Super Class WB rule poll

[666]

I am going to keep on trying to get the MAX WB up on supers!! Perhaps this poll will help. The proposed 16-18" is just not enough IMO.

[jetboat]

Im all for the proposed WB. Its a large enough range to allow freedom and right about where most supers run.

[joesbruiser]

Patrick you know I do not like putting the Max WB rule into effect but I say lets see if it brings in more drivers and Manufactures.If it does not help then I think it should be done away with next year.
I voted that it should be in the 16-19.5 range but I can live with 18WB

I can actually do better with a 17.75WB but I hate that I will not be able to go bigger than that if I want.My Nationals truck was 18.5-18.75

[run2jeepn]

I'm fine with 16-18 or 16-19.5... The 14-19.5 is to wide of range.

[Fishmaxx]

I heard a couple good arugements for 16-18

1) Courses can built that are some what fair to all trucks in the field.
2) Manufactures more likley to produce products if they know the Class Specs
3) Competitors more likely to build trucks if they know the specs.
4) Its not Unlimited Class, so why not set limits and specs?



So far all I have heard for 18+ is....

1) Its Stupid!
2) Its Dumb!
3) My truck is 18+, and I don't want to change it.
4) I like longer wheel bases!

[joesbruiser]

Here is my question how did the 18 inch WB max come about?
I can see putting a max on WB but why was 18 what you guys decided on?
Why did you make rules against the top 3-5 trucks at nationals?I know there where several people that had there feelings hurt over one climb at nats. because they said only long truck could make it and that was B.S.
I had one course while I was there that gave me trouble because of how tight it was but I did not complain and want a new rule.


You guys are going to set rules the way you want and that's fine with me My current setup fits the bill but I would like to know why you chose the numbers you did."thumbsup"

[Fishmaxx]

Their was discussion on the topic.

Then 2x polls were posted...one for MINIMUM, and one for MAXIMUM. Several options were given, and people voted. Very similar to what is happening here;-)

[MommaBear]

For the record, I was a dumba$$ and chose the wrong one. I meant to vote 16-19.5. I think that would really help Supers be Supers. We may just need to change the name of the class altogether. I have to agree with Patrick on this one. That said, I understand why it was done. I just hate to see it really.

If a moderator or someone could change my vote for me I would appreciate it. I've been working too late all week."thumbsup"

[skid plate]

I think it might be interesting to see what the poll says.

JC
8)

[skid plate]

Their was discussion on the topic.

Then 2x polls were posted...one for MINIMUM, and one for MAXIMUM. Several options were given, and people voted. Very similar to what is happening here;-)


Only was able to find one poll.

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114511&highlight=poll

78 votes to 69 votes minimum WB to keep 2.2's out.

Did I miss the other one?

JC
8)

[jetboat]

Only was able to find one poll.

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthread.php?t=114511&highlight=poll

78 votes to 69 votes minimum WB to keep 2.2's out.

Did I miss the other one?

JC
8)



Most likely the polls were located in the rules commitee area that is not viewable by everyone.

To me it really sounds like people are wanting super and super unlimited like back in 04/05.

I wouldnt mind if they came out and said that super had 1 WB... no range. Then there wouldnt be any debate if you need a short truck or if you need a long truck. Of course that does remove some of the creativity.

[renoirbud]

I support the limit 100%, the class was much more fun and much more popular before the long trucks showed up.

Having a defined wheel base opens the door for people to build a super.

I you are not able to adapt your driving to suit a 16 to 18" rig, then you should be promoting the Unlimited class.

On a possitive note, the constant complaints are bringing attention to the class, and that is a good thing.

[joesbruiser]

I support the limit 100%, the class was much more fun and much more popular before the long trucks showed up.

Having a defined wheel base opens the door for people to build a super.

I you are not able to adapt your driving to suit a 16 to 18" rig, then you should be promoting the Unlimited class.

On a possitive note, the constant complaints are bringing attention to the class, and that is a good thing.

First off let me make clear I am not bitching about the rule change just wanting to discuss where it came from and why."thumbsup"

How did the long trucks take the fun out of it?

I can and have adapted my driving style and to tell you the truth I am better at 18 than when my truck was longer.But I really liked how this class was open and you had the opportunity to go long if you wanted.

I do not see busting the class up into a limited and unlimited there is barely enough time in the day as it is.

Another thing I worry about is once you start adding rules were is it going to stop? The Next thing you know there will be a rule against running the big wheels like the thorns.

[dpdsurf]

I voted 16-19.5 because it seams like those that have been doing this for many years would prefer it this way. I do like having the range limitation as it would help guide a super noob like myself if I were to build one. I would however be just fine with the 18" max because I have no personal vested interest.

[Robb]

So, all of this is about changing from 18" to 19.5".......................REALLY????

All of the fuss in these threads has been about 1.5"?

[joesbruiser]

So, all of this is about changing from 18" to 19.5".......................REALLY????

All of the fuss in these threads has been about 1.5"?


After Nationals there was more fuss than this over 1/2 of a inch:lol:

[slowrockr]

I heard a couple good arugements for 16-18

1) Courses can built that are some what fair to all trucks in the field.
2) Manufactures more likley to produce products if they know the Class Specs
3) Competitors more likely to build trucks if they know the specs.
4) Its not Unlimited Class, so why not set limits and specs?

Lemme take a stab at this....

