Front Digs

[JasonInAugusta]

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

If you have a rig with dig steering any time you attempt a front dig you run the risk of making the vehicle move backwards as a whole because most of us run BBs in the front tires. There's more ground pressure on the front, more traction.

To do a front dig you HAVE to make the rears rotate backwards to keep the truck in position. If you just hold brake on the rear the fronts will drag the rear end across the rocks.

The way I see it, if the entire chassis (as a whole) moves backwards it's a reverse...just like getting in your 1:1 and putting it in reverse. The entire rig moves as a whole.

At the same time...for some reason it's ok for a person that's trying to recover from a rollover to use reverse to right the vehicle and not receive penalty points. I was told this is to make things more fun.

Then you have the poor guy that gets high-centered and gets called for the reverse if his tires rotate backwards.

Where do we draw the line?

If the reasoning behind calling digs as a reverse is because it's seen as an advantage...let's all save time and money, get the 1:18 Nylints and run a box stock class and be done with it. Otherwise you're killing creativity and hamstringing advancement of things.

Depending on the situation Clods have an advantage...sometimes shafties have the advantage.

[skyjacker_rc_club]

Good point

[Trailerguy]

Originally Posted by 4RnrRick

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.

In 1:1 crawling digs are not couted because the front tires are turning forward. If you did a dig with the rc and turned the tires in a forward direction, then sure no points, but if you run the rear tires and turn them in rev. then yes a rev. point should be given. Also, in 1:1 gravity roll backs are couted as a rev. and yes they have brakes that the rc's don't have, so maybe the driver should declare he is moving for a better view and the judges can then watch the vehicles position, that way if it moves because of gravity it can be placed back. This would solve the gravity roll back issue and provide safety for the drivers.

[Grizzly4x4]

If you guys were creative you would come up with a solution to the dig problem like Brian from Utah did.
He can do 2wd front digs fully within the rules and without crying. I also watched Chafey do a front dig by carefully working the throttles and he got no penalty.

As far as the safety concern goes maybe you guys should hold comps where the drivers are not scrambling up and down the rocks or instruct them where a good place to stop is so that they can get a better view without incurring a penalty.

[PinchFlat]

Originally Posted by Grizzly4x4

If you guys were creative you would come up with a solution to the dig problem like Brian from Utah did.
He can do 2wd front digs fully within the rules and without crying. I also watched Chafey do a front dig by carefully working the throttles and he got no penalty.

Brain (utbeamer) also used his dig/front burn setup in our last comp at little moab. It is very effective.

When I informed Chafey of the dig/reverse rule I explained that if at any time durring a dig, his tires went into reverse that would be a reverse penalty. He *****ed a little but delt with it and as Gizz said he was able to dig w/o those rear tires moving in reverse. He stepped up and IMPROVED his driving technique.

You guys complain that the rules are limiting our creativitey and inginuity and cutting off progression of design... I think you all have it backwards. This should, and will I hope, spark more creativity, more invention. Look at what Brian did. He came up with a way to have a dig system within the rules AND he does it all with a 3 channel pistol grip radio. Chafey also delt with it and stepped up his driving skills. Now I don't know about all you guys but to me THAT IS CREATIVITY!!

-PF

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by 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:

Actually the rules never changed. That wording was done before dig steering was an issue. :neutral:
The question was raised if we should change it to accommodate the "diggers" and it was decided that the diggers should work around the rule, not work the rule around the diggers.

[chafey]

well as one of the guys that runs a dig machine i dont like the fact that i cant do a 180 degree dig but i dont get a choice, rules are rules.i will probably switch to the stick between the spokes kind of dig. i liked it better when we got to reverse the wheelbase of your truck!and yes grizz could build a dig truck without a problem.one question though, if everyone is trying to run off the same set of rules then why doesnt everyone have the same rules?

[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.

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by chafey

well as one of the guys that runs a dig machine i dont like the fact that i cant do a 180 degree dig but i dont get a choice, rules are rules.

You can still do 180 degree digs it will cost you 1 reverse point but it may take another rig 2 or 3 reverses to do the same thing.

[chafey]

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

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by chafey

one question though, if everyone is trying to run off the same set of rules then why doesnt everyone have the same rules?

The rules committe was formed just for that reason. The committe was chosen from rcc board members that actively participate and organize events.

UTRCRC Representative........Pinchflat
PARC Representative............KevinLongIsland
SERCRC Representative........Fishmaxx
Nor-Cal Representative.........Badger
ORRCRC Representative........rbgerrish
Colorado Rock Crawlers........Grizzly4x4
RCcrawler.com Site Owner....Jason

Presently UTRCRC, PARC, SERCRC, Nor-Cal, Vegas Crawlerz, and Colorado Rock Crawlers are using these rules, so I am not sure what you are asking.

[kevinlongisland]

I think we have to keep one thing in mind concerning the rules, IN NO WAY SHOULD WE LIMIT CRAWLING PROGRESS AND TECHNOLOGY. Dig should eventually be allowed. It will make the vehicles better and therefore we need to look towards the future and decide how we will deal with this issue.

Originally Posted by Grizzly4x4

Trailerguy gets it, you guys are always talking about innovation. Well, the rules are trying to make you be innovative.

The rules should not define the technology. It should only make things fair and even. At this point, I believe allowing full dig slides, which includes moving the truck sideways, will further separate clods from shafties and we don’t want that yet. But we should eventually allow this technology in its entirety. I expressed my opinion to fishmaxx in our phone conversations about this rule and how we should allow digs/burns in the future. I agree with the way the rules are stated today, but dig should eventually be worked into the rules and allowed in it’s entirety without penalty.

