Petition for unified body/bodiless measurements

[JohnRobHolmes]

I'm not really sure what the motivation is behind this petition. It would be nice to know...

This cab, that some people interpret as body, or possibly interpret as improper panel mounting, or see as a bodiless cab that fits in the rules.

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/rule...els-help-guide-disscussion-3.html#post4022745

Bringing the measurements into one standard would remove chassis type definitions from the ruleset and streamline tech. It would also set apart 2.2p and 2.2 shafty classes a bit, a good move IMO.


I would argue for the ABC measurements to be reduced in the same fashion as krawlfreak. Bodiless chassis in use would not become illegal, and people with bodies could cut them down for the price of a pair of scissors.

 

[sidehill]

What if we vote this in and they make the bodiless size to the bodied size instead :shock: :lmao:

 

[Robbob]

But we all know that it's all up to driving skill, right?

I mean, the best driver would likely win the champs even if (s)he run an out-of-box RTR drift car... :roll:

Yup and when you look at Austin's record was any of that done bodiless? I don't believe so, heck besides this year what were the last 4 year's type of nats winning trucks?

It comes down to the driver but we need clear definition of the difference.

Heck why not widen bodiless? I don't see anyone saying that route. This way manufacturers don't have to change.

What would it really cost to upgrade an existing cab to be wider, 20$ in spacers? It's gonna cost 25$ for a lexan body, why put the burden on the small amount of commercial supporters we have?

What if only one supplier decides to stick around and support bodies? Can't get anymore cookie cuttter then that for either side.


Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

What if we vote this in and they make the bodiless size to the bodied size instead :shock: :lmao:

Then they will be lining the pockets of every bodiless chassis maker or forcing everybody to buy bodies. Mandatory size increases of our carbon fiber beauties, which isn't cheap to source or cut.

If it is done the proper way of all existing minimums there is no real cost, other than cutting up lexan for next year of you want. Not mandatory though. Future body purchases will be even cheaper because of the reduced lexan used.



If the rules committee gets this wrong... :lmao:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

What if we vote this in and they make the bodiless size to the bodied size instead :shock: :lmao:

Then there would be a huge amount of $60-$100+ bodiless chassis' that would be illegal. A very stupid move IMO.

 

[Robbob]

Then there would be a huge amount of $60-$100+ bodiless chassis' that would be illegal. A very stupid move IMO.

Length yes but not if it was just width. (I believe)

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Then they will be lining the pockets of every bodiless chassis maker or forcing everybody to buy bodies. Mandatory size increases of our carbon fiber beauties, which isn't cheap to source or cut.

If it is done the proper way of all existing minimums there is no real cost, other than cutting up lexan for next year of you want. Not mandatory though. Future body purchases will be even cheaper because of the reduced lexan used.



If the rules committee gets this wrong... :lmao:

wouldn't changing the min. on bodiless rigs line the pockets of every bodiless chassis maker and force people to buy new bodies. :ror: and both would be cheaper. :ror:

If there has to be change, to make bodied and bodiless them same. Wouldn't it be better to change bodied measurements to the bodiless.

 

[JeremyH]

What if we vote this in and they make the bodiless size to the bodied size instead :shock: :lmao:

Reread the first post in this thread....it says to drop down the body dimensions to those of the bodiless......"thumbsup"

 

[Krawler23]

It's not like the rules can't be changed back if the new rules take place and don't work well.

 

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

It also mentions in the first post about there being a discussion on the board about ruducing the bodiless cab height requirements from what i read and understood.Either way,i'm fine with the bodiless measurement rules as of now,but would'nt mind if the cab height could be lowered a bit.

 

[The Violator]

Damn Ricky, it sounds like you want everyone to go back to TLT or clod axles because the AX-10 is way to new.

 

[krawlfreak]

I could only guess that they see it as an advantage, but there are advantages to having a long, wide body like we are limited to at the moment. Personally I would not run a teeny one because you would lose those advantages, but some feel otherwise.

