Radio Control Crawling Association Vehicle Definitions and Judging

[JohnRobHolmes]

Traditional Comp class Rulesets and judging - https://docs.google.com/document/d/10CIfQa6-vUjvvIaiWI1uBqxU9lA7m7SuFnnfpTTEDKo/edit?usp=sharing

Modified Trail Vehicles- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBbm6sarpvjcp61GOMfb_fquV5GUVagUjXgud77FDas/edit?usp=sharing

Unlimited Vehicles- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JxPtY62AESfZUqismAMZ17QBMKklM1EbYhKN4zZA8QU/edit?usp=sharing

General Event guidelines- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eSmGIrU_UY3pYhPbmv7ZrHDx35mK3g_TpGW9gEHOMsE/edit?usp=sharing

 

[trophycart]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

can you post the usrcca rules in a pdf format or word document the links dont work for me... thanks

 

[The CrAwLL BLACK]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Hi team,

Just reviewing the rules and have a quick question about the traditional comp class rules.

Rule 2.1.6 no longer exists in the rules. They jump from 2.1.5.x straight to 2.1.7

Can you please confirm if 2.1.6 has been removed, or is omitted in error?

This rule (2.1.6) was to do with fixed mounting points for suspension.

Cheers,
Mike.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Interesting.
There is no 2.1.6 in the 2013 (2014) ruleset either.

 

[The CrAwLL BLACK]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

So, do we take it that rule 2.1.6 has officially been removed?

Where is the rules committee?
Anyone?

Cheers
Mike

 

[chevotafun]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

What rule committee?
the only committee now is John himself.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

I released rule committee since things had stagnated and few were actually doing work. Rules have just been rolled forwards as I recieved them to keep all rigs in spec, I do not anticipate any material changes except for some tweaks on trail class that will loosen restrictions further. Once we get back in a groove and get a headcount of active clubs and members I would like to use RC ORVA to involve members with voting issues and rep elections. But as of right now I'm basically a dictator with a long term goal, having too many hands in the cookie jar was just hurting the organizations ability to move forwards. It ain't the rules that make it fun anyway, it's the hosts and competitors that really matter.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

One thing I am changing is the whole 3.4.3.6.4.1.1 listing crapola. It's gonna be line xxxx in document revision xx, and if something is removed it doesn't change the whole order and listing. It just changes the revision and maybe the line number. Huge problem of revising rules that I could never get changed by comittee or owners, so I'm only going to fix that nagging skip once. And it's not going to be renaming everything under section two!

 

[Solitaire]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Aww crap, I really liked rule 3.4.3.6.4.1.1

 

[House]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

2.5.6 and 2.5.8 contradict each other. I would imagine 2.5.8 is supposed to be omitted?

 

[Solitaire]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Actually, they don't.
2.2 Shafty has to have a body as per 2.5.6
Body has to be the required size as per 2.5.8

2.5.7 is duplicated, though.

 

[House]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Actually, they do. Read it a little closer:

2.5.6 refers to 2.3.6. (2.3.6 states 8" x 3" x 3" dimensions)

2.5.8 states 12.5" x 5" x 3"

Looks quite contradictory to me...?

 

[chevotafun]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Actually, they do. Read it a little closer:

2.5.6 refers to 2.3.6. (2.3.6 states 8" x 3" x 3" dimensions)

2.5.8 states 12.5" x 5" x 3"

Looks quite contradictory to me...?

Pretty sure 2.5.6 is the MOA chassis dimensions.

2.5.8 is the Sportsman body dimensions.

 

[House]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Pretty sure 2.5.6 is the MOA chassis dimensions.

2.5.8 is the Sportsman body dimensions.

No, everything "2.5" is Class 4 = Class 2.2 Shafty (Sportsman)

I believe the purpose of the reference to the MOA dimensions (2.3.6)
was to make it so there were smaller bodies allowed for both classes.
If a small body IS allowed, 2.5.8 needs to go away.
If a shafty has to have a larger body then (See Sec 2.3.6) should be removed from 2.5.6.
Make sense? ;-)

 

[Solitaire]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

I think the only reason 2.3.6 was even mentioned in the Shafty area was to point out the 2.2 Pro dimensions. Otherwise, the reference to 2.3.6 doesn't need to be there at all.

As far as I know, 8x3x3 is only available for 2.2 Pro.

 

[House]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

What are your thoughts JohnRobHolmes?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

The 2.2 Pro class has the smaller bodyless dims and the 2.2 shafty class does not allow bodyless and has the dims as outlined in 2.5.8. 2.3.6 is referenced to indicate what is not allowed, but I agree that it should be rewritten cleaner.

 

[SkaldidDog]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

I released rule committee since things had stagnated and few were actually doing work. Rules have just been rolled forwards as I recieved them to keep all rigs in spec, I do not anticipate any material changes except for some tweaks on trail class that will loosen restrictions further. Once we get back in a groove and get a headcount of active clubs and members I would like to use RC ORVA to involve members with voting issues and rep elections. But as of right now I'm basically a dictator with a long term goal, having too many hands in the cookie jar was just hurting the organizations ability to move forwards. It ain't the rules that make it fun anyway, it's the hosts and competitors that really matter.

Progress. Next gate...

"thumbsup"

J

 

[The CrAwLL BLACK]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

Sooooo, is 2.1.6 officially removed from the rules?

Reading between the lines I think that's what JRH is saying with the numbering system comment.
But would really like confirmation.
Cheers
Mike

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Re: RCCA / USRCCA Rulesets

If it's not there, it's not coming back.