Rules, Issues and Public Concerns

[team3six]

there is perceptions/dicagreement is what our nations laws are.

judges who "know" the law often have "thier" desission overtured by higher courts.

Our nations own suprem courts .......

Dude, leave thr political discussions to chit chat. Were discussing things. Thats what the thread is about. Helping solve the issues at hand.
A little knowledge or idea isnt going to hurt.

BTW, I was talking about NASCAR.

That would kill this hobby really fast.

I like all the different desgins I like the ingenuity that said rules allow now.

Jammin, not to be an ass, but your USRCCA rules are already hurting.
Im one of the few Vendors willing to discuss it to see if and outside look in to the window will help fix an issue.

Resolve, not excuses!

And Jeremy, its interesting that you found that rule about being a sanctioned club. I did not know that.

And RockedUp Ricky, I made mention of how clubs tech because out of your own mouth and Duuuuuude's was s comment about teching.
Is that percieving too?

Thomas Edison was once said.
"I didnt fail 500 times at making a light bulb, I found 500 ways to not make a Lightbulb".

Perception is a single persons view of how something is seen in their eyes.
But now you have to find a way to change that.

An Inch is still an inch.
Even 10 tenths is still a foot.
You cant percieve what is fact.

 

[JeremyH]

I have been trying for 6 years, and according to some I suck at it.

I dont think anybody was saying that you or anyone else on the RC sucks at setting up the rules. Most folks are just saying that times have changed and the rules should change along with them..."thumbsup"

And Jeremy, its interesting that you found that rule about being a sanctioned club. I did not know that.

You mean about receiving recognition and not actually having to follow the rules created by the sanctioning body? It's more of a lack of a rule...

 

[rock hard]

Dude, leave thr political discussions to chit chat. Were discussing things. Thats what the thread is about. Helping solve the issues at hand.
A little knowledge or idea isnt going to hurt.

BTW, I was talking about NASCAR.


Jammin, not to be an ass, but your USRCCA rules are already hurting.
Im one of the few Vendors willing to discuss it to see if and outside look in to the window will help fix an issue.

Resolve, not excuses!

And Jeremy, its interesting that you found that rule about being a sanctioned club. I did not know that.

And RockedUp Ricky, I made mention of how clubs tech because out of your own mouth and Duuuuuude's was s comment about teching.
Is that percieving too?

Thomas Edison was once said.
"I didnt fail 500 times at making a light bulb, I found 500 ways to not make a Lightbulb".

Perception is a single persons view of how something is seen in their eyes.
But now you have to find a way to change that.

An Inch is still an inch.
Even 10 tenths is still a foot.
You cant percieve what is fact.

law is not political, its law, and same as rules, people can have different views of those rules or laws

same as the higher courts will determin the law
the commitee will determin the rules.

Nothing need to be changed with the base process rcc has.
teh commitee simply needs to work, in the interst of the "drivers"
and they need to do so in a manner so that the "public"
can realize the process is fair.

( oh, and it needs to happen over night or people get impatient ) Just kidding, but sadly true

 

[team3six]

Fish, what I was saying is
There are approved and unapproved designs in NASCAR for running Bodies.

If someone say you can only use these bodies snd only cut them here and must be mounted like so.
Sounds like you just defined the body.

Laws! Not rules.
Its either this or your out

Build new rules for the future structure of comp crawling.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

In the case with bc.....krawlfreak said the key words

"even though I dont like it"

he had the ability to admit its legal per the rules, even though he didnt like it.

Way to many times, it seems to me that "some" people will call it elligal just cuz they "feel/think" it "should" be, or say it "clearly" against the rules, even though its not clearly expressed within the rules.

And I said the opposite...I like it, but felt it did not qualify as a bodiless design.

 

[Nabil]

If you give me time I can think of the situation where drivers actions forced a rules change or a new rule....not the other way around.