1) How is that not possible if the max limit is 19.5"? if I think I'm better at 19" and other guy thinks he's better off at 16 why is that a bad thing?
2) How would an extra 1.5" keep them from likely making stuff for supers specs?
3) Again if max was 19.5" competitors would know the specs and build accordingly.
4) I'm fine with limits and specs for supers, I just don't see why it's such a big deal to make the max another inch or so longer.

I'm not against the limits at all, I think it might be a good thing for the class, I'd just like to see the max higher. I've ran everywhere from 16-19" and settled at 18.5 cause it fits our terrain and my driving style. I really don't get how upping the max is such a terrible thing.

[Reflection]

I do not see busting the class up into a limited and unlimited there is barely enough time in the day as it is.


There's a VERY easy way around that.;-) IF there was a super OG and super unlimited class,they could be run on the same courses. Therefore there would be no need in setting up another set of courses. The only thing it would require is tallying up the scores and separating the 2 classes in 2 groups. Sure,one class might have higher scores depending on the course layout,but it'd be a moot point since they are separate."thumbsup"

[TURTLE]

I would have to agree with Slowrockr. Why is there such a firm stand against making the maximum size an inch or so longer? Especially since there are so many rigs (at least in our club) that run a 18.5 inch wheel base, surely there must be other clubs across the country that do this as well? I understand that the rules committee does alot of work and it is much appreciated, but it doesn't seem like they really reviewed this topic to its full extent.

[joesbruiser]

There's a VERY easy way around that.;-) IF there was a super OG and super unlimited class,they could be run on the same courses. Therefore there would be no need in setting up another set of courses. The only thing it would require is tallying up the scores and separating the 2 classes in 2 groups. Sure,one class might have higher scores depending on the course layout,but it'd be a moot point since they are separate."thumbsup"


True True "thumbsup" But then what class would be run at nationals?How would that be decided?It seems to me that it would hurt more than it would help.What would happen if you have 5 club members go to the "super"class and 2 that run unlimited how would bids be decided?
I'm just trying to get a picture of where things are or could be going.
I have a ton of money tied up in all this and the more that changes the more I have to spend.

[Reflection]

True True "thumbsup" But then what class would be run at nationals?How would that be decided?It seems to me that it would hurt more than it would help.What would happen if you have 5 club members go to the "super"class and 2 that run unlimited how would bids be decided?
I'm just trying to get a picture of where things are or could be going.
I have a ton of money tied up in all this and the more that changes the more I have to spend.

Since the 2 classes run the same courses,they could both be run at nationals. Just like it's always been,2.2's one day and Supers another day. Bids could be tricky,but I think it could be made to work fairly.

It's just an idea really. I know several guys that would like to see it happen. If it does or not I don't know. I think it'd be cool though.

[CronusTRD]

My Super is 18" but that being said, I don't see that much competitive advantage from the extra 1.5"

[DeaDShorT]

I think that 16-19.5" would be acceptable and be a good starting point to see how things shake out for this year, then modify if the need or demand is there next year.

[Grizzly4x4]

I think 16 and 18 is fine. It keeps the max and min reasonably close so that someone from one part of the country who shows up to Nationals with his 16" super (because that's what works well for his area) is going to be able to do similar obstacles to someone that shows up with an 18" super. Making the max 19.5 just makes the two trucks much too different imo.

I don't see how 19.5" is going to benefit the hobby any more than 18".

[TURTLE]

What about research to locations? Since we have this vast wealth of knowledge at our finger tips called the internet, not to mention the amount of experience on this board. Could it be possible for someone to look ahead to the location that they are going to compete in and change their wheel base accordingly. I think there are valid points for this argument and as some have it, it is much harder for a wheel base to be down sized then others think. Its only a half inch right? But a half inch on a 2.2 could be devistating, so why could the same thing not affect a super?

[run2jeepn]

I think 16 and 18 is fine. It keeps the max and min reasonably close so that someone from one part of the country who shows up to Nationals with his 16" super (because that's what works well for his area) is going to be able to do similar obstacles to someone that shows up with an 18" super. Making the max 19.5 just makes the two trucks much too different imo.

I don't see how 19.5" is going to benefit the hobby any more than 18".

x2.... The Longer wheelbases really only shine on those big ledges. The shorter ones turn shaper. It comes down to how the course is going to be set up. You throw a few very tight turns in on a course and the longer wheelbases are collecting up points for Rev or just taking out gates. But then if you throw in 3 or 4 huge ledges and it will stop the 16in and shorter rigs in there tracks. Just 2in in wheelbase and make a big difference in ledges.

I say set the max at 18in and the min at 16in and set the courses up to have tighter turns and some big ledges.

[Grizzly4x4]

There's a VERY easy way around that.;-) IF there was a super OG and super unlimited class,they could be run on the same courses. Therefore there would be no need in setting up another set of courses. The only thing it would require is tallying up the scores and separating the 2 classes in 2 groups. Sure,one class might have higher scores depending on the course layout,but it'd be a moot point since they are separate."thumbsup"
I have always been and will always be for a class that bridges the gap between super and 2.2. They could be run on the same courses as either super or 2.2 depending on how the rules were set up.

[run2jeepn]

I have always been and will always be for a class that bridges the gap between super and 2.2. They could be run on the same courses as either super or 2.2 depending on how the rules were set up.

14in'ers:lol: with 4WS

[Grizzly4x4]

14in'ers:lol: with 4WS
:ror: Yup.:ror:"thumbsup"

[run2jeepn]

With the 14in'ers.. Alot of the 2.2 Tires we have now will work well. Along with every axle being made.

