BC-Brian build body or bodiless

[Duuuuuuuude]

when you take out all percieved notions and perceptions, brians truck is by the very words in the rules legal..

Then so is this. Structurally sound, semi-permanently affixed (bolted) to the lower chassis plates, able to hold its own weight, and meets or exceeds all bodiless dimensions. All I need to do is make some body panels and bolt them onto the "cab". Main chassis component is a SSS.

And FWIW, this is a perfectly legal bodied rig. All measurements meet minimum standards.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

.... All I need to do is make some body panels....

You just hit the nail on the head. Since there is no definition of what a "body" includes, there is the ability to add panels and make it fit within the bodiless ruleset. Nobody noticed it until now!

 

[Harvo]

Oh... and I also think that the only reason we have so many silly sounding, overly detailed, and mamby pambied rules is because there are 62,853 people on this site that "what if" and Over scrutinize them to death.

In the end, does what is being argued here give someone an unfair advantage? If everyone in crawling decided to do it, is it going to turn crawling on its ear? If not... then is it really worth all the arguing, rulemaking, and possible tearing in the fabric of our crawling society?

I just want to compete. That's all. Stop screwing it up for me.

 

[krawlfreak]

whats the difference to any other lexan body ?

if they put panels on a standard size body it would also fit the bodiless catagory, although i cant imagine anyone would have complained about it...

The original tubers and 1:1's have a structure that is permanently assembled and are designed to be used as a whole assembly.

I'm relatively sure that if you wanted to compete in a vehicle that had its upper cage torched off, they'd turn you away. Sometimes ducking isn't enough. :ror:



Considering what it is made from, the windows keep the top from being crushed when it lands on its top.

It still has no effect on the functionality of the chassis. Crushed or not, it would plug along just fine. Why? Because it is not a structural part of the chassis.



Like I said to Jeremy, be careful what you say. What the rules say and what they intend to prevent or allow are not always crystal clear. By the very words of the rule, anyone could bolt nearly any body they want onto any regular old chassis and have it be considered a bodiless rig. If that happens, there would be no reason to have a bodied classification at all.

Most people understand the difference between a bodied rig and a bodiless rig. Whether the top of a bodiless rig is polycarbonate, delrin, aluminum, oak, paper mache, or concrete changes nothing. If the top is not a structurally integral part of the chassis as a whole, it is a body.

90% of the bodiless rigs today are not fitting in your structural argument.

weather you like it or not, or the original intent was meant to be this, the fact is it is way to far gone to return too, hence my statement in an earlier deleted thread about where we are today.

When bodiless first took off... there was this

Then someone raised a stink that it was too narrow... so a rule was made that a bodiless had to be 3" wide without the use of bolt on rails or by measuring shock mounts.

Isn't that the primary reason cabs came off the chassis and became seperate pieces in the first place? To make a truck legal width without screwing up the skid and lower geometry?

hey and guess what, almost everyone that fought bodiless in rules committee now drives one...

and yeah i can build a truck now to the specs like that one and put a stupid bumper on it and meet regulation, but its stupid.

 

[krawlfreak]

Then so is this. Structurally sound, semi-permanently affixed (bolted) to the lower chassis plates, able to hold its own weight, and meets or exceeds all bodiless dimensions. All I need to do is make some body panels and bolt them onto the "cab". Main chassis component is a SSS.

And FWIW, this is a perfectly legal bodied rig. All measurements meet minimum standards.

i dont see why not..

 

[Harvo]

hey and guess what, almost everyone that fought bodiless in rules committee now drives one...

and yeah i can build a truck now to the specs like that one and put a stupid bumper on it and meet regulation, but its stupid.

Uh... yeah. My point was nothing says the cab has to be bolt on. It just evolved that way because it made more sence when they were required to be wider.

 

[rock hard]

Oh... and I also think that the only reason we have so many silly sounding, overly detailed, and mamby pambied rules is because there are 62,853 people on this site that "what if" and Over scrutinize them to death.

