2010 Bodiless Rules Questions

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by rockbound

got my popcorn ready for this one. I learned to keep my mouth shut, so ill just watch.. but i will add that i think this is the most ridiculous arguement yet..

Don't forget the bacon...


I don't think this is a ridiculous argument.

It's not clear in the wording how to measure it. When the rules were first made EVERYONE had flat skids parallel to the ground. Now people are trying to think outside the box and design curved or angled skids.
I want to design the chassis to be legal, but there's no clear definition of it.

It's coming down to interpretation of the rules by different people, but the rules don't specify where the measurement is taken. In the past, it didn't make a difference because everyone was doing the same thing. Look at the rockshow chassis, it's got an angled skid, so where is the measurement taken for that chassis?

[rockbound]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Don't forget the bacon...


I don't think this is a ridiculous argument.

It's not clear in the wording how to measure it. When the rules were first made EVERYONE had flat skids parallel to the ground. Now people are trying to think outside the box and design curved or angled skids.
I want to design the chassis to be legal, but there's no clear definition of it.

It's coming down to interpretation of the rules by different people, but the rules don't specify where the measurement is taken. In the past, it didn't make a difference because everyone was doing the same thing. Look at the rockshow chassis, it's got an angled skid, so where is the measurement taken for that chassis?

there isn't any interpretation, we included a diagram in the rules to show you how to measure the height, but people want to ignore that picture, i guess we need to draw diagrams of every chassis out there so there isnt any confusion on what height means.

let me ask you a question, a chassis is 8" long and legal, but the driver sets it up to be higher in the back like your chassis, now how are you measuring length? is it still 8" front to back, or did it now shrink cause we have chassis setting on an angle and according to you should be measured on that angle thus making it 7 7/8" and illegal..

my opinion and this is just that MY OPINION not the answer to your question, is that it shouldnt matter how the chassis is set up, the chassis should be measured as a stand alone unit not ready to run, you shouldn't have to tweak your suspension to fudge measurements, simple overall lentgh and height according to the diagrams we supplied should be pretty simple for everyone to understand.. but obviously it isn't. Do the diagrams we supplied show a truck in ready to run condition?

ok im done now for real for real..probably already said to much but F it, it all pisses me off!

[ol' gravy leg]

Originally Posted by rockbound

let me ask you a question, a chassis is 8" long and legal, but the driver sets it up to be higher in the back like your chassis, now how are you measuring length? is it still 8" front to back, or did it now shrink cause we have chassis setting on an angle and according to you should be measured on that angle thus making it 7 7/8" and illegal..

I was just thinking the same thing.

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Don't forget the bacon...

Here's a question for ya. If you want the chassis measured RTR, does that mean at static ride height or throughout the suspension cycle, like the wheelbase measurement?

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by ol' gravy leg

I was just thinking the same thing.




Here's a question for ya. If you want the chassis measured RTR, does that mean at static ride height or throughout the suspension cycle, like the wheelbase measurement?

Whatever the measurement method is, it needs to be clarified. Close the loophole.

My measurements are still overall length, overall height, overall width (using the exact wording from the rules) so at the angle, my design is actually 8.43" in length.

The included diagram doesn't account for angled or curved skids, and the design assumes all chassis will be set up that way with a flat skid parallel to the ground. The question now is how to measure it if that's not the case. What is the plane of reference?

If we measured throughout it's suspension cycle, and we compress both shocks to full compression, it stays at that angle (since the shocks are equal length). If we compress the rear shocks without compressing the front shocks, then it's a different measurement, but this would be true for all chassis. If you have a chassis that is exactly 8" in length, and compress one set of shocks but not the other, it becomes illegal.

This is why it should be measured RTR, you're not going to disassemble the entire truck just to measure the chassis, right? It's going to be driven at that angle, so measure it at that angle.

[Reflection]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Where is the flat point if you have a rounded skid?

Why not measure it in "ready to run" state, like any other measurement?



That contradicts what reflection was saying, if you use the skid as reference for "flat" if it has a flat skid, then that's not the measurement.

This style is starting to be used, with an angled skid to allow better breakover angles for the rear links, so I wanted to know how to design my chassis.

Again, to me, "Overall Height" means lowest point to highest point.

[/COLOR]

So... since it's obviously not clear in the rules, what is the answer?


