Petition for unified body/bodiless measurements

[Speedracer19]

If you use John's cut as the cab & attached it to the chassis (leave the sunroof out of the cut), used a solid hood instead of the one you cut the center from on the front of the chassis, not attaching it to the cab but to the front/nose of the chassis, and made 2 side panels and not attaching these to the hood or the cab but to the side(s) of the chassis and i think you would be good.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by TheSCorpionKing

If a skid was formed & fully integrated (i.e. NOT bolted on) to that, I'd consider that a unibody.

If a skid were to be bolted to that, then I'd think it'd require the shocks or upper links to be mounted directly to it, as well as the 4 body panels, for it to be consider a bodiless chassis.

If all the suspension/linkage pickups are secure to another "frame/chassis/structure" I'd consider this to be an iout of spec 2.2 class boded rig

I would have to agree as long as it meets the min. specs.


With a cross braces at the shocks and links, it just might work.

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Since this has gone in the direction that the "cab" is not considered part of the frame unless structurally needed, I would consider Juan's cab to be part of the frame because of the shock mounts.

That was my point with this post John:

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

I've been thinking more about the "Structurally Complete" clause in the rules.

▪ 2.1.5 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame.


If the cab or body does not support any of the stress, to me it is not structural. Not only do I feel Brian's truck fits into a bodied category, but since the cab is not part of the structure, it does not make the chassis "Structurally Complete".

I know this is going to open a floodgate of debate.

I know I don't carry much clout on this, but I think the "Structurally Complete" clause has been overlooked in recent years. Not intentionally, but overlooked none the less. I know where that clause came from, but I also know it would open a s**tstorm of controversy.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

That was my point with this post John:



I know I don't carry much clout on this, but I think the "Structurally Complete" clause has been overlooked in recent years. Not intentionally, but overlooked none the less. I know where that clause came from, but I also know it would open a s**tstorm of controversy.

Structurally complete can be done with anything...

A piece of cardboard is structurally complete.

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

Structurally complete can be done with anything...

A piece of cardboard is structurally complete.

No offense intended Jeremy...do you know where that part of the rules came from and why it was implemented?

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

No offense intended Jeremy...do you know where that part of the rules came from and why it was implemented?

Not off the top of my head but I think the rules and their intensions are way behind the ever changing techniques used to make chassis and parts alike.

To get stuck on a wording for a particular instance years ago is not really helping our cause.

It has been stated sooooooooo many times the bodiless rules were based on o.g. Tubers, doesn't that seem funny. When was the last time you saw one of those... Oh yeah scale nats

My comment was not to offend you just poke fun at some really vague wording.

I think usrcca and rules committee alike should up their game and bring the rules up to date, at least by five years or so ...

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

Not off the top of my head but I think the rules and their intensions are way behind the ever changing techniques used to make chassis and parts alike.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

To get stuck on a wording for a particular instance years ago is not really helping our cause.

Disagree. The original intention behind "Structurally Complete" has more to do with the definition of a bodiless chassis than the absence of a body does.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

It has been stated sooooooooo many times the bodiless rules were based on o.g. Tubers, doesn't that seem funny. When was the last time you saw one of those... Oh yeah scale nats

That is exactly where it comes from. Tubers evolved from bodied, and Bodiless evolved from Tubers, but that does not mean the initial intent should be left behind.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

My comment was not to offend you just poke fun at some really vague wording.

No offense taken, but the wording really isn't vague...it's just been overlooked for the past few years and reworked to fit the current trend in bodiless.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

I think usrcca and rules committee alike should up their game and bring the rules up to date, at least by five years or so ...

Only you can do that...you are RC. The rest of us are along for the ride, but that ride has lost it's way.

[krawlfreak]

Well, explain structurally complete and it's original interpretation.

Like I said I think it's vague at best. To me a lexan body is structurally complete, as is a cracker for that matter.

I am for evolution of the sport and rules committee and I truly believe limiting the premier class gets you Nowhere.
i think the rules have not evolved as fast as they should and that is why we have these interpretations of them.

I also don't think the rules need to tell you exactly what you can or can not run, I believe leaving some areas up to interpretation will create evolution.

I for one did not get into this to have to drive the same thing as everyone else

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

Well, explain structurally complete and it's original interpretation. Samething it means when I build a house.

