Flexible top chassis

[ZoSo]

I was thinking when you lose a clip and the body spins around or something like that.
...but usually it's no help at all
I think intent is the question
if you design it to go out of spec to give you an advantage than I would call the penalty.

 

[BC-Brian]

In my opinion this comes down to intent. Let's use the body as an example. If a driver had a stock body and he fell off a cliff and it caved in a bit, out of spec i would let that driver continue as it was unintentional and does not offer an advantage.

If another driver cut all the supports out of his body cab so that when it flipped over the cab would collapse and let them drive upsidedown, i would call an out of spec penalty because it offered a distinct advantage and their intention was to let the truck go out of spec.

It is still fuzzy but this is just my $.02. "thumbsup"

 

[Robbob]

No fuzziness for me :mrgreen:

Section 8: Sportsmanship
8.1 – Sportsmanship: Good sportsmanship is required at RC Rock Crawling Competitions. If a competitor or
team member (including but not limited to spotters) promotes unsportsmanlike conduct, they and/or their team
members may be penalized upon the Marshal's review of the incident. Unsportsmanlike conduct includes but is
not limited to rude or abrasive actions towards officials or other teams or spectators, destroying property,
displaying drunken or disrespectful behavior, use of excessive on course profanity or kicking/throwing their
controller or rig. The violator(s) and/or their team members may be penalized upon the Marshal's review of the
incident. Unsportsmanlike conduct may result in a 50 for the course, and/or disqualified from the competition.
8.2 No
alcohol or drugs: allowed on course during competition.
8.3 Violation
of Intent: The intent of a written rule may include areas not explicitly expressed or illustrated.
*The RCCA Rules Committee has the ability to define the intent of a rule. A violation of the intent of a rule may
be considered a violation of the rule itself. Rulings on Violation of Intent shall only be made by the RCCA
Rules Committee, without exception.

Until theres a committee then I will be it locally :mrgreen: "thumbsup"

 

[barrybelvedere]

I have witnessed mainly 2.2 pro/mod vehicles become out of spec during comps all the time...When it happens it usually happens so fast nobody even catches it but me. Is it even worth busting their head over toy trucks? Purposely designed to cheat or not. There are so many different one off rigs around you cant really police them all.

Turns out if someone is so worried about trying to cheat it means they are lacking in other areas.

 

[tgenial58]

The goal of this question is to be sure to stay a legal crawler. (Cf semi rigid frame)
when you build your crawler, if in the end, people think that it is legal and that others do not, you're not sure to pass the technical inspection.
So do hundred of km for nothing is not really cool and build its crawler for nothing worse.

 

[Curcal]

Not sure what you mean by your statement. The consensus I've seen so far with every one here is... Make sure it meets measurement requirements and don't have a collapsible roof on purpose. Well you can try it but if it doesn't pop up into shape you take at least a 10pt penalty to fix it.

IMO: I'm not sure why you would push it.

 

[Snatch]

The goal of this question is to be sure to stay a legal crawler.

If you want to be sure,so use no flexible top. You have no advantage with a flexible top (only if you´re on the roof and then it´s not legal).
Of course you can use it and perhaps without problems,but if you have a judge who does not like this,it´s very annoying for you.And that´s something we don´t need,crawling should be fun and nobody wants to get annoyed ;-)

 

[Curcal]

Just fyi. Tgenial you're an innovative thinker ive seen some of your stuff its great!

 

[C*H*U*D]

...Is it even worth busting their head over toy trucks? Purposely designed to cheat or not. There are so many different one off rigs around you cant really police them all.

I understand your point, but if that's the case why have rules at all? If only certain rules are to be enforced, why not get rid of all of them and just free crawl?

If someone unknowingly shows up at a local event with an out of spec vehicle, and the consensus is that it gives no advantage, I totally agree with you and say let them run. However I don't agree with someone showing up with something "Purposely designed to cheat" as you say. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Highlucks]

Easy fix,Cab flex limiters installed to prevent the cab flexing to a total distance of less than 3".

This will mean the chassis will need to be designed taller and thus mitigate any perceived advantage.

From all the discussion is see a very common theme from those that judge regularly. If it flexes to less than the minimum height, you will be teched and run the risk of getting a DQ. So you need to ask yourself. Does the risk out weigh the advantage?