Go Back   RCCrawler Forums > Competitions and Events > Scale Comp Rules
Loading

Notices

Thread: MOA question

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2011, 12:43 PM   #21
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: 07456 N. NJ USofA
Posts: 8,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sloppy View Post
I dont know about the rest of the Rules committee.. But this was definitely one of things I considered MOA even before this was done.. Our club has had a local talking about doing this for years..
I will state this does NOT impact me, so I'm just stating.

We are getting into "intent" vs. "wording". Sometimes, "What you say vs. what you meant" create other issues.

I will "guess" the question raised in this thread fulfills the "intent" of the rules but NOT the "wording".

In my mind, I don't give a rats butt where the motor is mounted, since it goes through the other bits BEFORE going to an axle it fulfills the "intent" of the rules. The "intent" (in my eyes) is to prevent mounting a motor on an axle AND DRIVING that axle and somehow also driving the other axle.

I am not on the rules commitee, so I have NO final say.
Charlie-III is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-16-2011, 05:49 PM   #22
Old guy
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie-III View Post
I will state this does NOT impact me, so I'm just stating.

We are getting into "intent" vs. "wording". Sometimes, "What you say vs. what you meant" create other issues.

I will "guess" the question raised in this thread fulfills the "intent" of the rules but NOT the "wording".

In my mind, I don't give a rats butt where the motor is mounted, since it goes through the other bits BEFORE going to an axle it fulfills the "intent" of the rules. The "intent" (in my eyes) is to prevent mounting a motor on an axle AND DRIVING that axle and somehow also driving the other axle.

I am not on the rules commitee, so I have NO final say.
I don't feel it is a moa either, I'd let him run it.
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 07:35 PM   #23
Gettin’ back on the horse
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hoonsville
Posts: 6,671
Default

I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.
TURTLE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 08:16 PM   #24
Old guy
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TURTLE View Post
I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.
I think that is the intent.
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 09:31 PM   #25
SCALE PERFORMANCE PARTS
 
Locked Up's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cedar Park
Posts: 5,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToyZuki View Post
Kinda like to move forward with the build. Looks like so far it's not black and white. Some look at it like me where the rule is there to keep moa axles out that prevent torque twist and give independant drive. Then there are those that think the rules is writen to prevent me from gaining a low cog and unsprung weight over the term moa. Is there a discusion behind the scenes between the people that wrote the rules? I know I can get away with it at club level and not have an issue but I'd like to have a national ruling so that at the end of the series it's not deamed a cheater truck by the guys that are behind it in points.
Yes, it is being discussed by the committee.
Locked Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2011, 09:46 PM   #26
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a basement in Kalispell, MT
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TURTLE View Post
I don't see the issue as what the motor is doing, I see it as sprung VS. unsprung weight.

Scale to me is about all that weight located on the chassis, not on the axles, which is why batteries were not allowed to be mounted on the axle.
or did they not want the batteries to be seen. I don't think weight is the issue. You can add as much weight as you want to an axle and be within the rules.
skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 06:00 AM   #27
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: the 'burgh'
Posts: 976
Default

C'mon guys, what is the problem or issuue here?! We all know that this is not the MOA that was meant to be kept out of the scale world! It's starting to sound like a bunch of lawyers speaking legalese crap!

The man has his motor/tranny going to a t-case and a drive shafts to the fr. & rr. axles, sounds good to me! I mean some don't even incorperate a t-case on their builds!

Judist Preist!....this should be a non-issue. (just my 2 cts.)
gdb85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 06:07 AM   #28
Old guy
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,548
Default

Show us a 1:1 set up like this.






I like the band Judist Preist...........
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 01:06 PM   #29
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a basement in Kalispell, MT
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY View Post
Show us a 1:1 set up like this.






I like the band Judist Preist...........
Show me a 1:1 with foam in the tires for support, or plastic crossmembers, or plastic rod ends., When do he draw the line? That's up to the committee's for events that want to follow their rules.

Just for giggles, the description of following link describes a 4wd MOA buggy(golf cart)
http://www.brushcountrybadboybuggies..._Boy_Buggy.htm
So, would a scale version of this be legal becuase it's done in 1:1? No, becuase it is MOA and can act as a dig setup. Would it be scale? Yes.

Last edited by skid; 04-17-2011 at 01:15 PM.
skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 01:45 PM   #30
Old guy
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skid View Post
Show me a 1:1 with foam in the tires for support, or plastic crossmembers, or plastic rod ends., When do he draw the line? That's up to the committee's for events that want to follow their rules.

