| |
| |||||||
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-22-2007, 02:38 PM
| #1 |
| Southern buggy whore   Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Canada, eh.
Posts: 2,812
|  Selecting a rig based on rock size Ok, so there's not a huge amount of rock crawling places where I live, but there's enough. While I was originally planning on building a super, I'm now thinking possibly 2.2 with upgrading to a super in the future. However, I was wondering if there's a general guideline in terms of rock size and what size crawler should be used. Most of the rocks in the areas around here are maybe 2 to 3 feet in diameter. Having never rock crawler before, I have no idea what a 2.2 is capable of vs. a super, and the vids don't necessarily give the greatest perspective. Thanks! Chris |
|  |
| Sponsored Links | |
| | |
|
08-22-2007, 03:44 PM
| #2 | |
| Rock Crawler Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: England, Where the birds fly backwards.
Posts: 628
| Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
08-22-2007, 03:50 PM
| #3 |
| Rock Crawler Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: LaSalle
Posts: 823
| ^^ x2 it's all personal preference. If you like a challenge do a 2.2 if you wanna be the best go with the super. |
|
| |
|
08-22-2007, 05:57 PM
| #4 |
| Quarry Creeper Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Folsom
Posts: 207
| I started with a super and then got hooked on the 2.2 size as any given rock pile is more difficult, which keeps me from being bored. I now have several of each and run the little ones 80% of the time. A well built super is very capable and fun on the more difficult rocks. |
|
| |
|
08-23-2007, 10:26 AM
| #5 |
| Southern buggy whore Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Canada, eh.
Posts: 2,812
| Thanks guys. I think I will go with a 2.2 then. Build up my skills, and then build up a super and crush everything  I guess the super appealed to me just from the sheer size. I've got a set of proline moab xl's (which will now collect dust!) and the size is incredible, I could fit a 2.2 tire inside it! Chris |
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
