SORRCA Rules on Hold!!

[War Pig]

Gotta keep it at least a little bit fun for everyone.....besides, what's more fun than driving a poor performing rig through a course? Thats right, driving driving three different trucks through courses .

[sloppy]

Originally Posted by Etype R

Trail riding is one thing, competing is another. Lets say I decided to attend a small comp with my daily driver. I wouldn't leave any of my camping gear in it, only my recovery gear. You don't trail ride around gates.

Maybe my vision of scale comps is different, but thats how I would like to see it run.

there are real comps that cover lots of land and require trail gear.. not everything is WeRock

and ones person's vision of scaler is not someone else's.. somehow everyone needs to be covered. it would be hard to argue that there are not allot of scalers built with sleeping bags and canoes on the roof..

[Tommy R]

Below I hope to give a very brief explanation of why certain decisions were made. I'm NOT saying we won't make the changes you all suggest. It obviously depends on many factors. We will definitely consider everyone's suggestions!

Originally Posted by HotRodJosh

Killer rigs....and look highly capable. Shouldn't have to "find" ways to give them scale points....their performance more than makes up for it. I need to build one of those.....
Maybe give them extra points for running SMALLER tires than what the max is ?? The tallest tires allowed aren't the most scale.....

Awarding points for smaller tires was discussed within the committee, but it was decided against for a couple reasons. One of the reasons was to keep the rules/points from getting more complicated....and as you've seen, wordiness/complication of the rules is an issue. I certainly understand your point, though.

Originally Posted by bmuzz1

I for one hope at least the class 1 .25" tire rule gets loosened up a bit.

I put 1/8" hexes on my TLT's with Axial wheels and it is right there. I'm just worried that one judge would call it good and another may give it the thumbs down. As it is my tire is 1/8" away from the knuckle so I can't get much narrower.

Personally, yes, I would also like the Class 1 tire coverage opened up a bit more. I'm trying to build a C1 rig, too, so I definitely understand the concerns you have.

Originally Posted by TURTLE

For class 1 I would like to see bed bobbing allowed, if the vehicle met other requirements. I would also like to see the tire coverage rule loosened up, especially concerning things like "trail damage" for example dented fenders, maybe a missing fender. Basically Mike's blue lux, that rig looks like a class 1 rig to me, but is not allowed in the class...

I hear ya, but if we begin to allow bobbed beds in C1 (which is a fairly big body mod), then it could lead to bigger stuff. Ultimately, we didn't feel major body mods fit with the concept of C1 trucks (mildly built rigs you may frequently see on the street).

Originally Posted by Etype R

I've always been against the scale points system. Your competing, I would rather see scale versions of 1:1 comp rigs. Have a daily driver class, full body pro class, and TTC class. I don't see why anyone would want to compete with their camping gear in/on their rig and a canoe strapped to the roof.

Save the expo scaler builds for trail rides.

Ah, but not every scaler enthusiast is into "competition rigs" and they shouldn't be ignored. And keep in mind the rules don't give many points at all for "canoes", "camping gear", or other stuff like that. Most of the points in the new rules are awarded for items that affect performance.


Thank you all for your input. Please continue to come forward with your thoughts. We want to know what you liked or didn't like about the rules. We know we won't make everyone 100% happy (it's impossible), but believe me.....we're trying our best. And we're listening to the scaler community for feedback.

Thanks,
Tommy

[cave-man]

I would like to see the penalty for using DIG or rear steer go away in class 3.

My humble 2 cents.

[Scattman]

I'd like to see tire coverage loosened up as well in Class 1

[Tommy R]

I see the tire coverage in Class 1 is getting mentioned quite a bit.

First of all, I'd like to point out to everyone that the 1/4" of tire exposure per side only applies to the tread of the tire. In other words, the sidewall bulge is not measured, which may open up more options for y'all. I realize everyone probably already understands this, but just wanted to point it out for those who weren't aware. We realize it's still an issue for several body/axle/tire combinations.

Secondly, if you think 1/4" exposed tread per side is not enough, please let us know what kind of exposure you'd like to see. We want your comments, but always feel free to recommend solutions, too. Just remember.....this is the mildest class so keep your suggestions reasonable!

This goes for all your comments. If you have a good solution to an issue and you think we should consider it, please tell us. We're doing our best to represent YOU so we want your thoughts and ideas.

Thanks,
Tommy

[KevenP]

Originally Posted by cave-man

I would like to see the penalty for using DIG or rear steer go away in class 3.

My humble 2 cents.

And the penalty for winching? That's fair, isn't it?

[cave-man]

Originally Posted by KevenP

And the penalty for winching? That's fair, isn't it?

I personally don't like the penalty for winching rule either I don't think it's right to get penalized for using something that you got awarded negative points for before you even ran. Im not trying to start a debate just offering MY opinion on what I would like to see changed.

I know you guys are working hard at this for us Keven, No one will ever be 100% happy and I am in no way trying to start crap.

Whatever is decided on I will comply and compete or I will just stay home, you won't hear any whining from me.

