Reverse Penalty

[Fishmaxx]

Back Up/ Reverse: (1 pt) point is are given when a vehicle reverses course after making forward progress. Reversing course is defined as the tires moving the vehicle backward or spinning in the reverse direction, whether intentional or not. Once a reverse penalty is given, no further reverse penalty can be given until the vehicle makes forward progress. No penalty is given if the backward movement is part of a penalized rollover. Maximum 10 penalty points per GATE for reverses.


Back Up/ Reverse Examples:
A) If the driver intentionally drives the vehicle in reverse, a reverse penalty will occur.

B) If the vehicle stops on an incline and then rolls backwards a reverse penalty will occur.

C) If a vehicle is stuck or stopped a reverse penalty will occur if the tires move forward at all and then move backward. Even if the vehicle does not move (this includes dig steering).

D) If a vehicle is climbing an obstacle and is bounced backward by the terrain but the tires are still moving forward, No reverse penalty will occur.

E) If a vehicle flips over backward, without the driver reversing, no reverse penalty will occur.

F) Once a reverse penalty has been assessed, no further reverse penalty can be assessed until the vehicle makes forward progress.
(Example) Reversing, stopping, and then reversing again will only result in one reverse penalty.

G) Reverse penalties are assigned at the Judge’s discretion if the actions performed by the vehicle/driver are not clearly defined by the rule.

[4RnrRick]

B) If the vehicle stops on an incline and then rolls backwards a reverse penalty will occur.

I disagree with this one..... most of us use Super roosters and that does not offer a positive brake like a 1:1 crawler. I think gravity roll backs should not cause points.




C) If a vehicle is stuck or stopped a reverse penalty will occur if the tires move forward at all and then move backward. Even if the vehicle does not move (this includes dig steering).

I also agree with Jason on this. It should be only if the vehicle moves backward and not based on tire rotation. for dig steeering or high centers. to me if you high centered and you reverse and the vehicle doesn't move you shouldn't get a reverse penalty.

[boxedjuice87]

Originally Posted by 4RnrRick

I disagree with this one..... most of us use Super roosters and that does not offer a positive brake like a 1:1 crawler. I think gravity roll backs should not cause points.

What if a person is going up an incline, decides they dont like their choice of line then use the excuse of a gravity rollback to let their rig roll back down the incline and reposition themselves for a better line with no penalities?

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by boxedjuice87

What if a person is going up an incline, decides they dont like their choice of line then use the excuse of a gravity rollback to let their rig roll back down the incline and reposition themselves for a better line with no penalities?

That's one of the reasons the rules were written this way. People were doing just that.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by JasonInAugusta

I still don't agree with this idea of a reverse penalty being called when using a dig steering.

It was discussed in the rules committee forum, and it was unanimous.

Originally Posted by 4RnrRick

B) If the vehicle stops on an incline and then rolls backwards a reverse penalty will occur.

I disagree with this one..... most of us use Super roosters and that does not offer a positive brake like a 1:1 crawler. I think gravity roll backs should not cause points.

The rules were not written to guarantee a driver a perfect run!

They were written to reward those who made less mistakes.

Why should a driver who makes 15 attempts to get over an obstacle receive the same score as another driver that does it in 1 attempt!

[4RnrRick]

Exactly my point! Whats wrong with using the terrain to your advantage. Its all about reading the terrain and doing what you can to position the vehicle for a smooth run.

What if you drive up one obsticle to roll your vehicle all the way over on purpose to get a better line on where you want to go. should I get a penatly for being creative.... Or how about starting a course in reverse so after some gate I can drive forward for the rest of the course for only 1 reverse point.



Here in Oregon there are lots of areas where you can be on really steep terrain for most of the course and holding the throttle so you only have forward progress while looking for your best route or litterally climbing to a new spot to stand is near impossible. this is a MAJOR safety concern when your on terrain like the picture above. At the last event we had a few people slip while trying to reposition themselves for a good view of the RC. Its not like RCs have a brake peddle you can push like a 1:1 crawler which these rules where dervived from.

Anyways, I'm just stating my opinoin..... I think gravity roll backs and 2wd digs should be penatly free.

[Fishmaxx]

4RnrRick, I agree with everything you just said about roll backs, using terrian, etc. The point it to reward the driver who makes fewer attempts.

Yes you can back through the entire course if you like with no penalty.

