MNRCRC 2016 Rules Discussion Thread

[Etype R]

Dana's ford buggy, wraiths are buggys, chads tuber.

[Bry73]

1.9 Trail Rules
I would allow the CF frame rails. Heck if someone wanted cardboard even, but they have to be frame rails that extend past the front and rear axles and a must look like stock ladder frame profile. So basically no 2.2 pro frame rails just made longer to extend past axles.

2.2 Trail Rules Look Okay.

But I will only be competing in 1.9 and 2.2 trail next season and he running order is fine.

[Boopernator]

Point well taken, I never considered the effects on the vehicle. That's what I like the most about attending any of these events, people are always ready to give advice that really helps new people, without being negative. When the experienced drivers share their information it really helps people like me who are new to Scale RC. I just have to remember to let you guys have your fun too, because that's why you show up in the first place.

I wanted this post to respond to the reply from Nerby

Re: MNRCRC 2016 Rules Discussion Thread
There would be no way for everyone to run the same truck the motor would never hold up they get warm after a single run let alone running constantly back to back, and then gives members no reason to build and design new things.

Sent from Team Purpmart

[djjiz]

The creative freedom reminds me of the satisfaction I used to get when making parts with the wrong tools and the run what ya brung attitude we all had in the beginning. Fawk rules.

[Stormin2u]

I liked the growth and the competition created by the current rules. So many people upgraded equipment last season and the result was a bunch of close very exciting competition. I'd be skeptical of loosing the momentum we have now if we get to picky or defensive with our rule making.

[djjiz]

The current 1.9 scaler I'm building now is gonna run circles around my top heavy tuber. I hardly see where a bumper rule is gonna level out the playing field.

I vote keep it simple.
It's a lot easier convincing a new guy to compete when i get to tell him their vehicle is legal.

[CmdrZod]

After reading most of these comments I just have one thing to say... Just keep it the same. It obviously works and the attendance was up all year, not just in the beginning, and the competition in all classes was outstanding. I really don't see a need to change anything from last year.

Let the schedule discussion begin!


Sent from the land of sky blue waters.

[Stormin2u]

I hope that an attempt at leveling the playing field by adding rules would not be at the expense of our improved growth and competition. I'm sure there are some who might like a more complex rule system and I'd like to hear their reasoning in all fairness. The MNRCRC has been a democratic club and its members have the final say. Plus its possible we've missed something important in the rush to our new "Outlaw" status? Its just hard to argue the 2014 and 2015 seasons weren't the most fun and competitive in many years.

[Orange58Crush]

Here's my toosense.

Run the 1.9 class first. Most races/competitions start with the smaller models first, and end with the big boys. To me, it's a question of doing the classes that have more people first, getting more people thru the process faster.

Another thought: How about having a sign up desk right at the site? Take people's money, put them in an order and make sure everyone knows what's next. To me, comp day seems very chaotic. And the newer guys might appreciate a more communicative process.

Oh, yeah, and any vehicle that is orange gets a free roll-over on each course it runs.

[djjiz]

I started when there were little rules and watched attendance turn to shit. It was easy to blame the economy at the time but the truth is that the rules killed it.

As much as i like hanging out i will put my rigs up for sale before going back to sanctioned type events.

[Etype R]

The evolution of trucks killed our numbers, not rules. People did not want to have to change their trucks to keep up. Nothing to do with rules.

[djjiz]

Evolution of the rules is how i saw it.

[djjiz]

If rules get introduced are they gonna cater towards space age technology or poorly performing rigs? If we split the difference it fawks 2 styles of rigs from competing.

[Bry73]

Like I said earlier, Let them run Carbon Fiber, as long as it has a stock appearing profile. No 2.2 Pro Chassis that has extra CF to make rails longer than the wheel base and running 1.9 wheels with a full body. I don't mind the ones that want to spend their dollars to be able to place weight where they want it, they still have to drive the course and complete it.

Maybe make it to where you do have to have at-least 1 bumper at frame rail height that is as wide as the vehicles body and attached to the frame.

[djjiz]

We should ban 6 wheels since they were such a big threat last year.

[fast5xc]

Originally Posted by Etype R

The evolution of trucks killed our numbers, not rules. People did not want to have to change their trucks to keep up. Nothing to do with rules.

I agree with this. This is the reason I got out of it for a few years, it got to the point where it was not fun to do anymore.

[diesel kawboy]

I like having classes that are more driver based than tech based.

[djjiz]

A bumper should fix evolution. We can make it a half inch narrower than the gates.

[diesel kawboy]

We should bring back the mini class, as long as the cf rails extend past the axle housings of course. My pro chassis with cf frame extensions should be OK, right?

[diesel kawboy]

Isn't evolution how the sportsman classes got started? Because the moa rigs killed the competition between shafties and moa rigs. Do we allow moa scale trucks next? Moa rigs seem about as scale as cf frame rails. There needs to be a level of neverlution.