A. Measure it in ready to run condition (like all other measurements)
B. Perpendicular to a flat skid plate, or best guess with a curved skid plate

We all see what your trying to do.

ol' gravy leg gets it,his view on the rule does not contradict mine or the ruling. He's placing the chassis flat and measuring from the lowest point to the highest point.....just like the rule and picture explains.

Why not measure it ready to run? I'll tell you why. With your chassis design sitting flat,it is under the minimum. Jacking the suspension up in the rear makes it seem legal. By your ways of thinking,you could technically build a chassis only .500" tall and be legal. Put enough angle on it and it'd measure 3.750" somewhere.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Whatever the measurement method is, it needs to be clarified. Close the loophole.

My measurements are still overall length, overall height, overall width (using the exact wording from the rules) so at the angle, my design is actually 8.43" in length.

The included diagram doesn't account for angled or curved skids, and the design assumes all chassis will be set up that way with a flat skid parallel to the ground. The question now is how to measure it if that's not the case. What is the plane of reference?

If we measured throughout it's suspension cycle, and we compress both shocks to full compression, it stays at that angle (since the shocks are equal length). If we compress the rear shocks without compressing the front shocks, then it's a different measurement, but this would be true for all chassis. If you have a chassis that is exactly 8" in length, and compress one set of shocks but not the other, it becomes illegal.

This is why it should be measured RTR, you're not going to disassemble the entire truck just to measure the chassis, right? It's going to be driven at that angle, so measure it at that angle.

i dont see what the issue is here....

if you look at the picture you will see there really is no gray area or loophole. the picture shows the chassis hood (middle section) parallel to the ground (upper shock mounts relatively on the same plane) as are most chassis. if you dont want to use the upper shock mounts then use the upper link holes. typically they are in a linear fashion as well through the plane parallelto the lower line in the informative diagram the rules committee supplied us. see below and concentrate on the pink middle line. tell me how in the world would the way on the right be right.



it doesnt matter if the roof or skid for that matter is curved, flat, slanted or otherwise. the car needs to sit as it is pictured and measured lowest point to highest.

thanks for your time, hope you liked the show, i'll be here all week

[monkeyracer]

Here's the point:

No where in the rules does it say that the chassis is measured "while sitting flat" or "perpendicular to the skid" or "perpendicular to the line intersecting..." or anything more than:

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.
See Illustration B.

Since there's nothing saying what reference point these are relative to, that is why I originally brought it up.

If we measure relative to the earth's surface, or just a level table for practical means, then it won't matter if there's an angled skid, a round skid, no skid, whether the roof or hood are slanted or not, or whether the shocks or links are level. If you start saying that it's relative to the skid plate or when the chassis is sitting flat, you open it up to interpretation, as I've clearly shown in this thread.

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx... Again

You should measure it the way its going to be ran highest point to lowest

If he's higher up in the RC foodchain, I'm going to go with that, but since it's not clarified in the rules, I don't want to spend the money cutting a chassis that won't be legal to run.

[Reflection]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Here's the point:

No where in the rules does it say that the chassis is measured "while sitting flat" or "perpendicular to the skid" or "perpendicular to the line intersecting..." or anything more than:



Since there's nothing saying what reference point these are relative to, that is why I originally brought it up.

Technically the rule does say how to measure,along with a diagram to explain it further for some that may have a hard time with reading comprehension.

2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.
See Illustration B.




To me,an angled skid is fine. The picture provided CLEARLY shows how the chassis should be measured.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Reflection

To me,an angled skid is fine. The picture provided CLEARLY shows how the chassis should be measured.

Ok, so the chassis in the first post is fine (at least measurement wise according to whatever interpretation of the rules is used), and you say an angled skid is fine right? (Side note; both the beetlejuice v3 and rockshow chassis have angled skids.)

If so, look at this picture. If the left and middle are ok (which you said they are), then what about the right chassis makes it not measured the same way?



The left chassis is where this thread started. The middle chassis is pretty much the same with some slight tweaks here and there, but has an angled skid. The upper links are mounted in the same location, and the rear shock mounts are the same, but the front mounts are a little lower.

The chassis on the right is the middle chassis a little more tweaked to look a little better. As you can see they are all 3.75" tall relative to flat ground.


All the diagram shows clearly is if your chassis has a roof that is parallel to the skid, and the skid parallel to the ground, how to measure it. My roof is round (like a 1:1 Bug) and my skid is angled (like a "cockroached" bug)


Also, all of this recent discussion is contributed by non RC members, so it's a matter of interpretation and opinion.