Like I said I think it's vague at best. To me a lexan body is structurally complete, as is a cracker for that matter. Then build a crawler out of a cracker.

I am for evolution of the sport and rules committee and I truly believe limiting the premier class gets you Nowhere.
i think the rules have not evolved as fast as they should and that is why we have these interpretations of them. We get these interretation from people playing in the gray areas and that will always happen and always will.

I also don't think the rules need to tell you exactly what you can or can not run, I believe leaving some areas up to interpretation will create evolution. Would that be by making them vague.

I for one did not get into this to have to drive the same thing as everyone else Build a Super

I think sometimes new rule committee members have their head up their ass and don't see the real light of things.
If evolution is to fast, then many get left behind and fall out. I think that is what has been happening to the sport the last couple of years. Most newbs see it moving along and don't even jump on board. They went a buildt a scaler, now scale is taking off.

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

I am for evolution of the sport and rules committee and I truly believe limiting the premier class gets you Nowhere.
i think the rules have not evolved as fast as they should and that is why we have these interpretations of them.

Lets see Nascar ran Carbs until 2011 - about 20 years after the last common vehicle sold even featured that as a fuel delivery method. That sport through limiting must be dead and have no sponsors and support...Oh wait.

They kept innovating INSIDE the rules to get all the could. Are you saying chassis design is done, nothing can be done now without changing rules?

Loopholes in all rules will be found. Typically they are banned or placed in exhibition first. Then either the rule changes to accept the deviation clearly or banned the deviation in new, possibly more clear language.

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

If evolution is to fast, then many get left behind and fall out. I think that is what has been happening to the sport the last couple of years. Most newbs see it moving along and don't even jump on board. They went a buildt a scaler, now scale is taking off.

Ricky I couldn't agree more. To gain a large group you need new people, not isolating those people due to random and quick changes. Even the jump to lighter trucks has caused many to spend a fortune or leave the competition side regrettably.

I also tend to think possibly some of the rule committee doesn't understand their purpose or how a sports rule committee is supposed to work. I'd hope the goal would be to: "Create a set of rules and definition to adhere to, and allow growth of the sport through adding new hobbyists and competitors."

Sometimes I think people might be thinking more about winning than allowing the niche market of competitive crawling a chance to win and become a larger market.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

That was my point with this post John:



I know I don't carry much clout on this, but I think the "Structurally Complete" clause has been overlooked in recent years. Not intentionally, but overlooked none the less. I know where that clause came from, but I also know it would open a s**tstorm of controversy.

Understood. My viewpoint is that there are no guidelines in the current ruleset that define any part as "not frame", therefore the panels can attach anywhere. Even if the cab can be taken off the frame without structural change to the suspension, it isn't specifically stated that such a bolt on part is excluded from "frame" and panel mounting. I still feel that the original cab in question is legally allowed in bodiless until the rules are changed to define it as a body or define parts on a bodiless rig where panels cannot be mounted.


I see where you are going with "structurally complete", but there is not a rule defining how parts must come together to meet the term. Complete could be meeting the measurement rules, certainly a requirement. Structurally complete means the ability to withstand outside forces. Take the cab off and the bodiless frame is no longer structurally complete on measurements. Add the cab back on and the frame is complete, and able to withstand outside forces as a structural unit. It doesn't matter where the panels are mounted per the current rules, as the entire unit is the bodiless frame when it is bolted together. It meets panel and measurement rules, which are all we have to define it.

If the "cab" in question had a skid mounted in it, it would become a bodiless chassis and would have to meet measurements for legality. Using bolts for a skid excludes it from unibody, which is a completely extraneous definition in the first place since it has all the same size requirements at bodiless. No need to even mention the term in the rules IMO.



Happy thanksgiving yall!

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

I think sometimes new rule committee members have their head up their ass and don't see the real light of things.
If evolution is to fast, then many get left behind and fall out. I think that is what has been happening to the sport the last couple of years. Most newbs see it moving along and don't even jump on board. They went a buildt a scaler, now scale is taking off.

Really?

Evolution will happen weather you like it or not. And if my head is up my ass yours is right there too.

