Petition for unified body/bodiless measurements

[DickyT]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

i am good with that. it was a suggestion.

but your "what next" has been here for a long time.

i havent had anything in my chassis for quite some time, it only mounts my links and shock

It also mounts your cab, so not what I meant. I was referring to something that only mounted shocks and links. no cab, no resemble requirements, 'unlimited' needs limits too, or we will all be driving trapezoids, or in the case of single pivot, triangles with giant wheels.

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

It also mounts your cab, so not what I meant. I was referring to something that only mounted shocks and links. no cab, no resemble requirements, 'unlimited' needs limits too, or we will all be driving trapezoids, or in the case of single pivot, triangles with giant wheels.

You are going way off here..I am not talking about unlimited.

Just a bit smaller dimensions and a matching body size.

Pretty simple in my eyes.

 

[TSK]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

People have been chasing trends the entire time. AX-10, then Moa. Bodied, then bodiless. Heavy, now everyone is chasing the featherweight cars. Using your logic, full size cars going from carbs to Fuel injection was chasing a trend. They are just progressing to better tech. Things change, and to fight it only hurts everyone. Allow people to "run what you brung" as long as it meets the basic overall dimensions would allow people to do what ever they want and open things up to innovation.

By that logic, the people with the most resources have the advantage and those with less lose out.

maximum spec... i dont know what your refering to ..size wize?

Yes a maximum dimensional specification.

You only give numbers for a minimum dimensional spec. In that case i might as well make a RC 1:! and litterally crush the competetion as it rolls along to course one.

Oh scratch that. It has to be oin 2.2" maximum bead diameter wheels... Back to the drawing board.

 

[TSK]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

You are going way off here..I am not talking about unlimited.

why not let it be unlimited?

Ummmmm.... yeaaahhhh....

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

By that logic, the people with the most resources have the advantage and those with less lose out.



Yes a maximum dimensional specification.

You only give numbers for a minimum dimensional spec. In that case i might as well make a RC 1:! and litterally crush the competetion as it rolls along to course one.

Oh scratch that. It has to be oin 2.2" maximum bead diameter wheels... Back to the drawing board.

All I am suggesting is body/ bodiless dimensions being unified at a suggested 3 tall 2.5-3" wide and 6.5 to 8" long.

All other specs as far as steering axles, tire/size and wheelbase remain

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Ummmmm.... yeaaahhhh....

It was a question.

Not what I am suggesting

 

[TSK]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

All I am suggesting is body/ bodiless dimensions being unified at a suggested 3 tall 2.5-3" wide and 6.5 to 8" long.

All other specs as far as steering axles, tire/size and wheelbase remain

So just the body of the bodied rig would have to meet that minimum? Or can it's cahssis still remain much smaller?

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

So just the body of the bodied rig would have to meet that minimum? Or can it's cahssis still remain much smaller?

I don't see why not. What are you thinking?

 

[The Violator]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

By that logic, the people with the most resources have the advantage and those with less lose out.

That is they way the world is. But resources, and resourcefulness are two different things. With the only limit being a basic outside dimension, the back yard builder can do anything as long as it falls into the proper dimensional box.

The leaders are always going to lead, and the followers will copy.

 

[TSK]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I don't see why not. What are you thinking?

Just trying to take everything into onsideration.

It's just that, IMO, the body is not the limiting factor on a bodied rig as pretty much everything beneath it is rather "unlimited,' where the minimum dimensional specs of the bdiless chassis is a limiting facotr.

Case in point, Yoshiaki's DD. That thing is the tiniest chassis out there. I don't see anyone cmoplaining that they have to run a 12.5" x 5" x 3" body o it. I see more complaints about how they are supposed to mount the actual body.

WIth unified dimensional specs, it seems like the bodiless would be at a severe disadvantage. How would a chssis like the DD be made into a current bodiless spec rig? Even more so, who would even want to run the DD as a bodiless? they look damn bad ass with a body slammed like that.

 

[The Violator]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

So just the body of the bodied rig would have to meet that minimum? Or can it's cahssis still remain much smaller?

Right now a bodied rig only has to meet a outside dimension. The chassis can be anything from a single tube stick to a full tuber and anything in between. As long as the outside dimensions are met.

 

[TSK]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

That is they way the world is. But resources, and resourcefulness are two different things. With the only limit being a basic outside dimension, the back yard builder can do anything as long as it falls into the proper dimensional box.

The leaders are always going to lead, and the followers will copy.

So if it's as simple as just fitting in your dimensional box, wouldn't that kind of be a n unlimited class?

Specs and regulations are in place to maintain a relevant "level playing field", which in turn makes the classes more appealling to the masses. No one wants to bring a knife to a gun fight just because they couldn't afford the bullets.

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Just trying to take everything into onsideration.

It's just that, IMO, the body is not the limiting factor on a bodied rig as pretty much everything beneath it is rather "unlimited,' where the minimum dimensional specs of the bdiless chassis is a limiting facotr.



Case in point, Yoshiaki's DD. That thing is the tiniest chassis out there. I don't see anyone cmoplaining that they have to run a 12.5" x 5" x 3" body o it. I see more complaints about how they are supposed to mount the actual body.

WIth unified dimensional specs, it seems like the bodiless would be at a severe disadvantage. How would a chssis like the DD be made into a current bodiless spec rig? Even more so, who would even want to run the DD as a bodiless? they look damn bad ass with a body slammed like that.

I don't think bodiless would be at any disadvantage. I also don't feel bodied will gain any advantage. It would give people some room to Maneuver with the specs a little better.

