Super mini class

[JohnRobHolmes]

Well if you want to run MOAs with practically no limits its a small sacrifice for those lonely empty chassis interiors on the larger rigs. It forces a minimum size without measuring it out, a sneaky move to replace the transmission . Maaaaaybe the driver is over the line, but I was fantasizing about how many overzealous folks would be heated by seeing a MOA rig with driver :lol:

 

[89redranger]

Your in the wrong section of this forum to be worried about scale points creeping in :lol:

All I was worried about, and the only reason I had any argument against "scale."

I think I know what Erik is trying to build, just think of a Super in its current "robot" form and make it much much smaller. Sounds fun to me, I'm in.

My thoughts and hopes exactly. Now, MOA, shafty, or both? I like Winner's ideas here, but what's to say a guy couldn't tinker with a MOA setup? I really don't see either having a distinct advantage on tires this small once dig units and 4WS get involved. Both have their pros and cons.

 

[winnerone23]

Sounds like a Mod (shafty) or Unlimited (MOA) trail vehicle with a 4.25" tire and 12" gate for classic comp style fits everything y'all want. Manufacturers would like to see the Stock Trail vehicles broken into smaller tire sizes as well, so it makes sense to apply it to all.

So where would a shaft driven 2.2 (5.5" tire) comp rig, built out of MOA axle's fit?

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

In unlimited there is not a chassis mounted transmission requirement. Doesn't have to be MOA, but MOA OK is as good as making it an moa class.


And of course it fits in 2.2p and 2.2s classic comp vehicles too.

 

[Tomy]

This... This is my thoughts on MOA axle's in the sporty class..

If it was born to Pro class, let it there..

I've talked to a few guys that wants to build rigs and start crawling..
They asked, "what's the point in spending the money/building a modified sporty, just to not have it keep up with a MOA axled sporty?"

I dunno.. I welcome any challenge, that makes me a better crawler or strive to make me the best I can.

If it's going to drive more ppl away from the hobby, it's not worth it tho...

I am surprised this has not awoken more discussion. Perhaps we have already lost the battle for a beginner friendly and low budget 2.2s class?

As I understand it, the Sportsman class was originally set up to offer an alternative to the high tech and expensive 2.2 Pro class (MOA-rigs). It got off to a good start and quickly gained popularity. Low tech, low cost, back to basics - no wonder the Sporty class attracted people. Unfortunately very soon lots of Pro drivers grew an interest in the class and started competing in 2.2s with high end big budget cars. I estimate an average 2.2s car nowadays costs $800-1000 to build.

If the target group for the 2.2s class still is people who are getting into crawling for the first time or drivers who want to stay in the hobby but cannot justify the cost of the 2.2 Pro class, we need to see to that the interests of these people are protected and cared for.

If we do nothing to keep MOA axle shaftys away from the 2.2s class we will soon have the same rat race as we do in the 2.2 Pro class now. 2.2s is about to take a giant leap away from the users it was originally intended for. Crawling is unique in terms of constant innovation and improvement. I don't think a day goes by without someone coming up with a new brilliant way of doing something related to our hobby. The downside is the seemingly forever continuing need to improve your vehicle. I believe there are many drivers out there who would just like to buy a kit, make a few chosen upgrades, and start competing and expect a life cycle of 3-4 years out of their vehicle and have it stay competitive for that time.

There is no real need for the MOA-axle shafty. A pure MOA will only cost a little more and perform better. The only reason to build a MOA shafty is to max out performance in the 2.2s class as long as the rules permit these vehicles being built. We don't want to split up one more class - or do we want a 2.2s Classic and 2.2s MOA class next year? We already have the 2.2 Pro and Super classes where engineering wizards can continue to build and develop amazing vehicles. I say, act now and save what's left of the 2.2s class, let us have chassis mounted transmissions and motors only in 2.2s.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

I've been watching that very carefully, and just have not weighed on it yet. I see people building rigs for this year already, so is it too late to make a change this year or should it be nipped in the bud now?

 

[sally1800]

The vehicles defined as of right now:

Unlimited Trail (MOA ok) 6" tire

:shock:

This would be fun, Is there any links to a build of a MOA trail rig?

 

[Tomy]

I've been watching that very carefully, and just have not weighed on it yet. I see people building rigs for this year already, so is it too late to make a change this year or should it be nipped in the bud now?

Make changes take effect in 2016 but communicate the upcoming rule change clearly now. This should effectively prevent new builds from getting started but let those who already have invested in a MOA shafty use their cars for 2015. Would this make a fair compromise to all?

 

[Zarizi Tech]

Would this make a fair compromise to all?

Yes. "thumbsup"

 

[Erik D_lux]

Still here. Just reading. I think I have already given my input....

