Just something that has been brought up as a fun idea AKA, just a bunch of guys talking and thinking. Nothing official or even heard of by USRCCA at this point. Just bringing the discussion in here.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.
It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!
Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.
Super mini class
- Thread starter Erik D_lux
- Start date
Yep, I'd buy in! XR mod F/R with some 4.25" rover's, maybe a stretched WB..
I agree and can appreciate this.. See you at world's this year for mini supah competition!(even of its only us two) lol
Bring it on Jake!
BTW, think using MRC axles would be the first mistake anybody made in this class.
BTW, think using MRC axles would be the first mistake anybody made in this class.
TLT then "thumbsup" ;-)
Have you looked at the Mod Trail class rules I posted in the rules thread? We have 4.75 and 6" tire classes already, a 4.25" class wouldn't be hard to add but it should probably have gates tighter than 16". The Mod class allows for 4ws and dig.
Guess youre up for the 2nd mistake ever made in the new class :mrgreen:
I have not. I will check it when I get time. For keeping things simple, I dont think adding another tire size would be needed. 4.75 is close enough IMO. IMO, that would be the one real negative thing this class could bring (if it were ever even considered) is that we dont need more classes to run, more rules to write etc,. Less clutter.
I agree, 16" gates would be huge I am thinking.
SkaldidDog
2013 2.2P Nat. Champion
Like Super and Sporty I'll enjoy watching the builds for sure.
J
J
89redranger
RCC Addict
BTW, think using MRC axles would be the first mistake anybody made in this class.
How is this when your one of your first comments on the subject was about a mini?
If 4.75" is close enough, then I've already laid out a minimal rules vehicle class for this Mini Super idea "thumbsup". The Trail vehicles all use 16" gates for Classic Comp style challenges, but are also expected to be able to run rock races, hill climbs, and anything else an event host wants to throw at you.
The vehicles defined as of right now:
Classic Comp Super
Classic Comp 2.2 MOA
Classic Comp 2.2 Shaft Driven
Classic Comp Mini (1.9)
Stock Trail
Mod Trail 4.75 tire
Mod Trail 6" tire
Unlimited Trail (MOA ok) 6" tire
winnerone23
I wanna be Dave
Is a mrc CVD going to handle dig? In competition setting... Probably not.
But a mrc gear set (R&P) probably would..
It's going to be a builders class, for sure!
I've already started pulling parts around.. [emoji106]
89redranger
RCC Addict
I haven't used anything other than the R&P from a mini in so long that I forgot that those terrible little tiny CVD's could be lumped into the term "mini." I think Erik has something else in mind though. Gonna be pretty damn funny when he convinces everybody into swapping their Bergs to a 4.25" tire for this new "class." Seriously Erik, what do you have in mind? This is beyond vague at this point.
I guess I am still speaking from my fantasy...
Since I am speaking from my fantasy still... one of my most favorite parts of this hobby is the building and thinking of how to build. Thats why I would never put rules to the car itself. Show up with a 10" wheelbase and spank somebody, show up with a 48" wheelbase and spank somebody. Every time somebody came with a car that was a bit different than the main crowd, it would really mess with peoples heads and make them think.
Put it this way. Why is there a 12.5" wheelbase rule in 2.2? If you eliminated it, you would never worry about a guy running illegal nor would you ever have to tech anybodies wheelbase. Why dont we all figure out the ideal wheelbase through trial and error and then if you want to be the odd guy out and run something different, go for it. There are going to be as many down sides to running 16" wheelbase on a 2.2 as positives. Hopefully that makes sense?
So, along the same lines of no wheelbase, track width etc,. why force anybody into a type of axle? I would opt for MOA axles since you would easily have dig with your ESC's. Again, maybe MRC would be better because of the tire size? Lots of options and things to think about.
Since I am speaking from my fantasy still... one of my most favorite parts of this hobby is the building and thinking of how to build. Thats why I would never put rules to the car itself. Show up with a 10" wheelbase and spank somebody, show up with a 48" wheelbase and spank somebody. Every time somebody came with a car that was a bit different than the main crowd, it would really mess with peoples heads and make them think.