Just for giggles, the description of following link describes a 4wd MOA buggy(golf cart)
http://www.brushcountrybadboybuggies..._Boy_Buggy.htm
So, would a scale version of this be legal becuase it's done in 1:1? No, becuase it is MOA and can act as a dig setup. Would it be scale? Yes.
I have foam in my bobcat tires. We aren't talking about what materials you use , it's more about design. Turtle nailed it.
I will be one of the events following SORCCA rules.
I just talking out loud, not trying to start a fight.






Still would like to see a 1:1 MOTOA (MOTOR ON TRANNY ON AXLE) SET UP.
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 02:12 PM   #31
I wanna be Dave
 
dezfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Happiness is a warm AK.
Posts: 12,563
Default

Were did I put that popcorn.
dezfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 02:21 PM   #32
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 8,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skid View Post
You can add as much weight as you want to an axle and be within the rules.
Yes you can. But at the same time you're taking it off the chassis, eliminating (or reducing?) torque twist, and lowering your CG. A lot like an MOA comp rig.

It's a motor, on an axle. The rules are pretty clear. I don't see it passing tech at the Nats. Even at a local event I'd make you put the battery on the roof, or something.
microgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 02:25 PM   #33
Old guy
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dezfan View Post
Were did I put that popcorn.
What

ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 07:11 PM   #34
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a basement in Kalispell, MT
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by microgoat View Post
Yes you can. But at the same time you're taking it off the chassis, eliminating (or reducing?) torque twist, and lowering your CG. A lot like an MOA comp rig.

It's a motor, on an axle. The rules are pretty clear. I don't see it passing tech at the Nats. Even at a local event I'd make you put the battery on the roof, or something.
No arguement on the weight, lower is better.

I do believe the biggest reduction in torque twist on a comp MOA is the direction of motor rotation doesn't have to turn a 90. Except for a losi MOA, which is reduced by a 20 something to 1 gear reduction in the axle and worm drive. As for the O.P., he will still have symtoms of torque twist exerted from the rear axle.

Last edited by skid; 04-17-2011 at 07:52 PM.
skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 08:14 AM   #35
RCC Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central, WA
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locked Up View Post
Yes, it is being discussed by the committee.
Thank you.

For the rest thanks for the input weather it helps the decision or not. I honestly don't think it's going to prevent torque twist at all because the power to the axles is still coming from the center of the chassis. My goal is to keep the weight off the springs cause they are weak and sagging from the weight of the chassis alone. Pretty sure after the body, electronics, and tube work it's gonna bottom out and act as full droop. Using the mrc axles doesn't give me any room for shocks to add springs to help the issue either. I'm just trying to keep the motor weight off the springs. The way I understood the rule was to prevent moa axles that remove torque twist and run independantly of each other.
ToyZuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 07:22 PM   #36
Quarry Creeper
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Charleston
Posts: 408
Default

ami the only one seeing a tone of logistical problems with this set up? you will have all three drive shafts constantly moving when on that rocks no one else see's any problems there?
foproy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2011, 10:34 PM   #37
RCC Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central, WA
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foproy View Post
ami the only one seeing a tone of logistical problems with this set up? you will have all three drive shafts constantly moving when on that rocks no one else see's any problems there?
You lost me. Of coarse all drivelines move. Why would that be a problem?
ToyZuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 11:55 AM   #38
I'm a stupid C U N T!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the Garage!
Posts: 4,307
Default

Official response... Although the truck design is unique and not the traditional MOA design, by the letter of the rules it would not be legal. We are reveiwing the rules for next year though.
slobin3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 12:34 PM   #39
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a basement in Kalispell, MT
Posts: 857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slobin3d View Post
Official response... Although the truck design is unique and not the traditional MOA design, by the letter of the rules it would not be legal. We are reveiwing the rules for next year though.


Now that is out of the way, technical question for the masses. Would this setup actually reduce torque twist, not change it or make it worse?

I start thinking about it, and for the motor to tranfer power, the motor housing is pushing against the axle housing, through the links to the chassis, then to the axles. I invision the chassis/ tcase as kind of a worn out carrier bearing now. Just it is supported by shocks now. Depending on rotation of the motor versus axle drivelines, I' think this could make things worse if they spin the same rotation, or better if they oppose direction?
skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2011, 10:22 PM   #40
Quarry Creeper
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: melbourne/palm bay
Posts: 203
Default

can i chime in?

flip the bracket over and its motor on leaf spring

either way....Nice Project!

Last edited by rybredd; 04-23-2011 at 10:29 PM.
rybredd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-2014 RCCrawler.com