I know I'm personally responsible for at least 1. Now there is a 2.55 inch max diameter on wheels

So how about this.
How does one write the rules so they can not be percieved?

Answer: make them laws
You can only run this, you can only run that, you can modify this and this is the limits.
If any truck runs out of those quals, they are eliminated.

.

The SCCA rule book was one of the first to impose this structure. It was described as "if its not stated as legal, it is illegal." While it seems like a great idea a lot can still happen

I can say from experience that there is still a ton of gray areas in this format that can have the "intent" rule come into play and rule changes are made mid season.

Examples:

1.
Rule states: you can not use A to accomplish B
Work around: use A to accomplish C while also having an affect on B

2.
Rule states: component A must be mounted in area B
Work around 1: build part C that attaches inside of area B and holds part A outside area B
Work around 2: mount component A outside but slightly overlapping (.25 inches) area B


I can keep going, but i figured that was enough. Both of my examples are based on current rules and how they are currently being used by alot of competitors. There is always going to be a way to exploit the rules and someone will always find it.

 

[jammin311]

Jammin, not to be an ass, but your USRCCA rules are already hurting.
Im one of the few Vendors willing to discuss it to see if and outside look in to the window will help fix an issue.

lol no worries here man. I just think putting limits on stuff like what you can build out of and stuff like that would less'n the ingenuity out there maybe it would inprove it I don't know..... maybe im just the ass:twisted:

 

[team3six]

law is not political, its law, and same as rules, people can have different views of those rules or laws

same as the higher courts will determin the law
the commitee will determin the rules.

Nothing need to be changed with the base process rcc has.
teh commitee simply needs to work, in the interst of the "drivers"
and they need to do so in a manner so that the "public"
can realize the process is fair.

( oh, and it needs to happen over night or people get impatient )

What, you gonna get a lawyer now when the rule doesnt fit.
Its not political Paul.

Again help with solutions, quit debating with banter about law.

 

[team3six]

Ok, im stepping away. Just go ahead and insult me. Im used to it.

Im just gonna say that you guys really need to look at your future soon.
Im giving you fair warning!

 

[rock hard]

And I said the opposite...I like it, but felt it did not qualify as a bodiless design.

see, you and krawl are seperated by 180* each looking at the same issue but each oof your personal perception or understanding of the rules puts you at odds with each other idealogically on the topic.

now is when the process rcc already has in place will work...

The rules commitee has tackled problems before......rulels have changed before.....we all still go comp each month.....

The commitee just needs to work for the drivers, and we need to give them time to do so.


Tsix....I dont think laws are political ( you brought them up ) The process that rules and laws are created or changed can get very political....but thats different...
surely my stating that laws are not political didint insult you, but just in case....it was not my intension.

 

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

And RockedUp Ricky, I made mention of how clubs tech because out of your own mouth and Duuuuuude's was s comment about teching.
Is that percieving too?
.

:???: Not sure what your talking about, I was just saying that Arkansas and MO. have crawl offs and we tech the rig there.

Our club knows the rules and we never have to worry about the grey area getting pushed to hard, just good old honest guys. We hadrly ever tech our rigs, but the tools right there if we need to. And if I see something thats out, I tech it. It's never a fight and we'll even help each other fix it. "thumbsup"
I do keep an eye on Duuuuuuuude's ass when he comes to our comps. :twisted:

 

[JeremyH]

Ok, im stepping away. Just go ahead and insult me. Im used to it.

Im just gonna say that you guys really need to look at your future soon.
Im giving you fair warning!

Dude, seriously, calm down. No one is insulting you here. Just a simple discussion on how to fix some problems with our system....

Our club knows the rules and we never have to worry about the grey area getting pushed to hard, just good old honest guys. We hadrly ever tech our rigs, but the tools right there if we need to. And if I see something thats out, I tech it. It's never a fight and we'll even help each other fix it. "thumbsup"

Same thing we do here. "thumbsup"

I do keep an eye on Duuuuuuuude's ass when he comes to our comps. :twisted:

Now this is sig material if I have ever seen it!! :ror:

 

[team3six]

JeremyH - Seriously, your taking it wrong.
Im not mad or upset.
I offered my advice and Im walking away nicely.