Put it this way. Why is there a 12.5" wheelbase rule in 2.2? If you eliminated it, you would never worry about a guy running illegal nor would you ever have to tech anybodies wheelbase. Why dont we all figure out the ideal wheelbase through trial and error and then if you want to be the odd guy out and run something different, go for it. There are going to be as many down sides to running 16" wheelbase on a 2.2 as positives. Hopefully that makes sense?
So, along the same lines of no wheelbase, track width etc,. why force anybody into a type of axle? I would opt for MOA axles since you would easily have dig with your ESC's. Again, maybe MRC would be better because of the tire size? Lots of options and things to think about.
89redranger
RCC Addict
Ok, so the idea truly is "run what ya brung." Or built in this case. I can understand dropping the WB and width requirements, limiting only tire size, and letting everybody run together. While I have ZERO experience with 2.2 comp rigs of any sort, I do have a lot of mini drive time and builds under my belt. As a prior mini owner I do know that enough gates over a varied terrain will pretty well level the playing field regardless of size, power, or pride. Minis fits through things a Pro or Sportsman won't, while the Pro and Sportsman rigs can pull lines a mini can only dream of, limit them to a similar tire size and you may be in for a show. It goes back and forth, and would love to see how close they would really run. Even more interested in what the losers showed up with the next week!
Honestly, I don't know if this is the craziest or most brilliant idea I've ever heard of. The comp scene around my area is fairly dead because it all got too serious for most guys, and they dropped it. The rest of us attempted to keep going, but eventually dropped it after running alone for a few years (me). But we all still have piles of parts and old rigs kicking around in corners begging for a new lease on life. Who knows, this may be just the friendly little class to bring it all back? I'll be talking to a few buddies today about organizing some local FOFF gatherings anyway, maybe we can get something going?
Honestly, I don't know if this is the craziest or most brilliant idea I've ever heard of. The comp scene around my area is fairly dead because it all got too serious for most guys, and they dropped it. The rest of us attempted to keep going, but eventually dropped it after running alone for a few years (me). But we all still have piles of parts and old rigs kicking around in corners begging for a new lease on life. Who knows, this may be just the friendly little class to bring it all back? I'll be talking to a few buddies today about organizing some local FOFF gatherings anyway, maybe we can get something going?
Yeah, anything to breathe fresh air into the hobby. Who knows though?
I dont know if its too much to ask but the course designers ideally should have a big role in this meaning, throw in some huge break overs that the short wheelbase guys dominate, throw in some big climbs that the long wheel base guys dominate, huge side hills that the wide guys dominate, narrow hard to get through gates that the narrow guys dominate... I think you get the idea... This would force people into a well rounded setup. Imagine if you were to win all the comps because you are narrow and can squeeze through gates but then there is a course where you need the stability of being wide and cannot finish a course (DNF). There went that whole comp because you were not balanced enough. Again, this is what comping should be. Rig specs that are determined by logic, not rules. It would just make for the best setup all around and thats what we really want anyway, right?
I dont know if its too much to ask but the course designers ideally should have a big role in this meaning, throw in some huge break overs that the short wheelbase guys dominate, throw in some big climbs that the long wheel base guys dominate, huge side hills that the wide guys dominate, narrow hard to get through gates that the narrow guys dominate... I think you get the idea... This would force people into a well rounded setup. Imagine if you were to win all the comps because you are narrow and can squeeze through gates but then there is a course where you need the stability of being wide and cannot finish a course (DNF). There went that whole comp because you were not balanced enough. Again, this is what comping should be. Rig specs that are determined by logic, not rules. It would just make for the best setup all around and thats what we really want anyway, right?
89redranger
RCC Addict
Exactly! I have two full comp courses in my yard that haven't been touched in months. I'm onto what you're saying, digging for parts now, drooling, and may even have to park a few other projects for a few. This is exactly what the hobby needs (at least locally), and wouldn't necessarily have to be a big dollar game.