In the end, does what is being argued here give someone an unfair advantage? If everyone in crawling decided to do it, is it going to turn crawling on its ear? If not... then is it really worth all the arguing, rulemaking, and possible tearing in the fabric of our crawling society?

I just want to compete. That's all. Stop screwing it up for me.

I love the idea, the idea of keeping my weight down lower cuz I no longer need the hardware up top, all hardware is kept lower.

Its a great idea, that will mean every chassis under the sun can become bodiless with a simple mod of the lexan donner fo thier choice.

IMO its a win win for everyone
body guys can only btch 1/2 as much, cuz now its a hybrid
bodiless guys have a slew of options
nearly any guy can opt to go bodiless with a trip to the lhs and a pair of scissors."thumbsup"

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

90% of the bodiless rigs today are not fitting in your structural argument.

weather you like it or not, or the original intent was meant to be this, the fact is it is way to far gone to return too, hence my statement in an earlier deleted thread about where we are today.

Yup. That is why I suggested clarifying the rules and their intent and grandfathering in any existing design (for a time) that would be otherwise deemed illegal so that everybody still gets to compete and nobody has to run out and buy all new chassis'.

The original intent can only be expressed by the people that wrote the rule. You can see it your way, I can see it mine, but neither of us can have a handle on it. Whether or not things have slipped through the cracks and what to do about it is up to the committee.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

i dont see why not..

Because A) both look stupid, and B) both are a flagrant exploitation of the written rule with total disregard of the intent.

 

[rock hard]

Yup. That is why I suggested clarifying the rules and their intent and grandfathering in any existing design (for a time) that would be otherwise deemed illegal so that everybody still gets to compete and nobody has to run out and buy all new chassis'.

The original intent can only be expressed by the people that wrote the rule. You can see it your way, I can see it mine, but neither of us can have a handle on it. Whether or not things have slipped through the cracks and what to do about it is up to the committee.

I would hate to see us deem anything we all have been running as illegal.
That in of itself could show our hobby's leaders as incompetant to other forms of rc
( we have been runnig illegal trucks for yrs, even by our own rules reps, and just now figured it out? )
how embarising

hopefully minutes were kept so new commitie members to read the opposing views for themsellfs of how and why the cab/structure/ rigid
all came into play.
cuz we have new committie members who was not there during the writting of these rules.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

I would hate to see us deem anything we all have been running as illegal.
That in of itself could show our hobby's leaders as incompetant to other forms of rc
( we have been runnig illegal trucks for yrs, even by our own rules reps, and just now figured it out? )
how embarising

hopefully minutes were kept so new commitie members to read the opposing views for themsellfs of how and why the cab/structure/ rigid
all came into play.
cuz we have new committie members who was not there during the writting of these rules.

If in fact the committee let this issue slide by them, which we don't actually know is the case, then yeah, its a pisser for everyone. That doesn't mean that they can't correct our course and reinforce the current ruling as it was intended to be. There is plenty of middle ground to be had.

 

[rock hard]

If in fact the committee let this issue slide by them, which we don't actually know is the case, then yeah, its a pisser for everyone. That doesn't mean that they can't correct our course and reinforce the current ruling as it was intended to be. There is plenty of middle ground to be had.

there is also alot of assuming " this " is or " isnt " what was intended.

IMO every chassis that has been deemed legal and alowed to run in a nationals WAS in fact what was intened, otherwise it WOULDNT have been allowed.:ror:
So I seriously doubt that the BJ or the t1e rigs so populare and so numberous during the llast few national events, would ever be considers as rigs going agaisnt what was originally inteneded.

Those manufactures likely had to cross the lines cautiously and get approval of what is " inteneded " during thier R&D, proir to publec sales and also before actual competetion.

 

[JeremyH]

I'm relatively sure that if you wanted to compete in a vehicle that had its upper cage torched off, they'd turn you away.

Just as we'd do here.

BC Brians construction looks not like a frame to me

Some might say that a truck without a skid plate doesn't look like a frame to them. It's a good thing that we don't base all of the rules on looks."thumbsup"

...with total disregard of the intent.

There's that word...Intent. Why don't the rules say what they mean and mean what they say?