[Rckcrwlr]

Why do you feel that 18" WB isn't good for a Super. Any wheel base that is set by the rules is good...you just have to build on within the specs.

When will it stop...That is why there are people running 20" WB. Keep it at the 16" to 18" and some awesome, competitive rigs will be built and everyone will have the same advantages or disadvantages.

I don't see what the big deal is. It will be 19.5 today and then next year someone won't be happy with it and want 21"...

I say leave it as it sits and start building some awesome rigs...

[jetboat]

I have always been and will always be for a class that bridges the gap between super and 2.2.



Super 2.2 class, its been requested for at least 2yrs.

[Rckcrwlr]

Well said R2Jn "thumbsup"

x2.... The Longer wheelbases really only shine on those big ledges. The shorter ones turn shaper. It comes down to how the course is going to be set up. You throw a few very tight turns in on a course and the longer wheelbases are collecting up points for Rev or just taking out gates. But then if you throw in 3 or 4 huge ledges and it will stop the 16in and shorter rigs in there tracks. Just 2in in wheelbase and make a big difference in ledges.

I say set the max at 18in and the min at 16in and set the courses up to have tighter turns and some big ledges.

[hbj069]

Well I dont have a super and I really dont understand the issues about the length, Max length on the 2.2 was established and thats what the trucks were built to. This made it easy across the board. I had the pleasure of watching some guys build our last comp and I did not see a tape measure to decide how tall a ledge was. I just dont get the people who have already built these supers and are wanting the class to meet their trucks!! So what if you have to spend a couple of bucks to lengthen your arms or if you have to spend a half hour to shorten them up. Somebody set the rules and if the others dont want to play (leave them on the shelf!!)

[dkingston]

Speaking strictly from a manufacturers perspective, I would like to thank the rules committee for nailing down one of the big unknowns for anyone attempting to build a super class rig.

FWIW, a wider range isn't better from a manufacturers point of view. There are too many variables try and address. Do we make it to the short end or the far end of the range? Right in the middle? Do we make it adjustable or leave that to the consumer? Personally, I would have rather seen a narrower wheelbase range, but I don't already have a rig with concerns about making it fit in the new rule either. The wheelbase range seems to be right in the middle of what most were running (from my research at least).

I know there are some who aren't concerned with the manufacturers point of view and I can respect that. Without a doubt, what the rules committee has done is taken a huge step in getting more interest from companies who potentially could bring to market, viable super class rigs.

____________________


Now from a personal perspective, I applaud Patrick for his attempts to do what he feels needs to be done. My suggestion would be, come up with concrete reasons why you feel it is wrong. Your argument will go a lot further if people can relate to your opinion based on facts, rather than emotion.



- David

[joesbruiser]

(leave them on the shelf!!)

That is exactly what the class needs more supers sitting on shelves:roll:



The new rule is fine if that is were the rule making hopefully stops.
And I still do not get the argument from nationals that the longer WB trucks had a advantage.6th place was a little guy and the 8th place truck fit in the new rules to.
My truck is ready to go with the new WB rule and I am now a man on a mission.Its shorter,lighter,and way faster just so I can still catch every ledge that it would when it was longer.:lol:"thumbsup"Video soon.

And I still do not see adding another class that is run on the same courses.That would make it were you could not run both classes if you want.Correct?

[renoirbud]

I think its time for the complaining to stop and the driving/building to start.

I am going to focus on having a truck to compete with the new rules, rather then worry about the rule itself (or individuals opinions of the rule) (I still totally support the rule).

[MommaBear]

I don't see that anyone is complaining. I see it as a much needed discussion. People want to understand the reasoning behind the change. So far, neither side's argument really trumps the others. It seems it's all about personal preference. Now only one side has what they want. Super guys love their supers. That's a good thing isn't it? Without the passion, there wouldn't be a reason for the hobby's existence. When the powers that be make a change, they should be ready for some resistence. If they can't handle that, they should step down.

Running two classes on the same course doesn't make sense for the argument of changing the WB rule. It's been said that it would make it easier to design courses knowing the WB. If the larger trucks are running the same course, how does that change anything? This seems contradictory to me.

However, I can see the manufacturer argument to an extent. If nothing good comes out of this from the manufacturers, next year this should be changed. IMO

and 1, 2, 3...flame away

[joesbruiser]

I think its time for the complaining to stop and the driving/building to start.

I am going to focus on having a truck to compete with the new rules, rather then worry about the rule itself (or individuals opinions of the rule) (I still totally support the rule).


My rig is done"thumbsup"
Bring it:flipoff:

I do think it kind of sucks that most clubs have already started there points series,some people have already built there rigs and once the rules come out they have to change them.
It seems to me that it is late in the game for a change:roll:

But you guys do what you want i'm not scared"thumbsup"

[666]

Sure is a close vote, and there are some great responses. At our last comp we had 12 supers ranging from 15" to 19". 1st place was a 17 7/8", 2nd was 18 3/8", and 3rd was 15" It sure was nice having that variety.

I'm wondering, if supers needs a minimum and maximum wheelbase, why does 1.9 and 2.2 not have that? Only a maximum.

[RXcrawler]

Supers needed a minimum because some people were confused on what a super truck was and kept running 2.2's in super. 2.2 never needed one because there wasn't a class smaller than that. Now that we have 1.9's I could see 2.2 having a minimun in the future if people start running 1.9's in the 2.2 class.