Personally, in the last few years I have gained a few mouths to feed (I love em to death, and wouldn't trade them for my toy cars, don't get the wrong idea), and can't afford all the big expenses. I can however, build 90% of a rig, help others build theirs, and buy the parts we can't build from guys like you. I remember and miss the days of home built rigs and new ideas. My daughter's mini is more than due for a face lift, she's more than interested in running gates, and she's old enough to start learning to build like used to be almost required.
Whether anything actually happens with this on a large scale or not, I now have a thread to direct others to, with words that explain it better than I could.
Personally, in the last few years I have gained a few mouths to feed (I love em to death, and wouldn't trade them for my toy cars, don't get the wrong idea), and can't afford all the big expenses. I can however, build 90% of a rig, help others build theirs, and buy the parts we can't build from guys like you. I remember and miss the days of home built rigs and new ideas. My daughter's mini is more than due for a face lift, she's more than interested in running gates, and she's old enough to start learning to build like used to be almost required.
Whether anything actually happens with this on a large scale or not, I now have a thread to direct others to, with words that explain it better than I could.
The Unlimited Trail spec allows for MOA, and it would be no problem to add a 4.25 or 4.75" tire vehicle type to it. The Mod Trail vehicle is shaft driven chassis mount tranny.
I think we need a two man driver class. One guy stands in point "A" and can't leave. Other guy verbally directs driver... LOL, practical no. But we did this the other day at a local comp and it was a freaking blast.
Builders class sounds like a blast as well, but I'm really pushing to simply combine scale and comp to one event instead of sepearate. Would help all parties involved in the long run if you ask me. Adding another rig to my stable and attempting to particpate in both sides of the hobby as a driver and vendor is getting extremely hard. It would allow me to pick my 2 or 3 favorite trucks and focus on them instead of 6 and i could travel to more comps too. Then donate to one comp for prizes instead of two. etc...
Builders class sounds like a blast as well, but I'm really pushing to simply combine scale and comp to one event instead of sepearate. Would help all parties involved in the long run if you ask me. Adding another rig to my stable and attempting to particpate in both sides of the hobby as a driver and vendor is getting extremely hard. It would allow me to pick my 2 or 3 favorite trucks and focus on them instead of 6 and i could travel to more comps too. Then donate to one comp for prizes instead of two. etc...
Last edited:
89redranger
RCC Addict
Are we talking trail type rigs though, or comp type rigs? I love the idea of a friendlier more open class, but want to get away from the scale stuff that already took over the hobby. Personal preference I guess, but I really like the idea of getting back to the days of home-brew odds and ends, well executed crazy ideas constructed with minimal tools and little cash, and possibly even see a true tuber build or two again.
Whats the real difference between trail and comp rigs? If the vehicle definition isn't based on RTRs, if it is open to all construction, with nothing besides "should look like a scaled rig" which is part of the comp class definitions too, then what's left besides the name?
89redranger
RCC Addict
That's my question though, why do we need that "should look like a scaled rig" description at all? You seen 2.2 Pro lately? Nothing scale other than the silhouette of a tube chassis and the fact that it rolls on round tires. 2.2S, same thing...but with a lid that could best be described as a protective cover, if even that. Scale and comp are two totally different worlds, and I have a really hard time believing that anything scale will keep up with anything remotely described as a "unlimited" or "open." Then again, been a while since I've seen a Berg in a mud bog...
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just my opinions and thoughts. Anybody else have input?
Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just my opinions and thoughts. Anybody else have input?
Simply put, because people are more interested in scale models than robots on the rocks. Even if it is just a silhouette that makes it look familiar, without something to describe what the object represents there is no common interest. If having this familiar shape wasn't important, the more scale RTR models wouldn't have taken over.
Scale and Comp are only two different worlds when you make them be. Both are just driving toy trucks. Many "Class 3" scalers are hardly less capable than a 2.2s rig anyway.
Scale and Comp are only two different worlds when you make them be. Both are just driving toy trucks. Many "Class 3" scalers are hardly less capable than a 2.2s rig anyway.