2.1.4 -Bodied vehicles: Any support chassis allowed.
▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. 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). Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.
▪ 2.1.5.1 - Bodiless vehicles must have solid hood panel, solid roof panel and a minimum of 2 solid side-panels.
▪ 2.1.5.1.1 - Hood, roof and side panels must be separate pieces of solid material installed onto the bodiless vehicle frame.
▪ 2.1.5.1.2 - All body panels are to be separate pieces from the complete structural frame.
▪ 2.1.5.1.3 - Body panels must be solidly installed in a manner that is representative of a 1:1 vehicle.
▪ 2.1.5.1.4 - All panels (roof, hood, and sides) must have at least 2x measurements greater than 1", and a minimum of 3.5 square inches of exposed solid surface area.
▪ 2.1.5.1.5 - Body panels must be fitted to the vehicle, and not be exaggerated in size or shape that intentionally
distorts the vehicles legal measurements.
▪ 2.1.5.1.6 - Shocks and fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, or spacers) shall not be included in the measurements of the vehicle.
▪ 2.1.5.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.See Illustration B.

I'm for unifying the bodied and bodiless specs and holding them to the current bodiless, but with the bodied overall height. I think at this point it is very possible to rule and regulate crawling to it's demise. From an RCC vendor point of view, most small manufacturers (who have stuck with crawling through thick and thin) have sacrificed a lot to keep offering products in this niche simply because it's what they love. That said, outlawing currently allowed kits or limiting the future with more rules would make some small vendors think twice about investing more time and resources to keep a hobby going, which has already been for the most part abandoned by the big mfg's.

BTW, I am diggin the molded cab frame you've come up with, and have had designs for my own for a few years now but avoided it for obvious reasons.

 

[binaryterror]

1. Update and clarify the bodiless rule. Make it clear that if the upper portion of the chassis (the cab) is removed and the remainder of the chassis will still support a fully functional crawler, it is NOT a bodiless chassis. Note that this is NOT a change, just a clarification.

Some chassis's, like mine don't feature a separate cab, the cab is the chassis sides. Is my chassis now illegal?

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Sooo... the SA 3.5 would be considered a bodied only chassis?

Clarify the ruling on what a body is. We had said it could be clarified as A" single piece of material that has a roof, hood, and two side panels". Keep the current dimensions.

This way we know what a body is. Anyone who wants to make a carbon cab and attach it to a chassis can still run bodiless and you wont have to worry about what chassis are grandfathered in, what are legal, and what are illegal.

If you can run the SA 3.5 without the cab, yes, it would be technically a bodied chassis.

A body is a non structural part. You can remove a body and still have a fully functioning rig.

Attaching a cab to any random chassis does not make it bodiless. That cab has to perform some function within the design, like providing a place to mount shocks or upper links.

We'll use the Fastback as an example as it is the one I am most familiar with, and have most of one on hand...

This is a somewhat crude, homemade version. Since it is essentially a FF4 with a cab, that is what I made.

Remove the cab and you'll see it has holes to mount the shocks. Technically it is a bodiless cab.

Looking at the chassis, it has holes for shocks as well. Technically, since it can be used as a stand alone chassis, it would not legal be considered a bodiless chassis.

This is an actual Fastback lower chassis portion. It has no place to mount shocks, and is entirely dependent on the cab structure to be a complete unit.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Where in the rules does it say the "Cab" has to have links or shocks mounted to it in order to fit into bodiless class?

Right here...

Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame.

Structurally complete means that if any component of the bodiless chassis is removed, it is unusable.

Some chassis's, like mine don't feature a separate cab, the cab is the chassis sides. Is my chassis now illegal?

No, because it is self supporting.

 

[BC-Brian]

So. with your "interpretation" the Switch, Secret Agent, BJV4, and many other designs are all illegal....?

I have no idea why they would push the rules in this way.

It pisses off the small mfg's helping the hobby out, and forces them to race to a new deisgn release. Anywone who just dropped cash on one of these chassis will be kicking themselves. As far as I can see it would be a step backwards in the evolution of the chassis designs.

Just one Little persons thoughts though.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

So. with your "interpretation" the Switch, Secret Agent, BJV4, and many other designs are all illegal....?

I have no idea why they would push the rules in this way.

It pisses off the small mfg's helping the hobby out, and forces them to race to a new deisgn release. Anywone who just dropped cash on one of these chassis will be kicking themselves. As far as I can see it would be a step backwards in the evolution of the chassis designs.

Just one Little persons thoughts though.

Apparently they've always been illegal, its just that no one stepped in to say anything.

Now that it has been brought to our attention something can be done about it. The rules were in place long before those chassis existed, so there is no pushing other than to get things back in line. Kinda like if you post a sign to not to step on the grass, then a bunch of people do while you aren't paying attention, then you come back later to get them the hell off of the grass.

Nothing has changed yet, so there is no rush for any vendor to do anything.

I thought my proposal for this situation was fair to everyone. Nobody would be left out in the cold.

 

[Harley]

The intent of self supporting, structurally complete was not meant to mean that if you took it off that it would no longer function at all.

It is more to stop someone from making a "cab" out of something so flimsy and meaninless (like duct tape or cellophane) that it would effectively be non existent.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

It is more to stop someone from making a "cab" out of something so flimsy and meaninless (like duct tape or cellophane) that it would effectively be non existent.

Then what is the difference between a bolt on cage or cab and a polycarbonate body? Other than getting the chassis to minimum measurement requirements, they serve no purpose.

Something that is "structurally complete" to me means something that is dependent on all of its parts to be whole and usable, and would be useless if any of those parts were removed.

 

[JeremyH]

That cab has to perform some function within the design, like providing a place to mount shocks or upper links.

According to what rule?

Something that is "structurally complete" to me means something that is dependent on all of its parts to be whole and usable, and would be useless if any of those parts were removed.

I would have to disagree with you on this one. Most structures have non-load bearing additions that are able to be removed without affecting the rigidity of the structure.

 

[C*H*U*D]

I see this thread being locked down or deleted before sundown.