If you still disagree please feel free to discuss it with Ryan the ORRCRC Representative on the RCC Rules Comittee, and he can present your concerns before the committe

[Grizzly4x4]

I felt that both should be penalized and here are examples why.
There are two definitions of reverse as I had seen it.
1) Did the driver reverse intentionally (intend to reverse).

2) Did the vehicle move in reverse.

Many people were using roll-backs to reposition the vehicle by driving up an incline and letting it roll back down to avoid reverse penalties. They were saying that they did not reverse the vehicle intentionally so they should not be penalized.
To eliminate this I worded the rule to penalize people for both intentional reversing and for the vehicle moving in reverse.
This was the only way to clearly define it for the judges.

Now look at these cases:
So if you are high centered and put it in reverse but it doesn't move, then you intended to reverse but the vehicle did not move in reverse.
If we allow this then we are saying that we dont penalize for intending to reverse, only if the vehicle moves in reverse.

If you are doing a front dig with the rear tires in reverse and the vehicle does not move backward, then you intentionally reversed but the vehicle did not move in reverse.
If we allow this it says we should penalize the vehicle for moving in reverse but no penalty should occur if you did not intend for it to move in reverse even though you intentionally put the rear axle in reverse.

If you are doing a front dig with the rear tires in reverse and the vehicle moves backward, then you intentionally reversed and the vehicle moved in reverse.
If we allow this it says we should not penalize the vehicle for moving in reverse if you did not intend for it to move in reverse even though you intentionally put the rear axle in reverse.



So now we can not penalize you if the vehicle moves in reverse, or if the vehicle moves in reverse but you did not intend for the vehicle to move in reverse, or if you intentionally put the vehicle (1/2 the vehicle :?) in reverse and it did move in reverse.

Now the judges are reduced to asking you if you want a reverse penalty, and of course you will decline. Or we have to sit down and make exceptions and examples for every possible scenario that could possibly happen.

We already have one exception: If you roll over you can try to right the vehicle by driving in reverse without penalty until the tires are back on the ground.

EDIT:
I say "I" because I worded the rules but we all agreed on it.

[Fishmaxx]

Trailerguy and Grizzly4x4 both get it. Too bad some people just run their mouth without thinking it through!

[JasonInAugusta]

This is funny...

I told the guys at work that after Buck's Pocket the rules would be changed to penalize dig steering.

Whaddya know? :neutral:

The question still hasn't been answered as to why the guy that is on his lid can reverse without penalty, but the guy that gets high-centered is penalized.

I know the reason given for no penalty with reverses during a roll-over is to encourage recoveries...but isn't that rollover penalty there to be there to prevent people from rolling to begin with?

Isn't the guy that's high-centered trying to recover?

Why is it ok to intentionally drive completely off the course and come back onto the course to avoid a reverse?

Sounds like I should just make a rig that can be driven right side up or upside down...then nobody would know what to call as far as a penalty.

Rules are rules....they'll just make me a better driver and that much harder for Fish to beat. ;)

(Just pokin' fun at ya, Fish! )

[PinchFlat]

Originally Posted by JasonInAugusta

Why is it ok to intentionally drive completely off the course and come back onto the course to avoid a reverse?

We talked about this actually in Moab... We called it "The Implied Course". I know as an event organizer I don't want to string boundaries at all our events on all our courses. We didn't actually decide anything but wit 3 of the rules community members in Moab it is a start.

[JasonInAugusta]

As I said earlier...dig is no longer an issue. Rear dig works better anyway.

AS long as you guys making things clear, clarify these...

The question still hasn't been answered as to why the guy that is on his lid can reverse without penalty, but the guy that gets high-centered is penalized.

I know the reason given for no penalty with reverses during a roll-over is to encourage recoveries...but isn't that rollover penalty there to prevent people from rolling to begin with?

Isn't the guy that's high-centered trying to recover?

Why is it ok to intentionally drive completely off the course and come back onto the course to avoid a reverse?

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by JasonInAugusta

The question still hasn't been answered as to why the guy that is on his lid can reverse without penalty, but the guy that gets high-centered is penalized.

That rule was made to encourage the destrution of bodies for the sake of 10 points. The guy that is high centered is not going to need a new body after he gets moving again. This keeps us in the good graces of the body manufacturers. j/k

[PinchFlat]

Originally Posted by JasonInAugusta

:The question still hasn't been answered as to why the guy that is on his lid can reverse without penalty, but the guy that gets high-centered is penalized.