Newbs are building scalers because they can go buy one off the shelf where as comp crawlers are being built.
There are a few responsible for the high level comp crawlers that can be built from readily available parts...
But that is the fact, someone coming right into crawling will be overwhelmed..
We are there weather you like it or not!

Scale comps are going to go through the same issues as soon as competitive people start looking for the advantage... Oh wait it's already happening.

I think you are stuck in the past... only looking at what was and have no idea where it is going, or for that matter where it is.


The rules need to be deregulated in bodiless and bodied 2.2pro. That is where I see the the future. Heavy regulation should remain on the 2.2s class for you old timers

[articzap]

Scale trucks will be in the same spot before everyone knows it, just like krawl said. The real problem with comp trucks, is that there are no comp kits on the shelf. Without something as a starting point, most are just to overwhelmed.

Scale trucks will become just as expensive as comp trucks in no time.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

The rules need to be deregulated in bodiless and bodied 2.2pro. That is where I see the the future. Heavy regulation should remain on the 2.2s class for you old timers

Agreed. Streamline the rules for the most popular class instead of working into further and further details. Combine bodies, unibodies, and bodiless into one simple definition that has basic measurements. Hood, door, and roof measurements can be applied to any style.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Agreed. Streamline the rules for the most popular class instead of working into further and further details. Combine bodies, unibodies, and bodiless into one simple definition that has basic measurements. Hood, door, and roof measurements can be applied to any style.

Someone gets it..

[TSK]

Are we talking about nascar where everything is pretty much the same?

Or are we talking F1 where everything pretty much looks the same, but is drastically different?

(I know... we're talking about hobby grade rc crawlers)

I'll take F1 over nascar everyday of my life. The loop holes and gray areas are what keeps people motivated to push the envelope. Every now and then Charlie Whiting and the FIA technical regulations guys need to step in and ban some technologies due to their "infringement" of the "intent" of a particular rule, and sometimes they ban it out of pure "sportsmanship" to help level the field a bit.

In the end, the races are won and lost. The best drivers continue to find a way to win regardless of whether or not they have the best car in the field (Fernando Alonso and Ferrari during this season for example). If a technology gets banned, none of the manufacturers get all whiny about it. They accpet the Technical Director's ruling and carry along, focusing on the next project.

To me, in it's current state, BC-Brian's design looks like a body. If it had hard mounted suspension pickups/locations, and the necessary panels, I'd be more willing to accpet that as a bodiless chassis component. If it had a fully integrated skid that was not bolted into it, then I'd consider it a unibody. But just because it is bolted to the chassis, does not make it an integral structure of a bodiless chassis, it's still jsut a body on a chassis.

Gunnar's body mounts bolt the body to a chassis. That doesn't make the 100's he sold convert all those bodied rigs into a bodiless does it?

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Agreed. Streamline the rules for the most popular class instead of working into further and further details. Combine bodies, unibodies, and bodiless into one simple definition that has basic measurements. Hood, door, and roof measurements can be applied to any style.

That sounds easy. What measurements would you think would be good for bodied, bodiless oh and unibody to share.

Do we go with the bodied measurement and make the bodiless guys start over. ( I'd lean this way)
Do we go with the bodiless measurements and make the bodied guys start over.
Do we go with something in between and and make every one start over.
( this would fair)

The intent of the measurements we have now were put in place to try and keep the rigs looking somewhat like a real truck.

For the record, We could change all the rules as we know them now and I would defend them just the same.


Or do we just get rid of the 2.2 rules and let everyone run what they want.
Then us old guys can go to shafty where axles are easy to come by.

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Do we go with the bodiless measurements and make the bodied guys start over.

I think mini bodies on 2.2 would be cool.

[TSK]

I think both versions of a 2.2 have their particular pros and cons. that leaves it up to the end user to determine what advantages he/she wants, and they need to accept their disadvantages as well.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. I see nothing wrong with 2.2p class in it's current iteration. It just needs a little re-wording to further clarify the differences between a bodied and bodiless rig.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by articzap

Scale trucks will become just as expensive as comp trucks in no time.

I think they've already passed that point, a front axle alone can run upwards of 200$ to bullet proof.

Originally Posted by ROWDY RACING

I think mini bodies on 2.2 would be cool.

I agree. I still don't understand why a body has to be 5" wide and a bodiless only 3".


Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2