[Tommy R]

Originally Posted by cave-man

I personally don't like the penalty for winching rule either. Im not trying to start a debate just offering MY opinion on what I would like to see changed.

I know you guys are working hard at this for us Keven, No one will ever be 100% happy and I am in no way trying to start crap.

Whatever is decided on I will comply and compete or I will just stay home, you won't hear any whining from me.

Believe me, you're not the first to bring up the idea of no penalty for dig/4WS.....or winching, either! I don't necessarily want to get into the habit of replying to every comment from everyone, but I'll say this...

Dig/4WS were determined to have pros (performance), but also had some cons (weight, complexity). Ultimately, it was determined that we want people to have the option to run them, but not feel they need to to be competitive. We felt a small penalty would be a good middle ground. I'm not saying that won't or can't change. I'm just giving an overly brief explanation of why the decision was made.

Regarding winching, with no penalty too many people wouldn't even attempt the tougher climbs and instead just start pulling cable. We want people to have an incentive to at least TRY an obstacle. So again, a small penalty was assessed.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by cave-man

I personally don't like the penalty for winching rule either. Im not trying to start a debate just offering MY opinion on what I would like to see changed.

I know you guys are working hard at this for us Keven, No one will ever be 100% happy and I am in no way trying to start crap.

Whatever is decided on I will comply and compete or I will just stay home, you won't hear any whining from me.

If there was no winch penalty then people would abuse it. Is much rather someone attempt a line a few times rather than bust out the winch first.

Also with the rear steer and dig. I'd rather them not be a mandatory item from the get go. Maybe down the line when everyone has them we can relax the penalties a bit. For now I don't want people to feel that they HAVE to have them to be competitive.

*edit: You beat me Tommy, but good to see we're on the same page.

[cave-man]

I understand the reasoning for the way the rules where laid out. Im not complaining. Since this thread was started and opinions where asked for I felt free to express mine.

Thanks guys for the hard work and taking the time to listen to our thoughts when considering these rules.

[Locked Up]

Originally Posted by cave-man

I personally don't like the penalty for winching rule either I don't think it's right to get penalized for using something that you got awarded negative points for before you even ran. Im not trying to start a debate just offering MY opinion on what I would like to see changed.

I know you guys are working hard at this for us Keven, No one will ever be 100% happy and I am in no way trying to start crap.

Whatever is decided on I will comply and compete or I will just stay home, you won't hear any whining from me.

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the input.
Winching penalty will certainly be something we discuss as we go over everything again.

From the past set of rules I think the reasoning was that using a winch on a trail in the 1:1 world is a lot more time consuming. Heck, most people only whip them out when they are already pretty much screwed. That's because there is no time limit, no penalty for getting stuck and it's certainly more satisfying to make it without one.

If you look at something like WEROCK on the other hand, there is a penalty for winching, spotter strapping, rock stacking, rear steer, etc.

What we have with these scale competitions is a mix of both.
So we need to find a happy medium of sorts and we are certainly going to take everyone's input/ideas into account.

[cave-man]

I use my winch as a last resort and feel defeated if I have to use it. I know not everyone thinks this way. If someone wants to burn up the clock by winching through every gate and obstacle then my opinion is "who cares" it's there run and if thats how they want to "drive" the course they will never become better drivers. This is all I will be saying about winching since it is off topic from my OG post..

Again Im not asking for the rules to be explained to me or the reason the rear steer penalty was put in place. Warpig and Tommy where very helpfull in explaining it when the rules first came out.

Im not exactly sure how winching got brought up from my OG post and Im sorry for the way this seems like it is going.

I don't expect the rear steer/Dig penalty to to be removed just because I don't like it, Im a big boy and have to deal with things I don't like everyday. I was just giving my opinion.

Thanks again guys I hope there is no hard feelings as I have nothing but respect for all you that are trying to make our hobby better.

[Tommy R]

Originally Posted by cave-man

Thanks again guys I hope there is no hard feelings as I have nothing but respect for all you that are trying to make our hobby better.

Absolutely no hard feelings! We're asking for everyone's opinion so we're not going to be upset when we get it.

[KevenP]

Originally Posted by cave-man

I personally don't like the penalty for winching rule either I don't think it's right to get penalized for using something that you got awarded negative points for before you even ran. Im not trying to start a debate just offering MY opinion on what I would like to see changed.

I know you guys are working hard at this for us Keven, No one will ever be 100% happy and I am in no way trying to start crap.

Whatever is decided on I will comply and compete or I will just stay home, you won't hear any whining from me.

Actually, you and I agree. Thanks for your input.

[cave-man]

Just an idea: What if the guys who decided to run rear steer or dig had to go through a couple of extra hard gates but didn't get awarded progress for it.

They could be ran on the class 3 course so not much extra time in course set up would be necesarry and it would even out or make it more fair for those that aren't using it.

This would make the guys running rear steer/Dig have to decide before hand if they are going to use it. If they run past a rear steer/Dig gate and haven't used it yet they won't be allowed to use it for the rest of the course. The extra gates would be live and you could actually accrue more penalty points by hiting gates.