[skid plate]

I still find it interesting that as of this posting.
Only 39.06 percent agree with the rule as it stands.
And 60.94, at least in my opinion would have at least liked to not have those limitations.

Ask a Eskimo about 2'' and he will tell you that when you have 4'' of insulation on, something's gonna get wet. That's just wrong.:-P

JC
8)

[chrisjlittle]

I suggest the super class simply excludes 2.2" tires. That's all, just wheels 2.3" or larger, and exclude tires meant for 2.2" wheels. Rules suck.

[engineerjoe]

I think everyone agrees that the class needs a min WB, so lets look at the pros and cons of a max at 18" vs 19.5"

18 pros:
allows more competitive courses to be set up
rigs will not have to be changed between courses to be competitive
makes it slightly easier for companies to produce a "super class ready" crawler
cons:
WB over 18 will have to be changed (from what I've heard, ~15-20%)

19.5 pros:
rigs that are specifically set up for the terrain will excel
most supers will not need to be changed
cons:
current wb over 19.5 will have to be changed (very few)
slightly harder for manufacturers to nail down a WB for a production super

So are you on the side of the manufacturers or the side of some of the competitors that already have supers??

I know that when I build a super I'll put it at the max allowed WB (my 1.9 is at 8.5" and my 2.2 is at 12.5")

[Fishmaxx]

I still find it interesting that as of this posting.
Only 39.06 percent agree with the rule as it stands.
And 60.94, at least in my opinion would have at least liked to not have those limitations.



At these #'s
no limits....9
16-18.......29
16-19.5....26
14-19.5....9


I find it interesting.

64.39 % _____ don't want, agree with or like ___16-19.5 option

and

87.67%v______don't want, agree with or like ___14-19.5 option


Aren't statistics great!

[cartronicshn]

I voted on the 14-19.5 just because i was thinking of people that built 14" wb rigs in the past wouldn't have a class to compete in, but i am more inclined on the 14-18"wb option, just so that the manufaturers could get more involved in developing parts, tires, etc for the super class8)

[skid plate]

Don't get me wrong, I love what the manufacture's do for us.

But I haven't found to many here, that have not done this with their rig, whether kit or RTR.

CHANGE IT!

Do you honestly think that every crawler person won't be making major changes to every Super manufactured to make it their own and make it crawl their way.

Please let us keep a class with some option of creative ability. Supers up till now did this.

I still agree with the minimum rule, but that's it.

Not coming back, ( i know, thank god), for anymore input.
I really don't know that it will change anyone's mind anyway.
I can build courses tough enough that 16's and 18's can't do them anyway. ha ha.


JC
8)

[666]

Just another

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff257/666itellya/cigareta.jpg

[Grizzly4x4]

Don't get me wrong, I love what the manufacture's do for us.

But I haven't found to many here, that have not done this with their rig, whether kit or RTR.

CHANGE IT!

Do you honestly think that every crawler person won't be making major changes to every Super manufactured to make it their own and make it crawl their way.

Please let us keep a class with some option of creative ability. Supers up till now did this.

I still agree with the minimum rule, but that's it.

Not coming back, ( i know, thank god), for anymore input.
I really don't know that it will change anyone's mind anyway.
I can build courses tough enough that 16's and 18's can't do them anyway. ha ha.


JC
8)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. How does limiting the wheelbase limit creativity? Making a truck 19.5" doesn't take any more creativity than making it 18".

I would argue that making it 19.5" limits creativity because 666 will have to get creative to make his super 18". :flipoff::ror:

[666]

The super I am running now is 17.5, The one I am building is longer.


I am standing up for the super class being unregulated in wheelbase, steering, voltage, dig, etc. I do not see a need for changing it, and do not see how it will help.

Some people build rigs because they like the way it looks, the body fits over the axles/tires, kind of a scale thing. Some build strange looking monstrosities that are what they like, does what they like. The super class was a place where all the differant rigs could run. Now they will all be the same. Boring.

[renoirbud]

Now they will all be the same. Boring.

Just like the 2.2 class, everyone is running the same rig.:lmao: We all know that having a wheelbase restriction on the 2.2 really killed the class.

Patrick, I think its time to give up this fight and focus on building a good truck that is between 16" and 18".

I am certain you will have a good time with this.



I am standing up for the super class being unregulated in wheelbase, steering, voltage, dig, etc. I do not see a need for changing it, and do not see how it will help.

88.46% of the people agree that there need to be a restriction on the Super Class wheelbase.

[666]

I won't give up, thanks for the suggestion though.

Seems to me alot more people voted for other than what you guys set down as the law.

[Greatscott]

New rules out? Has it been officially changed to 16-18?

Looking to get into the super class... this is important stuff to know. I'm thinking this was actually done to keep the scum out (i.e. Summit) (J/K).

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

I won't give up, thanks for the suggestion though.

Seems to me alot more people voted for other than what you guys set down as the law.
I see the 16 to 18 is ahead.

[Rockpiledriver]

I see the 16 to 18 is ahead.

As it should be. "thumbsup"

[sloppy]

I see the 16 to 18 is ahead.
I think your math is off.. right now 16-18 has 35 votes.. there are 52 votes that do not agree with the 16-18..

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

I think your math is off.. right now 16-18 has 35 votes.. there are 52 votes that do not agree with the 16-18..
Thats a goofy way of looking at it :roll:. Your way of thinking, thats 52 votes that don't agree with each other.:lol:

[TURTLE]

Sloppy has a point though( I think). Its basically saying that 60% don't agree with the new rule. I think thats what he was saying. But anyway you look at it no matter what other area people voted in, it is supporting having the wheel base up to 19.5( at the least).

