DickyT
I wanna be Dave
"thumbsup"
-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion
- Thread starter Fishmaxx
- Start date
"thumbsup"
Maybe we should defind what a tire is, what an axle is,what a motor is, etc while we're at it.
I agree with you on this point completely. This is why I was asking your input on what you think a body is. Since you wish to push it to the edge, where do you feel the edge is?
Would love to hear your thoughts and opinions. You can PM me if you don't wish to post publicly.
crawlinghulls
Rock Crawler
If the topper were formed from delrin, had large areas cut from it, ran body panels and had the front/rear shocks mounted to it? The one piece design is gorgeous.
Wouldn't that make it a unibody with panels on it. ;-)
Thats what our brain was telling us at tech time .... its a body BUT there was nothing defining a difference between the two besides measurements.
Be it better though this pops up now instead of later - like after anyone travels to a Nats to find out its a no go. "thumbsup"
Yup and thats why we let it fly. By the rules, the way they are written theres no real definition. That and we knew it wasnt gonna be the deciding factor or win all thing. If you won it was gonna be because of truck and driver, not a questionable topper/body.
I dont think its vague rules, I think its clear and to the point but involves the general hobbies/peoples perception of what is and isnt. 25+ years of being in RC I see something like yours I think body. Its something I could throw on a Traxxas 1/16 scale and it would fit. It wouldnt be sold as a 'topper' for a bodiless 1/16 vehicle ..... it would be sold as a 'Body'.
I agree on testing the limits though. Some great things have come out of that, heck JIA mentioned something about ESC's he did back in 06 and now its pretty standard in all the ones we use.
Last edited:
I think his vacuum formed cab is a great idea. But his cab has a hood,trunk,and doors, at that point it became a body attached to a frame. Now thats what a body is. "thumbsup"
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
A unibody is a single element for the entire chassis, not just the top half.
Your top half has a front,back and 2 sides to it too.
reading it written out like that ........ yup agree even more its a body.
you should run for body chairmen :mrgreen:
Thats the definition I'm looking for, thanks for putting articulate words to the "look" "thumbsup"
Speedracer19
Rock Crawler
I agree, the vacuumed formed body is great, now just make it 3 seprate pieces (like the rules already state & not a decal), a hood then a roof/cab & 2 side panels & he would have a bodiless chassis as long as it fits all the other measurements.
Using Lexan is not new, Austin had his first bodiless chassis cab made from lexan.
Go back to the first page of this tread & look at some of the ideas of what to use/ how to use a vacuum formed body for...
Last edited:
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
This is a pretty good definition of a Body.
Body: A single piece of material, formed to represent a 1:1 vehicle, consisting of a hood, roof, and two side panels.
That being said I would have a hard time calling what I made something other than a body.
Let me hack some stuff up tonight and see what people think.
C*H*U*D
No idea what I'm doing
He does have the body for it "thumbsup"
My point is that if it pass the test without a roll cage it is a monocoque.
And also that this test applies to the more traditional bodiless as well. If their cab frame folds under a little stress it's illegal.
krawlfreak
I wanna be Dave
or a rollover:lmao:
so what happens when someone comes up with a cab mounted on springs so it intentionally folds under pressure and returns to required dimensions when pressure is released?
it would be structructural and it would fit inside the rules:shock:
we dont need any new rules or test procedures to limit design. seems a clarified definition of a body is all that would be needed to satisfy both sides of this issue.
C*H*U*D
No idea what I'm doing
I've been thinking more about the "Structurally Complete" clause in the rules.
▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame.
If the cab or body does not support any of the stress, to me it is not structural. Not only do I feel Brian's truck fits into a bodied category, but since the cab is not part of the structure, it does not make the chassis "Structurally Complete".
I know this is going to open a floodgate of debate.
BC-Brian
RCC Addict
So I played with the Vac table last night and came up with something else.
This is "060 Delrin. I cut out the roof, hood, sides, windows etc. I will mount body panels over the openings. It will be mounted at the upper links and the front and rear shocks, (total 8 fasteners).
Have we still got a body...?
Sorry to beat a dead horse but we might as well answer all these questions while we are talking about it.
This is "060 Delrin. I cut out the roof, hood, sides, windows etc. I will mount body panels over the openings. It will be mounted at the upper links and the front and rear shocks, (total 8 fasteners).
Have we still got a body...?
Sorry to beat a dead horse but we might as well answer all these questions while we are talking about it.
The thing is that it does support the stress imposed if/when the vehicle is rolling over. (By comparison: What stress do the roof bars in more traditional designs support while the vehicle is flat and level?)
And it's there to (also) shape the upper part of the structure.
Hence it's an integrated part of the overall structure.