 

[rock hard]

There's that word...Intent. Why don't the rules say what they mean and mean what they say?

The intent rule is new, and sux, I'd say the best fix is to drop that rule and stick to the rest.

Drop intent, just follow the wording and bamm your back in buisness.
If its within spec, its within spec, take out the specualation of intent.

 

[BC-Brian]

Because A) both look stupid, and B) both are a flagrant exploitation of the written rule with total disregard of the intent.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It is easy to talk about the intent of the rules if you were there when they were discussed, but the fact of the matter is I wasn't. I read the rules (many times) and designed what I did, to meet the letter of the law. I suspected it would be controversial and that is why we posted it.

In the end it is just a matter of clarifying the rules. If people want to create new ones than that is what they will do. Hopefully they will make them clear enough to allow people to design to the edge without crossing the line. And hopefully without making all the great chassis' we have now Illegal.

 

[C*H*U*D]

It is easy to talk about the intent of the rules if you were there when they were discussed, but the fact of the matter is I wasn't.

Exactly...many of us were not there.

 

[krawlfreak]

Exactly...many of us were not there.

that might have been the intent:lmao::lmao:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

there is also alot of assuming " this " is or " isnt " what was intended.

IMO every chassis that has been deemed legal and alowed to run in a nationals WAS in fact what was intened, otherwise it WOULDNT have been allowed.:ror:
So I seriously doubt that the BJ or the t1e rigs so populare and so numberous during the llast few national events, would ever be considers as rigs going agaisnt what was originally inteneded.

Those manufactures likely had to cross the lines cautiously and get approval of what is " inteneded " during thier R&D, proir to publec sales and also before actual competetion.

Assumptions are all that any of us that are not on the committee have to go on. That, and how we see the rules. I'm not saying I'm right about anything, just how I read and understand what is going on.

People edge up on rules all the time. Some cross them without notice, some even do it unknowingly. Whether or not they get approval is something I do not know. I will say that I have seen feeler threads from vendors and had it pointed out to them that something in their design was out of spec.

Just as we'd do here.

There's that word...Intent. Why don't the rules say what they mean and mean what they say?

Would you turn away a 1:1 with a soft top instead of a roll cage?

Because people would pick at it (like they do) and pretty soon you'd need a lawyer to decipher it.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It is easy to talk about the intent of the rules if you were there when they were discussed, but the fact of the matter is I wasn't. I read the rules (many times) and designed what I did, to meet the letter of the law. I suspected it would be controversial and that is why we posted it.

In the end it is just a matter of clarifying the rules. If people want to create new ones than that is what they will do. Hopefully they will make them clear enough to allow people to design to the edge without crossing the line. And hopefully without making all the great chassis' we have now Illegal.

Yes, but sometimes ugly is just universally ugly. :ror:

Intent cannot be summed up in one sentence, or in one rule. It has to be put in context along with everything else. If you read through the rules for bodied rigs, and then read through the rules for bodiless rules, you might come to understand that the committee has tried to create two separate classifications for two different kinds of chassis construction.

We all know that a bodied chassis does not depend on what is sitting on top of it for it to work. Since a bodiless chassis has its own rules, it would not be a stretch to assume that it is the construction that sets it apart. Since it says "structurally complete", that to me means that it can only operate as a complete assembly with all of its major components intact.

There is a reason nobody has tried to seriously pass off my example of a bodiless rig before, and that is because it isn't. The thing bolted onto the chassis plates has absolutely no effect on the overall chassis structure. It is there simply to meet minimum requirements and to aid in roll overs. Much like many bodiless chassis designs available at this point in time...

 

[EeePee]

Intent rule has been around as long as I can recall. ~2004.

"A Jeep must look like a Jeep."

However I'm not sure if that remains in the rules. And come to think of it, maybe that was the scaler rules?

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Intent rule has been around as long as I can recall. ~2004.

"A Jeep must look like a Jeep."

However I'm not sure if that remains in the rules. And come to think of it, maybe that was the scaler rules?

Doesn't every rule have an intent? ;-)