[dpdsurf]

I think your math is off.. right now 16-18 has 35 votes.. there are 52 votes that do not agree with the 16-18..

If there is 4 choices, then the one with the most votes wins. You can't selectively chose which 3 choices you want to stack up against 1 to make the outcome to your liking. :lmao:

I think this pole shoudl be narrowed down to 2 selections so people will stop confusing this. "thumbsup"

[TURTLE]

If there is 4 choices, then the one with the most votes wins. You can't selectively chose which 3 choices you want to stack up against 1 to make the outcome to your liking. :lmao:

I think this pole shoudl be narrowed down to 2 selections so people will stop confusing this. "thumbsup"

I agree."thumbsup"

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

I love my super and I'm trying to keep the class alive, it's going to be dead if we don't do something about it. I belong to okrcrc and we can't get supers going at all. We have had the same 3 supers for the last 2 years.
New people ask me all the time about what class they should get into. I've heared it a 100 times after we talk about all the classes, the biggest turn off on the supers is no limits on wheel base. They want an even playing field. So they build 2.2 or now 1.9.

And the more you few keep crying about the rule the more you are killing the class. If I was new and read all the negative stuff about the super class, I would not want to go there.

[sloppy]

If there is 4 choices, then the one with the most votes wins. You can't selectively chose which 3 choices you want to stack up against 1 to make the outcome to your liking. :lmao:

I think this pole shoudl be narrowed down to 2 selections so people will stop confusing this. "thumbsup"
to me this is a poll about if the WB rule that is being changed is what every one wants.. not a poll for a clear winner.. it is obvious not everyone thinks the new ruling is the way to go...

the sad thing is 87 people on the hole sight even gave a crap to vote so that says something about the class right there.... :roll: 996 views of the thread as of right now though.. would think at least a few more people would have at least clicked there choice if they even cared..

[renoirbud]

It is clear that a limitation/guideline will help the class. If the 16"/18" rule needs to modified, I am sure we can do so before Nats. Just like the min wheelbase and nin wheel size was.

[dpdsurf]

to me this is a poll about if the WB rule that is being changed is what every one wants.. not a poll for a clear winner.. it is obvious not everyone thinks the new ruling is the way to go...

the sad thing is 87 people on the hole sight even gave a crap to vote so that says something about the class right there.... :roll: 996 views of the thread as of right now though.. would think at least a few more people would have at least clicked there choice if they even cared..

Very valid points. Only 87 votes seams to sugest a lack of interest as you mentioned. But the rules forum doesn't seam to be the most popular and it shows at the comps when 1/2 the drivers ask, "there are rules?" :)

[RXcrawler]

Very valid points. Only 87 votes seams to sugest a lack of interest as you mentioned.

Very true, this poll proves nothing becuase there is 1,000's of people on this forum and only a handful....fingertip full have voted.

[renoirbud]

I think the most important thing is that people simply bring their trucks to comps again.

I cleaned up my gearboxes yesterday on my clod. It will be ready for Motorama, all Carolina Rock Runner events and the East Coast Championship.

Less BLA BLA BLA, more showing up at events with Supers.

[4ONDFLR]

I think the most important thing is that people simply bring their trucks to comps again.

I cleaned up my gearboxes yesterday on my clod. It will be ready for Motorama, all Carolina Rock Runner events and the East Coast Championship.

Less BLA BLA BLA, more showing up at events with Supers.

dont forget the 1on1 super challenge! lol (varcor)
i run mine right at about 18" and think it all depends on where you run. i think if clubs would stop runnin the supers last at the comps it mite spark a lil more interest cus then everyone has to watch! all the 2.2 guys leave before the supers run so they dont really see what they can do and all they know bout them is that they hear they are expensive to build. theres normally not that many at a comp so it wouldnt take that much time to run them first either so it wont really hold anybody up. just my 2 cents

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

We have tryed to that, running the supers 1st. The 2.2 guys would just go work on their 2.2 rigs in stead of watching. :roll:

[TURTLE]

Yeah at our last couple comps we have run supers first. . .

[70duncan]

I was just a comp in another town hoping that their would be more supers running. I was wronge. Just me and another guy. I still had fun, but we had to wait until all other rigs ran before we could run (2.2, 1.9). And that was at 2:00 when I had been there since 8:00. I am happy with my home town on this part. We all get numbers after sign up, and then run the corse in the order of your number. It does mean that I have to run the same coarse as the 2.2 with the narrow gates. But I don't care. It is more fun to be able to run with everyone insead of being the outcast. It helps keep people interested in the larger rigs. At least with us it does. Just my 2 cents.

[666]

So I have found 4 manufactures that have made potential super class vehicles, Redcat Rockslide (http://shopping.netsuite.com/c.849850/site/rockslide_specification.html), Integy (http://www.integy.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=6031&p_catid=107), Traxxas Summit (http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/summit5610/trx_summit5610_specs.htm), and Killer Crawler (http://www.ckrccrawlers.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=184&products_id=1683) That do not fall in the 16-18" rules. How is that helping anything?

[sloppy]

So I have found 4 manufactures that have made potential super class vehicles, Redcat Rockslide (http://shopping.netsuite.com/c.849850/site/rockslide_specification.html), Integy (http://www.integy.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=6031&p_catid=107), Traxxas Summit (http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/summit5610/trx_summit5610_specs.htm), and Killer Crawler (http://www.ckrccrawlers.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=184&products_id=1683) That do not fall in the 16-18" rules. How is that helping anything?

what about the XTM thing?