If the measurement is perpendicular to the skid, or with the chassis laying flat, then tell me how this chassis makes the minimum that way:

RTR position: Just barely gets to 3.75"



Perpendicular to the skid plate:


Throughout suspension cycle: Notice how the skid is pretty much parallel to the ground...


This one is not much different:


How is my newest design any different than the way the current beetlejuice or rockshow is measured?

What about this chassis?


There are plenty of examples of the newest bodiless chassis with angled skids, so are we taking the measurement level with the ground, or relative to the skid (ignoring for now curved skids)?

The answer affects everyone running any of the above chassis, and those designing others...

[BLUEJEEP]

But your illustrations do not have angled skids the chassis is just jacked up in the rear. An angled skid keeps the shock mounts and upper link mounts parallel and level. all you've done i jacked up the rear. If you cut the skid on the white line then you would have an angled skid.

[ol' gravy leg]

All the diagram shows clearly is if your chassis has a roof that is parallel to the skid, and the skid parallel to the ground, how to measure it. My roof is round (like a 1:1 Bug) and my skid is angled (like a "cockroached" bug)

IMO your skid is not angled, you entire chassis is rotated.

If the measurement is perpendicular to the skid, or with the chassis laying flat, then tell me how this chassis makes the minimum that way:

Perpendicular to the skid never was, and never will be, the definitive way to measure the chassis.

Perpendicular to the skid plate:

Who in their right mind would run a chassis in that position?

Throughout suspension cycle: Notice how the skid is pretty much parallel to the ground...

It's not. It might look like that due to the angle of the picture, but it's essentially at the same angle as the "RTR" position.

How is my newest design any different than the way the current beetlejuice or rockshow is measured?

For one, there is no horizontal plane to base measurements off of.

What about this chassis?
[IMG]http://www.ripper7racing.com/myimages/BULLY/raptor003.jpg[IMG]

It would clearly be measured like this.

See the horizontal plane? In this case, the upper shock mounts and upper link mounts.

There are plenty of examples of the newest bodiless chassis with angled skids, so are we taking the measurement level with the ground, or relative to the skid (ignoring for now curved skids)?

If the judge has any common sense he shouldn't have a problem figuring out how to measure it. Maybe the rules could use some additional guidelines, but I think the current diagrams speak for themselves.

I don't know if you plan to be a vendor of this chassis, but requiring every customer to run drastically unequal length shocks in order to meet your interpretation of the dimensions doesn't seem like the best way to sell a chassis.

[monkeyracer]

So, to make sure I understand what you are saying...

As long as the shocks and upper links are straight, then it's an angled skid and not a rotated chassis?

What if I don't want to run the shocks at the same angle? (I don't have them this way now on my current chassis)
What if I am messing with squat/antisquat, and the upper links are not mounted to the same point?

I don't think we can use any points in the chassis itself to define a plane of reference. That should be the ground (table), and should be measured in ready to run condition just as all specs should.


I'm not planning to be a vendor, at least for now this is just for my own use, so I don't have to worry about having the shocks set-up like that being an issue. If this were to be sold to the public, it would be up to the end user to make sure their vehicle is legal.

[constantmotion]

Bottom line...Chassis Height = Distance between chassis' highest point and the chassis' lowest point. It has nothing to do with shock or link placement.

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Just barely gets to 3.75"
Notice how the skid is pretty much parallel to the ground...

1) "just barely" = legal.
2) No, I dont see that it is parallel to the ground. It is angled.
3) As a judge for our local club (and Ripper is one of our members, so there are quite a few of his chassis being run), I would judge these chassis exactly as OGL has pictured. With the truck RTR, draw two lines parallel to the ground....one at the highest point of the chassis, one at the lowest...then measure the distance between the two. If it is 3.75" or greater (even "just barely"), then it is legal.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by constantmotion

Bottom line...Chassis Height = Distance between chassis' highest point and the chassis' lowest point. It has nothing to do with shock or link placement.

So, this goes back to my original question, is the measurement parallel to the ground RTR?

Originally Posted by JeremyH

1) "just barely" = legal.
2) No, I dont see that it is parallel to the ground. It is angled.
3) As a judge for our local club (and Ripper is one of our members, so there are quite a few of his chassis being run), I would judge these chassis exactly as OGL has pictured. With the truck RTR, draw two lines parallel to the ground....one at the highest point of the chassis, one at the lowest...then measure the distance between the two. If it is 3.75" or greater (even "just barely"), then it is legal.