I cant stand the thought process that you have to have an expensive car to have a shot at winning. Its ignorant and a horrible excuse to not hone your driving skills. People are winning all over the planet with basic, cheap cars, every weekend.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

Make changes take effect in 2016 but communicate the upcoming rule change clearly now. This should effectively prevent new builds from getting started but let those who already have invested in a MOA shafty use their cars for 2015. Would this make a fair compromise to all?

This has been my best thought of action as well. Don't do it now, but make it clear that next season there will be chassis mounted transmission requirements. It isn't a new concept at all, but just recently it is has taken a further step by using MOA axles. It only gives an advantage if the course designers intentionally put climbs and breakovers into the course that favor high shaft configurations. I am interested in how the torque twist is handled though, it isn't coming from the chassis but from the axles so it must take a different approach on tuning.

 

[johnnyh66]

I've been ready for this one for a while now!
I love my mini's :mrgreen:

 

[RcBro]

USRCCA is a rules guideline which we hold at National Level compeitions. There is no reason we need to hold to these guidelines at a club level with classes that won't compete at that level.

I don't think the Sporty's today are killing the class for beginners, I think its the local clubs not aiding in its growth. I also think you can build a competitive sporty on a budget. Beginners don't need to go buy all new items, they can compete with used equipment just like anyone and do well. They can also get back to the basics and make stuff instead of buy it like we use to as well, we encourage all our new guys to get hands on. We've had a few old SWX chassis rocking it for awhile. Our points leader has a complete hand made chassis and link mounts done with a dremel tool :mrgreen:"thumbsup"

We offer a Novice class run what you brung at our comps and give them the understanding its not always the rig and the price tag that makes the winner. Its the driver, practice and dedication. Once they understand this mindset most are willing to save up and slowly build there rigs. This also comes down to course setup. We build moderate courses that give them the ability and chance to finish, then we toss in several HARD bonuses for us who want to run it. Yes we are still winning, but they feel accomplishment in completing the course. The sportsmanship is an entierly different topic...

I think this thread got way off truck after maybe the 5th post. I believe Eriks intentions were to have a no limits class, bring what you built and run it. Best man and machine wins. No questions asked. Bring back the creativity that this hobby use to be. I think its a cool idea, and I get the concept but I have to many rigs that are half built already :lmao:

 

[Robbob]

Still here. Just reading. I think I have already given my input....

I cant stand the thought process that you have to have an expensive car to have a shot at winning. Its ignorant and a horrible excuse to not hone your driving skills. People are winning all over the planet with basic, cheap cars, every weekend.

Having gotten out when the 2.2S was basically starting and seeing the potential to help grow the sport I can honestly say coming back after two years That is the exact image shown in peoples threads.
And I was a hoper the 2.2S class was gonna be new juice to help the sport.

Ive read through so many sportsman build threads to catch myself up on things and I will say sportsman rigs are damn near the cost of a pro rig. Both by looking and by doing the math.

Ill say it again like I said it two years ago ..... until you can cap a drivers no-go list you will always get the pros contributing to a class blowing up and out of its original intent.

Look at F1 in the racing scene - cars cost less then 200 and now the pros are running in it and the cars can cost as much as 400$.

Just my opinion .....

Just remembered this too thinking more about the run what you brung theory ..... OG's should remember this one. Who had the comp truck that stretched and shrank? I think the chassis was some sort of cork screw he could go long or short depending on what gate he was at.

how quick did that change the rules? How many people argued the original Stick chassis should be banned?

I guess Im saying the run what you brung is a sketchy area. Bringing creativity back is one thing but I think this generation we are seeing in the rc world is more accustom to the RTR world. They just wanna buy it ready or buy the parts to have someone put it together.

You need limits in anything. Sorry for the winded post .....

 

[Purptr8r]

I'm totally down


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[89redranger]

You guys all lost me, or I apparently wasn't on the same page to begin with. What sounded like fun is suddenly getting very complicated, like most things in this hobby. I think I'll just step out of this one, hoping that something a little more simplistic, open, and fun does become of it all. Lots of great thoughts, points, ideas, and reasons for me to brush up on USRCCA functions in here though.

 

[EeePee]

...

I remember all that, and yeah I agree.

Already pushed one of the three to the side, so, see how easy it is to deter newcomers?

Telling ya, spec class. Buy this, buy that, come run. Simple.

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

The Stock Trail vehicle is pretty dang close to a spec class, if anybody has cared to read the rules I've posted in the rules section.

 

[johnnyh66]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LkMN3SF7JfA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Robbob]

The Stock Trail vehicle is pretty dang close to a spec class, if anybody has cared to read the rules I've posted in the rules section.

Im stilling trying to fish through and get caught up on all this cross-pollination of scale/trail and comps. Thats probably were Im getting lost on things.