I have used the same burn/dig system Jason uses. Brian's system cannot do allot of the things that make a dig/burn system turn a regular crawler into something completely amazing. The burn system can take unlimited clod competition to an entire other level. We should work towards that. Not hinder that. The creativity and ingenuity has arrived already, we just need to figure out how we will eventually work that into the comp scene.

[chafey]

i agree!

[Trailerguy]

Originally Posted by kevinlongisland

I think we have to keep one thing in mind concerning the rules, IN NO WAY SHOULD WE LIMIT CRAWLING PROGRESS AND TECHNOLOGY. Dig should eventually be allowed.

Digs are allowed, your are just penalized if one of the axles goes in reverse. If you want to do a correct dig, without a penalty, then use the front axle only in a forward motion. So figure out the technology to brake the rear axle to do a correct front burn like the 1:1 guys. Thats how you progress the sport. If you change the rules to fit the easy ways of doing things, then technology will advance at a much slower rate. A servo mounted in the right location to be used as a brake, I think, is the way someone will figure it out. And anyways, you could do a front and rear opposite burn (side ways burn) and only get hit with a 1 point penalty, or hit the gate marker and get a much worse penalty (I think 10 points) I'll take the 1 point myself. This is what I call an ENGINEERING OPPERTUNITY. Be the hero, not the winer (would you like some cheese with that wine).

[kevinlongisland]

Trailerguy, a rear locking only system cannot do what a full all out clod burn opposite rotating tires burn systems can do. The current rules limit what can be done. We need to work towards using the amazing abilities of an independent rotation axle system (IRAS) without penalty. Then we'll see some amazing stuff out on those courses. By the way trailerguy and everyone else commenting in here, how much time do you have behind the wheel of a clod with IRAS?

[Trailerguy]

Originally Posted by kevinlongisland

Trailerguy, a rear locking only system cannot do what a full all out clod burn opposite rotating tires burn systems can do. The current rules limit what can be done. We need to work towards using the amazing abilities of an independent rotation axle system (IRAS) without penalty. Then we'll see some amazing stuff out on those courses. By the way trailerguy and everyone else commenting in here, how much time do you have behind the wheel of a clod with IRAS?

Actually I have plenty of time behind a properly step IRAS clod. The whole idea is to make the vehicles better within the rules, to push the limits, not make the rules around the vehicles. If we start making the rules around the vehicles, then I'll figure out a way to RC my 1:1 and ask for the gates to be made wider. I mean, if the opposite rotating burn is such a huge advantage (which it is) then take the one point penalty and move on. If you can go through the same section with one reverse (one point penalty) then the opposite burn wasn't needed at that time. If you might have to reverse two or three times, then the opposite burn would be worth doing. The idea should not be to change the rules, but change the courses, so that opposite burns are an advantage. I don't think people should complain that the rules are too tough, complain that the courses are too easy, make the corners sharper, holes bigger, etc. etc. etc.

[PinchFlat]

Originally Posted by Trailerguy

Actually I have plenty of time behind a properly step IRAS clod. The whole idea is to make the vehicles better within the rules, to push the limits, not make the rules around the vehicles... I mean, if the opposite rotating burn is such a huge advantage (which it is) then take the one point penalty and move on. If you can go through the same section with one reverse (one point penalty) then the opposite burn wasn't needed at that time. If you might have to reverse two or three times, then the opposite burn would be worth doing. The idea should not be to change the rules, but change the courses, so that opposite burns are an advantage. I don't think people should complain that the rules are too tough, complain that the courses are too easy, make the corners sharper, holes bigger, etc. etc. etc.

EXACTLY!!! Why is everyone so afraid of one damn penalty point? You choose to use full burn you will ONLY be hit with 1 point. Sacrificing one point to gain a greater advantage is part of the game. Use your brains people, think strategy. These comps are just as much about strategy as it is about anything else. I don't think the rules should be changed to fit a certain type of vehicle configuration. I think getting competitors actually thinking, makes for a better competition. Maybe all you "Burners" are too dumb to see what Trailerguy is and has been pointing out. Open your eyes. USE YOUR BRAINS. Or maybe it's just easier to b!tch than it is to use some intelligence.

There is always adopting what the Euro-Trials guys do... if a more capable rig shows up, everyone else gets a handicap... I, personally don't want to implement a handicap system... what a pain in the a$$ for us event organizers.

[kaetwo]

Well I must say that Pinch pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Kevin the crawling technology as you put it, is not being stunted by rules. The rules are in place to bring a challenge to the competition. Changing the rules to cater to this IRAS (by the way that is the most ridiculous trendy acronym I've ever heard) or any other system is just bad form. By changing the rules to accommodate technology only makes the competitions that much easier. If the crawlers that approach a course cannot see a strategic method of maneuvering through based on the crawler that they have, then it's there lack of experience that is holding them back and not the technology. I think that if someone wants to use dig.....go for it. If it benefits you and you’re able to make it work then what is the problem with 1 point? It's all a part of strategy. A great deal of wining a competition is planning where you’re going to get points and where you are going to avoid them. I don't go into a course thinking that I'm going to clear it, but rather how I'm going to beat the very best score on that course for the day. Giving up points is all a part of that, and the rules make that the challenge.

I think the rules are great the way they are. Sure changes will have to be made here and there but let’s keep the rules tight and difficult enough that it’s still a challenge. Strategy is really the only challenge in the Squat to Piss class.

Late

[chafey]

wow what controversy! i think if i compete next year i will be getting rid of my rear esc and putting a servo in its place,i guess a front only dig is better than nothing.

[TwistedCreations]

Moved/split and cleaned up from the " Reverse penalty" thread. Any discussion about Front digs, please post here and not in the other thread

Thanks

Jeremy