I know the reason given for no penalty with reverses during a roll-over is to encourage recoveries...but isn't that rollover penalty there to be there to prevent people from rolling to begin with?

Isn't the guy that's high-centered trying to recover?

Ok... I'll take a shot at this one.... Tis is a tough one but we have handled it like this:

As the guy on his lid is trying to recover from a roll he may put it in reverse to try and flip himself. At the moment his rig rights it's self, and the vehicle is still in reverse the crawler will go backwards and he will get a reverse penaty. If he manages to lay off the reverse so the crawler stops on its wheels when it flips back over... no reverse penalty.

The high-centered guy trying to get out of his situation is in effect on his wheels and not upside down. So when his wheels turn in reverse he is intending to go in reverse. Unlike the flipped crawler that is only trying to right himself.

-PF

EDIT: And whay Grizz said.^

[Sparky J]

I now this is off the beaten path but I had 1 clearification issue on the boundry lines. Now i can see moving in and out to position your rig for the next set of gates but going around the gate and backing through is like something out of a fictional movie!!

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by JasonInAugusta

LMAO @ Grizz

Really...Honestly I don't have a problem with the rear axle rotating backwards while doing a front dig being counted as reverse.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that no penalty is given for the guy that intentionally puts not one, but both axles in reverse...just to attempt a roll-over recovery.

I think this is a HUGE discrepancy in the rules that needs to be fixed.

If it's not ok to put 1/2 of my truck in reverse and keep the rig in place on the rocks, it shouldn't be ok for someone else to put their rig in reverse while the truck is on its side and makes it move all over the place.

This was my intention with the first post...just seems I'm the only one looking at it this way.

Here's how I see it, and this goes along with what Pinchy said.
Challenging courses mean that rollovers happen (hopefully). So not every rollover can be attributed to bad driving, some of it is just bad luck while trying something difficult. In order to keep things competitive and exciting, a rollover should not keep someone from being competitive if they can drive out of it. It doesn't matter if that happens on the ground or not.
Once they are on the ground it also becomes difficult to tell when they are reversing as sometimes the tires moving forward will make the vehicle move backward.

The bottom line though is this, it is not a discrepancy, it is an exception. It was made an exception because people like the rule (rule makers and competitors). There is nothing wrong with exceptions but we don't want to have too many of them.

[Grizzly4x4]

Please let me clarify one thing.
These rules were not written to exclude dig steering or punish people for having it. I was asked to word this ruling and I assure you it was written long before this was an issue.

The rule and it's wording were designed to make it as simple as possible for the judges to understand what a reverse is and eliminate as many "judgement" calls as possible. This is a complicated subject if not clearly defined and therefore people traveling somewhere for a comp could get judged differently than back home.
We hoped that by clearly saying "if you tried to reverse" and/or "if your vehicle moved in reverse" it would make things easier to judge and fair to all competitors. The majority decided that reverses would be penalized and this was what we came up with.

I apologize if I can across as a jerk in my previous posts. If there is a flaw in the rules We are certainly not against changing them but there is plenty of room for event coordinators to make them fit within their events. Such as calling an official time-out to allow a driver to safely move, or not counting a particular rollback while the driver moves, and allowing digs as long as they meet the rules.

[Trailerguy]

I agree with grizz and with jia.
So as a huge 1:1 crawler, this is the way I see it...........
Any time the tires move in a rearward motion, there should be a point. It doesn't matter if the guy is hug up, upside down, right side up, inside out, wriggled up in a v-notch, up some ladies skirt........reverse is reverse is reverse, no exceptions, period end of conversation. In 1:1 crawling, if you are going up a slope and the vehicle slides backwards, even with the tires spinning forwards, it is still a reverse point. All I see is how classes are changed to make it harder, well here is an example of you guys making it to d*** easy anyhow. If the vehicle is going rearward, no matter what the tires are doing, it should be a point. And really, grow up and quit your crying. The 1:1 guys might say something once in a great while, but they learn to adapt and overcome. They are always having to make the rules tougher, not easier.

[Trailerguy]

Check out this link.

UROC Rules

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by chafey

good point grizz. normally i would care about that one point but with how i did at the comp one point wouldnt matter

I hear ya.