MNRCRC 2016 Rules Discussion Thread

[dna4engr]

Good Day Ladies. Well it's been raining like crazy and the leaves are falling and the Howl Krawl is behind us. Now it's time to start thinking about next year.

This thread is not a "this is what the rules for 2016 will be" thread. It's a thread to throw out ideas that we can discuss at the winter club meeting (which will be sometime in November).

There will be a separate discussion about Schedule early in the spring. We can discuss the idea of a national type event at the winter meeting.

We had a great 2015 with significant increases in competition and performance of rigs on the rocks. Some might say a few rigs pushed the current rules (which are really loose anyway) a little far. Well here is your chance to propose your idea of how the classes could be better.

There is a key mission statement that drove a lot of success this year and that's a "Run what you Brung" mentality. We don't have the resources (or the time for that matter) to fully tech every rig the morning before a comp. However, there should be a generally agreed upon message within the club of what is and what isn't scale in the 1.9 and 2.2 classes.

This is an open discussion, but here are some seed topics I'd like feedback from club members on.

Classes:
2.2 Pro, 2.2 Trail, 1.9 Trail are pretty much a given for next year.
2.2 Sporty - are there enough rigs to even think about this class, how would we fit it in to the Sunday comps?

Running Order:
- We run the Pro, 2.2, 1.9 order for a reason (makes course setup easier as it's easier to identify how to make a course easier than harder)
- Would changing the running order help/hurt attendance? (i.e. if we run 1.9 first, everyone will be gone for 2.2 Pro)
- Is there a way to engage the new guys with 1.9 only into the 2.2 Pro and 2.2 Trail comp runs???

1.9 Trail Rules:
- My stab at a mantra for 1.9 would be like class 2. A scale appearing rig that has been modified for offroad use and may or may not be street legal (if it was 1/1). The goal is to mimic something that could actually be built in 1/1.
- Do we make this more restrictive like it was 2 years ago? Bumpers required, ladder frame chassis, metal frames, no knuckle weights, etc??
- Again this is a discussion thread so we aren't making decisions here.
- Also, the winning rig in 1.9 trail this year easily meets all the old rules. However, they exclude rigs like the twin hammers and gmade R1 (sorry Chuck )

2.2 Trail Rules:
Similar situation to 1.9 but with a lot more leeway.
- My stab at a mantra for 2.2 would be like class 3. A scale appearing rig that has been heavily modified for offroad use and is likely not street legal (if it was 1/1). The goal is to mimic something that could actually be built in 1/1.
- The Wheely king and Axial Ridgecrest/deadbolt all qualify in Class 3 Sorrca because they are OEM with TVP chassis. Do we allow OEM chassis and require ladder frames on all custom chassis? Are 100% steel tube frames ok?
- The scale of the chassis or body used needs to be discussed too. 1/10 and 1/8 scale body/chassis designs only??
- What about bumpers, knuckle weights, etc??

2.2 Pro Rules:
I don't know if we have any issues here

Last item I want to discuss is the U4 racing possibilities for 2016.
- The track in Lake Elmo is coming along great and there will be some fun times next year.
- We'll talk about frequency of events at the winter meeting.
- I more so want feedback on classes. If you look at U4RC.com, there are a ton of classes. I admit it's not fair to run a brushless twin hammer against a stock 1.9 scx10, but I don't think we'll have the numbers to run like 6 classes (plus it would take all the fun out of it!!)

Just spitballing here.
What about the following:
Yeti class
2.2 solid axle class
1.9 Brushed class
1.9 Brushless class

Of course, it depends on the number of folks there, but it's an idea. If we don't have enough 2.2 solid axle rigs they race against the Yeti's. Same in the 1.9 class.

Give me your thoughts guys!!

[drjones1981]

I like your mantra'a for both 1.9and 2.2's .. think I like the bumpers required idea and maybe a max tire o.d. for both Classes. Full tube and bouncers should be legal if scale appearing maybe require a driver figure or interior or maybe a spare tire mounted somewhere on the rig. I'd make knuckle weights on 1.9's illegal. No need to have to build a Sportsman rig to compete I'd allow them in 2.2 . As for running order I know I'd attend alot more comps if 1.9's ran first. The day gets too long for my drive home. Just my quick thoughts .. great thread . Thanks Dana

Sent from my 0PM92 using Tapatalk

[fr8cture]

I'm out if the frame rail had to be metal. My. New build is a G10 frame.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

[diesel kawboy]

I would love a completely box stock 1.9 class. The problem is that it would be difficult to enforce and police. Maybe tech the first and second place guys at the comp?

[dna4engr]

Originally Posted by fr8cture

I'm out if the frame rail had to be metal. My. New build is a G10 frame.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

No decisions made yet. This is just a chance to put in ideas and concerns. I just go a sweet set of carbon fiber rails from nerby that I want to use so I'm not looking to make metal mandatory either.

[fr8cture]

I know my opinion shouldn't really matter right now but I do like the idea of going towards a more sorcca like rule set myself.

[nerby149]

I ran knuckle weights last year but in class 2 if they bolt to the hub and look like a brake rotor they are legal, also the stock body bumper is legal for class 2 it does not have to be a bolt on, I agree going to the class 2 rules, but not going as far as scale points cause they are tough to tech and take a long time, in class 2 the frame rails do not need to be metal, I believe as long as they are rails anything should be allowed, my carbon ones pass tech and the National events currently. I think bringing the sporty class in is a good idea but maybe run it last for the guys that want to do it, I know there were a few guys last year asking about it, myself included. I think running order should stay and I like the idea for the 2.2 trail class Dana.

Sent from Team Purpmart

[Nicklepimp]

Another item to decide, is regarding the Finals course.