Just an idea, don't take it to seriously Im just brain storming. This might be a over complicated way of acomplishing the same thing you guys have come up with.

[HotRodJosh]

Originally Posted by Tommy R

Personally, yes, I would also like the Class 1 tire coverage opened up a bit more. I'm trying to build a C1 rig, too, so I definitely understand the concerns you have.

You runnin' fenders on yer Model A!?!?!

I personally like the 1/4 coverage rule for Class 1....

Winching......once a few guys go through are tough area and have to winch, most all guys in line after that immediately winch without attempting obsticale......to save time.
Maybe if just one guy actually drives a tough area where everyone else had to winch, award a bonus???

[bmuzz1]

Originally Posted by Tommy R

I see the tire coverage in Class 1 is getting mentioned quite a bit.

First of all, I'd like to point out to everyone that the 1/4" of tire exposure per side only applies to the tread of the tire. In other words, the sidewall bulge is not measured, which may open up more options for y'all. I realize everyone probably already understands this, but just wanted to point it out for those who weren't aware. We realize it's still an issue for several body/axle/tire combinations.

Secondly, if you think 1/4" exposed tread per side is not enough, please let us know what kind of exposure you'd like to see. We want your comments, but always feel free to recommend solutions, too. Just remember.....this is the mildest class so keep your suggestions reasonable!

This goes for all your comments. If you have a good solution to an issue and you think we should consider it, please tell us. We're doing our best to represent YOU so we want your thoughts and ideas.

Thanks,
Tommy

Well in my opinion 3/8" would be enough for most but I see daily driver rigs (jeeps) around town like a couple of my friends have that are running on full size Chevy blazer axles and if you scale that out it is probably over 1/2" of tread past the full fender.

[Tommy R]

Originally Posted by HotRodJosh

You runnin' fenders on yer Model A!?!?!

Hot rods don't have fenders!!

Originally Posted by bmuzz1

Well in my opinion 3/8" would be enough for most but I see daily driver rigs (jeeps) around town like a couple of my friends have that are running on full size Chevy blazer axles and if you scale that out it is probably over 1/2" of tread past the full fender.

My own Jeep has 1/2 the tread outside the flares, which would equate to >1/2" per side so I understand your point. I'm not saying 1/2" isn't reasonable. We just need to consider all the options and how it will affect other kinds of mild builds. Truth be told, a Jeep with one tons under it likely wouldn't be considered a Class 1 rig, though. I suspect that particular style of rig may be better suited for Class 2. However, your point remains that C1 may need less restrictive tire coverage. Thanks for the input!

[spyderwebbcustoms]

Originally Posted by slobin3d

The Sorrca Has received several comments and concerns about the complexity of the Rules as written and that they are having trouble deciding what class they should be in, or the legality of their existing rigs. With that we have decided to pull the rules and review our wording so that we can clarify and simplify them for the ease of use.

For the Guys who have already started to build the specs aren't going to change much and we are retaining the 3 class format so if you want to continue to build from the current spec list that don't worry your trucks will still be in spec with our rewrite
We appreciate all off the support we have received as well and are striving to produce the best possible rules that are focused on building, competing, fairness and fun!

We are opening ourselves up to comments, we want to know what everyone else thinks, we invite you to post comments good and bad, but please keep it civil. If the thread gets shut down we'll end the comment and go back to our hole!

Originally Posted by justinart24

This what I came up with, could add a lot more but have to go to bed.

• Class One
  
  • Change to .5" tire tread allowed. To get the current only .25" tread showing, you pretty much have to either run huge Axial fender flares or run some ugly HPI stock zero offset rims(for Axial axles).
  • Need to add clarification for people running flat beds and how that works with tire coverage.
• Class Two
  • The 50% front fender trimming limitation needs to be tossed out or highly clarified. For example, Jeeps have to trim a lot of fender material to not give the monster truck look. Need to allow tube fenders but I think they need to still resemble stock fenders.
• Other things that need to be clarified...
  • Scale Rules:
    • Bumper Points: What is meant by a "full width bumper"?
    • Roof Racks: Umm...how can you tell if a rack is "Large", "Medium", or "small".
    • Truggy: Must be cut at skid? Seems unnecessary, a least allow at least one inch after the cab.
    • Rear tube structure: I don't get this, can this be a artsy structure?

Originally Posted by War Pig

I'll respond to a couple of things Justin.

I too would like the tire coverage to loosen a bit in class 1.

Bumper and roof rack descriptions are in the glossary, and are well defined.

As far as the rear tube structure goes, we were trying to find a way to give rigs like this scale points. They are in no mans land as far as the "typical" rear tube chassis goes.





Hope this helps a little.

Truggy: Must be cut at skid? Seems unnecessary, a least allow at least one inch after the cab.

this qt is a consern for me see how the fram rails are cut on pic below. the fram has been cut to help a full tuber in the back, but it han not been cut at the skid,its more like 3/4in away. will this be ok in class 3 or not,