I'm not really sure what the motivation is behind this petition. It would be nice to know...

the motivation is choice for individuals to make up their own minds up as to what they like. there is no advantage one way or another. all advantages are only percieved.

wouldn't changing the min. on bodiless rigs line the pockets of every bodiless chassis maker and force people to buy new bodies. :ror: and both would be cheaper. :ror:

If there has to be change, to make bodied and bodiless them same. Wouldn't it be better to change bodied measurements to the bodiless.

why, would it be any different than now?

my truck isnt even a year old yet i get multiple pm's a day wondering where the new and improved version is.

the hard truth is, i or any other vendor here could put a new truck out tomorrow and make plenty of sales.

and why would anyone be forced to do anything? if you think having a chassis that is a bit smaller, or 1/2 an oz lighter is gonna win you the title, you may need to go back to the practice pile...

and on another note, if it did line the pockets of the chassis or parts builders here (that in my honest opinion are keeping the crawler world alive right now) what would it matter? would you rather give your hard earned money to a large company that will turn its back on us at the drop of a hat?

i would think all the vendors would welcome some change.

It also mentions in the first post about there being a discussion on the board about ruducing the bodiless cab height requirements from what i read and understood.Either way,i'm fine with the bodiless measurement rules as of now,but would'nt mind if the cab height could be lowered a bit.

i as well, but i would like a little breathing room on the bodiless dimensions if this does become something viable.


keep in mind guys, this is a petition to judge the view of the public. i highly doubt anything is gonna change overnight, and i dont expect it too, but it will show where the general public is on this issue and hopefully make a change for the better, by the people actually involved in 2.2 pro comp crawling.

 

[mindless]

Then there would be a huge amount of $60-$100+ bodiless chassis' that would be illegal. A very stupid move IMO.

Didnt this already happen.. 2.2s haha

 

[C*H*U*D]

Just for the sake of argument....

I see a lot of talk about simplifying the rules. Then why not just have three:

max wheelbase limit
2.2 wheels
no rear steer

Let everyone fill in the blanks and see what happens. Obviously some designs will not work at all, and others will. And let's be honest...these are not trucks anymore. They are remote control electric robots that just happen to have rubber tires, so let's stop all the talk about requiring them to look like, or resemble a real truck.

What happens when this reduction isn't enough? Go smaller still?

I'm not being sarcastic here either...it's an honest thought. Three simple rules, and anything else goes.

 

[crawlinghulls]

and why would anyone be forced to do anything? if you think having a chassis that is a bit smaller, or 1/2 an oz lighter is gonna win you the title, you may need to go back to the practice pile...

May be the most relevant statement yet

 

[Speedracer19]

Just for the sake of argument....

I see a lot of talk about simplifying the rules. Then why not just have three:

max wheelbase limit
2.2 wheels
no rear steer

Let everyone fill in the blanks and see what happens. Obviously some designs will not work at all, and others will. And let's be honest...these are not trucks anymore. They are remote control electric robots that just happen to have rubber tires, so let's stop all the talk about requiring them to look like, or resemble a real truck.

What happens when this reduction isn't enough? Go smaller still?

I'm not being sarcastic here either...it's an honest thought. Three simple rules, and anything else goes.

Perhaps add a minimum weight limit...

 

[Robbob]

Perhaps add a minimum weight limit...

1*

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[Harvo]

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

Make a 3" tall, 2.5" wide and 6.5" long bodiless on 2.2 wheels ... step back several feet and with nothing close by for a size reference, it might look similar to some of the bodiless supers out right now .

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Didnt this already happen.. 2.2s haha

Yep. :ror:

there is no advantage one way or another. all advantages are only percieved.

Wrong. Each style has their definite advantages and disadvantages. When I went bodiless there were things I liked and things I didn't, and not as a matter of taste, it was a matter of performance.

 

[C*H*U*D]

Perhaps add a minimum weight limit...

Why? Weight is one area now that has no limit, and gets pushed harder than any other measurement. Since there is no weight limit now, why add one? And since there is no weight limit, why have a size, material or construction limit?