New Norm (Nice and Kind) No Bad Norm (Rude and Mean)

Just really want you all to think about how to make it better for the future.
Peace.

P.s. the picking on me was true, I am used to it.

 

[EGRESSor]

here is where we dissagree.

you can define a body all you want but bc's truck meets every rule for bodiless. so defining a body would still not make his truck illegal.

there stays one word in the bodiless rule
FRAME

which part of BC´s truck is the frame ?
the cap ?

 

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Dude, seriously, calm down. He's sensitive sometimes, don't worry ,he'll be alright.


Now this is sig material if I have ever seen it!! :ror:

Duuuuuuuude is a cute guy.

 

[JeremyH]

JeremyH - Seriously, your taking it wrong.
Im not mad or upset.
I offered my advice and Im walking away nicely.

Ok good. Intonation does not work well with written word."thumbsup"

 

[rock hard]

there stays one word in the bodiless rule
FRAME

which part of BC´s truck is the frame ?
the cap ?

if you look at rules #2.1.5
itt says it must be compete frame right?
but it also say the "roof" must be raised a MIN. of 1" from >main chassis <
( what is the main chassis ? this is left to perception )

the roof of bc's truck is not the mian chassis IMO ( perception )

now lets move on

rule #2.1.5.1.7

says what all can be used to get to your total measurments, notice it does not limit you to a complete frame to get to the required meassurement
roof is also allowed,,,,,in bc's truck. the lexan cab is the roof"thumbsup"
tottally legit;-)

now, rulle 2.1.5.1.7 makes it clear IMO ( perception ) that the min deminsions encompase many things other than the
( main chassis ) IMO

Its the wording of the main chassis that probably gives me personally the perception that the rigid/compete art of the rule only encopases the main chassis as the part that can run with a cab or without.....
I mean common sense tells me a main chassis will work without a body or a cab

also, the reasoning for the cab adds to my perception of this....
it gives reasoning for a raised cab ( appearance ) which suggests the cab is not needed to be structural other than to not fall out of spec.
it is not required to have a functioning chassis ( main chassis )

Now the rules commitee couls easily use wording such as
bodiless main chassis and raised roof frame railes/plates must reach min measurement ( A ) ( B ) ( C )

But, thats not what it says at time of the build

 

[rock hard]

txrcrca 017Edit Picture
Add to Group
Report Picture

Picture Added 11-21-2009 03:45 PM
Added by rock hard

Picture URL

BB Code

​

thiis was yrs ago

My main chassis was the sling shot.....
the rules have NO min measurement for the main chassis

The cab I added is not needed for the main chassis to be complete
I choose this cab, but could have made the cab from any material I wanted sincne the rules dont limit us on that.

Bc used lexan for his material.....nothing in the rules says the raised cab must have solid fram rails....
it says fram rails must be min of 1", not the roofs fram rails..

even still as stated earlier, you could just trim out, leaving rails and be good.
it still wouldnt fall under unibody, since it mounts securely to teh ( main chassis )

You can say thats what it means, but thats not what it says, or at least not clearly enough to prevent this debate from many on all sides.

and actually, if you actually READ the rules, frame sides and cockpit side are refered to seperatly in the rule.
so the 1" frame side must deffinatly does not refer to teh cockpit.

( cockpit and fram sides are to be measured vertically )

 

[team3six]

Ohh look at that, another Facebook post of someone from Arkasas selling thier Comp stuff!

 

[JeremyH]

Ohh look at that, another Facebook post of someone from Arkasas selling thier Comp stuff!

Isnt that a wonderful attitude to have. That was quite helpful to this discussion.:roll:

If all you are going to to is be negative, why even post in here?