-Do we continue with Finals course?
-Keep it restricted to only the top 3 like years past or open it up?
-If opened up, top 5 like this year? Only those mathematically able to reach top 3?

[nerby149]

I think we keep the finals courses and I liked the top 5 it give more people the opportunity the ability to possibly move from 4th or 5th to 3rd and maybe get a trophy for the year, otherwise it's already decided who will be in the top 3, this way it allows more place changes, it adds to the excitement.

Sent from Team Purpmart

[Boopernator]

I haven't read this entire thread yet, so flame me if I'm outa line , but I saw the box stock idea and just had an idea. What if you had to use the "Rent-a-Ride" to run the course? So the drivers would change but the truck would not? I do like the RTR style class, even though I just picked up a Jeep SCX10 G6 in kit form and already have upgrades on the way.
Go Vikings!

[nerby149]

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

[Stormin2u]

I'm still impressed by our 2014 and 2015 seasons. 2015 was one of the best ever IMO for attendance and for the competition. This club has never been stronger than it is now and the early years were tremendous. The club growth is what has made it fun and successful. Interestingly enough some of the newest members have turned out to be some of the most competitive and engaged. Breaking away from the national rule making groups (USRCCA and SORCCA) two years ago to appeal more to our local crawling community with only a few simple rules was brilliant and that is was what has made the biggest difference stimulating club growth. Other struggling clubs could learn much from our successful "Outlaw" experiment.

What I’d really like to hear with the ideas for change is how the idea and would improve the club or make the competition better.

[fast5xc]

I think we need to get back to having a different rig for each class. We use to implement this rule before but apparently haven't been enforcing this as of late. I noticed this happening a few times this past season. Did we get rid of this rule? Just asking since you could say that it is prerunning the course.

[Stormin2u]

Dustin, what is the issue with using the same platform and just changing tires? I had no idea this was a issue. I would think useing just one pllatform would be more of a disadvantge myself.

[Stormin2u]

Originally Posted by nerby149

I think we keep the finals courses and I liked the top 5 it give more people the opportunity the ability to possibly move from 4th or 5th to 3rd and maybe get a trophy for the year, otherwise it's already decided who will be in the top 3, this way it allows more place changes, it adds to the excitement.

Sent from Team Purpmart

I been thinking about this Adam since your post, couldn't the top three or five in points in all three classes be held until the very last on the final comp day. Modify the courses then run them saving the set-up time of a completely new and seperate comp? The club can spectate and enjoy the top guys doing work. Maybe make it double points run for a higher excitement level? The final day is always really long it would shorten the day by at least a hour or more.

The only problem I had with the final run last fall was it was called a "shoot out". Thats were the season results are throw out and it becomes free for all with winners take all situation and that doesn't make any sense to me.

Just throwing out a different finals idea.

[nerby149]

That's not what was done Norm, it was not a shoot out, the season results were not thrown out, they were factored onto the final score for year that's how I ended beating Kevin in pro.

Sent from Team Purpmart

[Stormin2u]

Box stock 1.9 class could be run with a our standard rules 1.9 if there were enough interesting in the class. We've talked about a box stock class before it would probably require some teching prior to comping. I wouldn't sign up it for it but it works for me if the was interest for it.

Sporty, I couldn't even build one for the 2016 season and good ones are expensive. Plus I wouldn't have the time anyway this year I'm booked. If it happened I'd probably have to drop one of the trail classes. Actually our current class structure works really well for us providing three totally different driving challenges. Sporty really isn't all that much different than the Pro class which is a big downside to joining that class.

Chassis Types,

1.9 chassis should be a rail ladder style design imo. The chassis should overhang both front and rear axles. The composite is open Steel Channel, CF, Delrin, Aluminum, Printed. The ladder design is whats critical for fairness here.

2.2 is a different story that class has many chassis styles. It's a open class in that way and works well including the Wraiths and the rest of the 2.2 scale type machines.

[Etype R]

The finals course is simply a bonus comp for the contenders who qualify to run it, points are awarded in the same manor as a normal comp. And depending on the lead you have, it might not even factor into your position changing. But if the scores are close, you will have to defend your spot one last time. I liked the format of the top 5, and the way it was run this year did help keep things on time.

As for classes, I would like to see bumpers required on the 1.9 class, at least front bumpers. And some body trimming guidelines? Better to put rules in place before it becomes a problem. As far as the chassis, as long as its a ladder chassis that extends past either axle I am ok with it.

Box stock, no thanks. We are builders, a box stock class takes the builder element out of the game.

In 2.2, I feel we should still allow full buggys, but make sure we add some min dimensions to the bodys/cages. And consider widening the min gate width in this class since the wraiths are pretty wide.

I am against running a 4th class, due to the time it takes to run 3 classes, unless you restrict people to running either 2.2 sporty, or trail.

Running order, run 1.9 first, often times its better to run them on a completely different course then the 2.2s anyways. After that, I would consider running 2.2 trail second. Most competitors who run 2.2 pro, also run 2.2 trail. But not everyone in 2.2 trail, runs 2.2 pro. This does give those in both classes a advantage in 2.2 pro, if they share the same gates. So those who are running pro, have a slight advantage in trail.

[Stormin2u]

Originally Posted by nerby149

That's not what was done Norm, it was not a shoot out, the season results were not thrown out, they were factored onto the final score for year that's how I ended beating Kevin in pro.

Sent from Team Purpmart

Yes sir I get that now Adam, but I didn't understand that prior to the last comp but thanks to Kevin's explanation I finally got it. To me when you call it a shoot out thats a completely different beast.

Did you like my time saving idea for the final comp?

[Stormin2u]

I agree with Mike 1.9 could use a little more scrutiny in some areas, I'm not sure I know exactly what you mean when you say "buggies" in the 2.2 class?