[jason]

Patrick, look at your own poll, 16-18 won by a long shot. So not only did it win with the rules committee, it also won with the general population.

Give it a rest.

[Hurley0706]

So I have found 4 manufactures that have made potential super class vehicles, Redcat Rockslide (http://shopping.netsuite.com/c.849850/site/rockslide_specification.html)

Quality has been an issue but if they would have had some direction they could have possibly created a more competitive super by putting the WB range where it needed to be.



Integy (http://www.integy.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=6031&p_catid=107)

With the new direction they will now know where the WB range needs to be, my guess is that Integy will respond.


Traxxas Summit (http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/summit5610/trx_summit5610_specs.htm)

Not marketed as a crawler.


Killer Crawler (http://www.ckrccrawlers.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=184&products_id=1683)

Marketed as a 1/5 scale crawler, not a competitive super class rig.

[Fishmaxx]

Yeah what he said:flipoff:

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

666, if you can't beat them, you could join them. And help our 16" to 18" class grow."thumbsup"

[Grizzly4x4]

Patrick, look at your own poll, 16-18 won by a long shot. So not only did it win with the rules committee, it also won with the general population.

Give it a rest.
Pat, 2 weeks ago I posted a poll in the Rules Commitee section asking the reps to check with their clubs and see if they are unhappy with the rule changes.

Only Colorado and one other club expressed a dislike for the new wheelbase rule, 84% of the club reps who responded said their clubs were fine with the rule.

That makes three separate times that the 16"-18" wb rule has gotten majority approval.

[Fishmaxx]

http://homepage.mac.com/dmhart/WarArt/Dix/Krieg1924/DeadHorse.JPG

[666]

Cute, real cute.

I still see it as 58 people voting for other than 16-18" and 42 voting for 16-18" in my public vote.

[Reflection]

the sad thing is 87 people on the hole sight even gave a crap to vote so that says something about the class right there.... :roll: 996 views of the thread as of right now though.. would think at least a few more people would have at least clicked there choice if they even cared..



I've opened this thread probably 20 times reading new replies. I'd bet allot of others have as well.;) Several guys that have opened it have posted numerous times,but can only vote once.;) The way I see it,thats a moot point.

The club reps are speaking for everyone. Thats the way it always has been and probably will be. The BEST way to make your voice heard is to contact your clubs rep. I've not voted here because I've already voiced my clubs opinion. Number of votes in this thread mean nothing about interest in the class:lol: I've not voted and I love my super,always will and will always have one.

[TwistedCreations]

Cute, real cute.

I still see it as 58 people voting for other than 16-18" and 42 voting for 16-18" in my public vote.

Or you can look at it as 84 people vote for limits on Superclass and 17 vote for no limits :lmao::lmao:

[666]

Haha, your so cute. Way to switch around things to fit the blind.

[TwistedCreations]

Haha, your so cute.

Awwww, so are you sweety.. Your making me blush :oops: :mrgreen:

[binaryterror]

Why is this such a problem?

The rules committee is trying something. If it doesn't help they always can change the rules again next year if they need to.

All this drama is definately not helping the Super Class, thats for sure.

[dkingston]

Now from a personal perspective, I applaud Patrick for his attempts to do what he feels needs to be done...

Patrick, it is time to let it go. It is clear that minds are not going to be changed.

The wheelbase rule will be good for the class.


- David

[joesbruiser]

Short or Long I am a man on a mission.:flipoff:

Bring It

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Short or Long I am a man on a mission.:flipoff:



Bring It


Now here's a real SUPER driver. What ever the rules are he's bringing it."thumbsup"

If you can't run with the big dogs stay home on the porch and lick your balls, at lest you'll have fun.:D

[SUPERINVA]

Short or Long I am a man on a mission.:flipoff:



Bring It



You're the 08 CHAMP - IT'S ALRWADY BEEN BROUGHTIN - LOL

[skid plate]

Ok, so each of the rules committee board members write a letter of apology to the manufactures of Super Class vehicles that have been made as a RTR or ARTR, and make amends for having them retool for their new product line. All 5 so far. This is because their current products don't fit into spec's with this new rule change.
Let them know that these are the new rules, made after the fact that they weren't contacted.
At least this way, when they decide to put out a product, (which was what part of this change was to bring), they know the rules before they start to produce a product. (kinda late though)
Just a thought.

JC
:evil:

[jason]

Ok, so each of the rules committee board members write a letter of apology to the manufactures of Super Class vehicles that have been made as a RTR or ARTR, and make amends for having them retool for their new product line. All 5 so far. This is because their current products don't fit into spec's with this new rule change.
Let them know that these are the new rules, made after the fact that they weren't contacted.
At least this way, when they decide to put out a product, (which was what part of this change was to bring), they know the rules before they start to produce a product. (kinda late though)
Just a thought.

JC
:evil:

when you run the in the super class, maybe we'll listen to what you'd like to say.























:flipoff:

[Grizzly4x4]

Ok, so each of the rules committee board members write a letter of apology to the manufactures of Super Class vehicles that have been made as a RTR or ARTR, and make amends for having them retool for their new product line. All 5 so far. This is because their current products don't fit into spec's with this new rule change.
Let them know that these are the new rules, made after the fact that they weren't contacted.
At least this way, when they decide to put out a product, (which was what part of this change was to bring), they know the rules before they start to produce a product. (kinda late though)
Just a thought.