As far as yoshi's rig I do feel if you are going to run a body regardless of size it should be securely fastened at not able to flop all over the place.

 

[The Violator]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

So if it's as simple as just fitting in your dimensional box, wouldn't that kind of be a n unlimited class?

Specs and regulations are in place to maintain a relevant "level playing field", which in turn makes the classes more appealling to the masses. No one wants to bring a knife to a gun fight just because they couldn't afford the bullets.

2.2 pro is basically unlimited as it is. You can spend as much or as little as you want. I have found that spending money does not buy as much performance as it does buy reliability. A box stock xr-10 can ( and has) been on the podium at national level comps while my personal money pit has only ever made it to the top 500.

 

[RcBro]

The same overall dimensions for both bodiless and bodied should be the same. I see no advantage or dis advantage to either scenario.

I run bodiless and will continue to do so. I hate cutting bodies and mounting them.

However some enjoy bodies and I feel they should have the luxury to cut them as small as our bodiless rigs.

Arguing about fairness, resources and $$ and leaving someone out is a never ending battle. There is no sports competition where this isn't an issue and it will always be that way. This is where being a builder or a driver will set one apart. Sometimes it doesn't matter how much $$ or resources one has they still can't drive and vice versa.

 

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

why? is this a scale comp?

why not let it be unlimited? You say unlimited here

do you think you will have some sort of disadvantage?

i am talking about the dimensions. not an unlimited class.:roll: Now you don.t say unlimited.

stop taking it so personal ricky. i am being civil here. I don't take it personal, I just believ what I believe.

the argument that it will cost more is stupis at best.

every time a top driver farts right now the sheeple run out to smell or buy what it is.

the arguments you guys are fighting for about "cost" and "cookie cutter" are already here!

You are going way off here..I am not talking about unlimited.

Just a bit smaller dimensions and a matching body size. smaller would not be matching body size.

Pretty simple in my eyes.

Simple mind, simple veiw.

I guess my peoblem is I heard all of this before in the rule committee before you were on it. You think this is all new talk , well it isn't . I say you go to the committee with your facts and state your cause. Or go read some old threads and get a light on it. You can stir shit here all you want and the only thing that will happen is it will stink.
Take it to the committee. Thats the only way to change things.

 

[krawlfreak]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

Simple mind, simple veiw.

I guess my peoblem is I heard all of this before in the rule committee before you were on it. You think this is all new talk , well it isn't . I say you go to the committee with your facts and state your cause. Or go read some old threads and get a light on it. You can stir shit here all you want and the only thing that will happen is it will stink.
Take it to the committee. Thats the only way to change things.

I don't think it is all new talk.

Never claimed to. Just don't understand why you and a few others are so stuck in your ways.

The fact that it keeps coming up has to pose a question.

If you don't like me stirring shit don't read it. I could give a shit.

If nothing changes because of my rants. I could give two shits.

One day things will change, if it is not with usrcca it will be with another association.

I posed a question with what I said.

You can claim I have a simple mind, but I don't believe you. You can try to make it personal, but I could give three shits about that.

That's three shits for you"thumbsup"

New record.

If it stays the same,fine, if bodies stay the same, fine, if the reduce the size fine.

You obviously believe your side and I mine.

I will continue to push and so will others... Better get your arguing skills ready

 

[Speedracer19]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

With the current rules on the bodied 2.2, i can't believe that some of the weight weenies haven't jumped on this and made a sub 4 lb. rig.
I mean there are NO rules on the chassis, just the body. Think about how small you could make a chassis, like using the chassis part from a T1e chassis to attach you links, tiny skid, look how small the DD chassis is, mount the electronics to the sides of the postage stamp sized chassis, the battery to the front axle...after that the "Cage guys" would drool.

 

[RcBro]

Most lexan bodies weight more then a full cf bodiless rig

 

[HARDKNOCKZ]

Re: Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

I don't think it is all new talk.

Never claimed to. Just don't understand why you and a few others are so stuck in your ways.

The fact that it keeps coming up has to pose a question.

If you don't like me stirring shit don't read it. I could give a shit.

If nothing changes because of my rants. I could give two shits.

One day things will change, if it is not with usrcca it will be with another association.

I posed a question with what I said.

You can claim I have a simple mind, but I don't believe you. You can try to make it personal, but I could give three shits about that.

That's three shits for you"thumbsup"

New record.

If it stays the same,fine, if bodies stay the same, fine, if the reduce the size fine.

You obviously believe your side and I mine.

I will continue to push and so will others... Better get your arguing skills ready

Holy moly thats a lotta poop!

I think the arguments can be made without name calling & harsh words. Claiming Jeremy is simple minded is not only unnecessary but IMO...kinda silly based on his constant innovation in our sport. I may not agree or fully subscribe to his thoughts or opinions on the matter but he...like many are only trying to further the sport by finding that new edge. I see nothing wrong with that as long as it all stays within the scope of the current rules. There's nothing wrong with stating a case to change those rules but turning to insults to defend current rulings will only muddy the waters.

With the current rules on the bodied 2.2, i can't believe that some of the weight weenies haven't jumped on this and made a sub 4 lb. rig.
I mean there are NO rules on the chassis, just the body. Think about how small you could make a chassis, like using the chassis part from a T1e chassis to attach you links, tiny skid, look how small the DD chassis is, mount the electronics to the sides of the postage stamp sized chassis, the battery to the front axle...after that the "Cage guys" would drool.

The weight watchers haven't jumped on your idea simply because the chassis still has to WORK. Screwing shocks & links to a stick may save a ton of weight but what good is that weight savings if the rig works like poo?