Lance actually cut my first two versions of my chassis, he's a great guy, as I'm sure you've experienced...

All permutations of my design meet the 3.75" minimum when measured RTR. That measurement is what I was getting at. You measure it the way I interpreted it to be measured, but other judges measure it saying my design is short. So there's no consistency at different clubs.

If this were clarified in the rules somehow, that would be great.

[JeremyH]

Well, I doubt that a rule revision will be made since we are already a few months into the season, so you might want to clarify the wording through one of the RC (and quite a few of them have chimed in on this thread) and just keep that with you. I was questioning the width of my previous chassis and what was included in the measurement of width, so before I went to Crawlapalooza, I contacted one of the coordinators, who is also on the RC, and verified that I would be legal. When I went to the comp, I had that PM ready to be shown if there was any question...

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by JeremyH

Well, I doubt that a rule revision will be made since we are already a few months into the season, so you might want to clarify the wording through one of the RC (and quite a few of them have chimed in on this thread) and just keep that with you. I was questioning the width of my previous chassis and what was included in the measurement of width, so before I went to Crawlapalooza, I contacted one of the coordinators, who is also on the RC, and verified that I would be legal. When I went to the comp, I had that PM ready to be shown if there was any question...

That's what I was trying, and Fish gave me that, but then my local rep says something different. That's what sparked the most recent debate.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by Grizzly4x4

Fishmaxx is the chairperson and overrules me. If I have contradicted what he said then go by what he said. I was stating my opinion and interpretation and didn't read all the replies.

Originally Posted by rockbound

got my popcorn ready for this one. I learned to keep my mouth shut, so ill just watch.. but i will add that i think this is the most ridiculous arguement yet..

I have the same number of votes as you guys, so I don't over rule anyone



This picture in my mind reflects my point of view on the topic

Originally Posted by ol' gravy leg

It would clearly be measured like this.

In my mind it has to be this way for several reasons.

#1 All specs should be measured RTR, a there are several other rules that set that precedence.

#2 The rule do not require the skid or roof to be any particular shape , so unless we require flat skids how would we set the chassis to determine our measurements?

#3 Spec have to be determined in a specified manner, so we have to choose to do it RTR like OGL's picture or with the chassis alone setting on a flat surface. We cannot have Judges picking random spots on the chassis they say is the top or bottom.

#4 If for some reason you think it should be how the chassis sets on a flat surface. What do you do since we don't require pre-approve proiduct/designs at USRCCA events like ROAR, so what do when some new kind of chassis shows up at the next comp? Will we require them to disassemble their truck?

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

I think this drawing is also correctly measured.

I understand there are those who think monkey is trying to pull a fast one, and don't want him to be measured that way. That's cool, but the is a practical side that needs to be addressed. Do we really want judges picking random spot to measure the top and bottom of various designs?

To me measuring the chassis RTR is the only practical solution

[EvilTwin v2]

ok, that's sounds great. Now, as a judge, am I supposed to tech this chassis at ride height or does it need to stay in spec throughout the cycle of the suspension?

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

I have the same number of votes as you guys, so I don't over rule anyone



This picture in my mind reflects my point of view on the topic


In my mind it has to be this way for several reasons.

#1 All specs should be measured RTR, a there are several other rules that set that precedence.

#2 The rule do not require the skid or roof to be any particular shape , so unless we require flat skids how would we set the chassis to determine our measurements?

#3 Spec have to be determined in a specified manner, so we have to choose to do it RTR like OGL's picture or with the chassis alone setting on a flat surface. We cannot have Judges picking random spots on the chassis they say is the top or bottom.

#4 If for some reason you think it should be how the chassis sets on a flat surface. What do you do since we don't require pre-approve proiduct/designs at USRCCA events like ROAR, so what do when some new kind of chassis shows up at the next comp? Will we require them to disassemble their truck?




I think this drawing is also correctly measured.

I understand there are those who think monkey is trying to pull a fast one, and don't want him to be measured that way. That's cool, but the is a practical side that needs to be addressed. Do we really want judges picking random spot to measure the top and bottom of various designs?

To me measuring the chassis RTR is the only practical solution

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

ok, that's sounds great. Now, as a judge, am I supposed to tech this chassis at ride height or does it need to stay in spec throughout the cycle of the suspension?

Sometimes on the internet you don't know when someone is kidding. If your not kidding please explain with a realistic example.:?