JC
:evil:
All five???

The Traxxas Summit (http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/summit5610/trx_summit5610_specs.htm) is not a super class crawler.

The Killer Crawler (http://www.ckrccrawlers.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=184&products_id=1683) is not a super class crawler either. It's 20.47" wide, it won't even fit between the gates.

XTM, Redcat, and Integy rigs can all be shortened with new links. Based on the shock angles and mounting locations on the links, due to the super short chassis', making them shorter will improve their performance.

[Fishmaxx]

I am sorry:cry:










NOT!






see below

All five???

The Traxxas Summit (http://www.traxxas.com/products/electric/summit5610/trx_summit5610_specs.htm) is not a super class crawler.

The Killer Crawler (http://www.ckrccrawlers.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=184&products_id=1683) is not a super class crawler either. It's 20.47" wide, it won't even fit between the gates.

XTM, Redcat, and Integy rigs can all be shortened with new links. Based on the shock angles and mounting locations on the links, due to the super short chassis', making them shorter will improve their performance.


Nice try though:roll:

[skid plate]

when you run the in the super class, maybe we'll listen to what you'd like to say.























:flipoff:


WTF?

I would, but my mini isn't big enough!:shock:

What's up with you? I know you didn't sell it.:?:





.....................................

JC
:-P

[skid plate]

All five???


XTM, Redcat, and Integy rigs can all be shortened with new links. Based on the shock angles and mounting locations on the links, due to the super short chassis', making them shorter will improve their performance.


Of these 3, XTM and Integy aren't long enough.

What the hell was wrong with the way it was except for the 2.2's kickin ass?
Again, I can see a need for the minimum, but those 2 manufactures above had units out already. (the others, I took on faith from the thread)

And again, why weren't they contacted or considered?

JC

[Grizzly4x4]

Of these 3, XTM and Integy aren't long enough.

What the hell was wrong with the way it was except for the 2.2's kickin ass?
Again, I can see a need for the minimum, but those 2 manufactures above had units out already. (the others, I took on faith from the thread)

And again, why weren't they contacted or considered?

JC
The rules committee does not base their decisions on the wants and needs of the manufacturers, we base our decisions on what makes sense for the hobby and the growth of it.
If we can work within what the manufacturers have that's great, but the system is driven by what the drivers (clubs) want. And the majority chose 16-18".

I certainly hope that making decisions about competition rules and the direction of the hobby are never given over to the manufacturers.

The RCCA article I have says the XTM is 17" wb. :?
I didn't even know the Integy was 15.75", two of the three trucks they have on the website have no dimensions listed.

[skid plate]

Read that XTM was 15.55"

Still don't get it, but like J said, I don't matter.:shock:

mumble, mumble, mumble.


JC

[RXcrawler]

Of these 3, XTM and Integy aren't long enough.





Then they were not researching the truck enough to make a real super in the first place. But who leaves a truck stock any ways...


Edit. but I am glad that they have stepped up to make potential super class trucks.

[skid plate]

Then they were not researching the truck enough to make a real super in the first place. But who leaves a truck stock any ways...


Edit. but I am glad that they have stepped up to make potential super class trucks.

Funny, they fit in just fine before the rule change, and they were SUPER'S then.

JC

[RXcrawler]

Funny, they fit in just fine before the rule change, and they were SUPER'S then.

JC
Your right they were real. What i meant to mean was competitive supers.

[axelsnapr]

I figure I will put in my $.02 on this one. I think the limit is great for the class! I was at Nats last year, and I know the infamous ledge people are speaking of. .........My rig at 18.75" made the climb, while it was impossible for shorter rigs to make. I finished 11th on the day. But I had to hear the comment that; "the only reason I did that well was because of my wheelbase!" I don't want that stigma attached to my finish again this year. At 16-18" a course designer can build a course for a 17" rig and make an even playing feild for all rigs!.............I don't mind shortening my rig to make the class more competitive........ Or to help revive the class.......

[axelsnapr]

each of the rules committee board members write a letter of apology to the manufactures of Super Class vehicles that have been made as a RTR or ARTR, and make amends for having them retool for their new product line. All 5 so far. This is because their current products don't fit into spec's with this new rule change.
Let them know that these are the new rules, made after the fact that they weren't contacted.
At least this way, when they decide to put out a product, (which was what part of this change was to bring), they know the rules before they start to produce a product. (kinda late though)
Just a thought.

JC
:evil:

This doesn't seem to be a valid argument in my eyes. I think the stock wheelbase on a CLODBUSTER is like 10.5-11"!?(for the last 15-20 years).........Should Tamiya be upset?........

The manufactures aren't listening that close!.......... Or Kyosho wouldn't have made a 2.2 comp rig 1-1.5" shorter than the spec for the class!...........Should Duratrax be upset with the 1.9 motor limit?

Are those manufactures actually try'n to make Comp worthy rigs? or just try'n to sell a few and make MONEY!!.....

[joesbruiser]

I know the infamous ledge people are speaking of. .........My rig at 18.75" made the climb, while it was impossible for shorter rigs to make.


The rule change is fine but that leadge was doable with a shorter truck.
Tyler proved that when he walked it with a truck that was under 18 inches.

[axelsnapr]

.......that leadge was doable with a shorter truck.
Tyler proved that when he walked it with a truck that was under 18 inches......

Sorry I forgot to mention that Joe....:oops:....I kinda try to forget about get'n schooled by him!.... It hurts!......

[joesbruiser]

I just do not like the argument of that one leadge.I do see how a course could favor one truck more than another just not that one."thumbsup"

[dkingston]

Or Kyosho wouldn't have made a 2.2 comp rig 1-1.5" shorter than the spec for the class!

The Kyosho Rock Force in the stock kit configuration is 12" wb. Not 11-11.5. After adjustment with parts included in the kit, it is 12 3/8".

Kyosho hasn't expected anyone from the USRCCA Rules Committee to tell them what wheelbase to make our 2.2 crawler or any other crawler for that matter.

Said it before, will say it again - Kyosho America wishes to thank Fish and the Rules Committee for nailing down the wb issue to give guidance for future projects. That ruling (regardless of what the legnth would have been) significantly increases the possibility of a super class crawler from Kyosho. Not having a specification was a deterrant to that possibility.


- David

[skid plate]

This doesn't seem to be a valid argument in my eyes. I think the stock wheelbase on a CLODBUSTER is like 10.5-11"!?(for the last 15-20 years).........Should Tamiya be upset?........

The manufactures aren't listening that close!.......... Or Kyosho wouldn't have made a 2.2 comp rig 1-1.5" shorter than the spec for the class!...........Should Duratrax be upset with the 1.9 motor limit?

Are those manufactures actually try'n to make Comp worthy rigs? or just try'n to sell a few and make MONEY!!.....

One of the original idea's was to get manufacture's a standard to start getting them to build in.
My arguement here is, if they were already building them in the 15.55" and 15.75", (or if you were that manufacture'r), wouldn't you like to have been considered in a conversation about an upcoming change?
HMMMMMMMMMM?
If I were a manufacture'r, I sure would have liked this opportunity by such a respectable group of individuals.
Especially after one of the original idea's was to get the manufacture's involved in this class.

JC

[Fishmaxx]

My arguement here is, if they were already building them in the 15.55" and 15.75", (or if you were that manufacture'r), wouldn't you like to have been considered in a conversation about an upcoming change?

Your arguement dosn't make sense because those specs are just stupid for a SUPER CLASS truck.

If those manufacturers were listening, paying attention, or had an inkling of what was going on THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BUILT A TRUCK to those specs.

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/kosovo/photos/deadhorse.jpg

[RXcrawler]

Your arguement dosn't make sense because those specs are just stupid for a SUPER CLASS truck.

If those manufacturers were listening, paying attention, or had an inkling of what was going on THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BUILT A TRUCK to those specs.

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/kosovo/photos/deadhorse.jpg


X1000000


Horse dead!!!:lmao:

[skid plate]

Your arguement dosn't make sense because those specs are just stupid for a SUPER CLASS truck.

If those manufacturers were listening, paying attention, or had an inkling of what was going on THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BUILT A TRUCK to those specs.

http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/kosovo/photos/deadhorse.jpg


Again, they built these before some of YOU decided to change the rule.

Had you been paying attention, (maybe a challenge at this point), I am sure they would have liked to have been considered in the ruling.

Obviously, NO ONE contacted them or they would have had some idea!

RIGHT?

JC

[RXcrawler]

Again, they built these before some of YOU decided to change the rule.

Had you been paying attention, (maybe a challenge at this point), I am sure they would have liked to have been considered in the ruling.

Obviously, NO ONE contacted them or they would have had some idea!

RIGHT?

JC

I think your missing mine and fish's point. Regardless of what the rule says building a 15.55" and 15.75"crawler is not doing your home work. Maybe back in 04' or 05'. A super that small usually isn't competetive.

[Fishmaxx]

...Had you been paying attention, (maybe a challenge at this point), I am sure they would have liked to have been considered in the ruling.

Obviously, NO ONE contacted them or they would have had some idea!

RIGHT?

JC

That's fracking hilarious.

You think I am the one who doesn't understand:shock:
Obviously YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. No one that competes in SUPER Class would use a truck at those specs, so even if the RULES did allow it no one would run with that set up.:shock:


Its not our job to do a companies R&D, so Stop blaming us for those companies foolish behavior.If a company was interested in building a "competitive" truck they would have contact some TOP drivers, read the forums, or bought a $100 vendors star and posted surveys and preliminary drawings for the real experts to look at.

FrankyRizzo did his own R&D for some tire foams

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showthread.php?t=161014

He let his potential customers tell him what to make.

Why would a big company not do the same thing for an entire truck kit?

I guess the toy truck companies are not any smarter than the big 3. Accept there is no bail out here for their mistakes.

[666]

Wow is all I can say about this. :roll:

[BigBaller]

Wow is all I can say about this. :roll:

Good shut up now!

[Culetto]

I just wanted to post again on this since i thought of something interesting. (it might have been addressed already but i didnt feel like reading 7 pages)

If the point of the WB rule is to increase the participation in the super class why not open the class up to something thats a hot seller. 99% of people who build top end comp rigs use Traxxas parts, revo rod ends and/or rods, stampede drive shafts for the shafties, tmaxx big bore shocks, etc etc. Face it, traxxas is a huge company, they release a monster of a crawler and its suddenly going to be illegal if the WB minimum is 16 inches. Wether the summit is competitive or not isnt up for debate, it isnt in its stock form really. But getting people to compete is what this is all about. If some people in your area want to try out a crawling competion why not allow them to run what they have. They might really like it and have a good time, win or lose, at least they got to try it out without forcing them to spend more money before they have tried it. But at least it gets more people out to the comps.