SORCCA rules comments, suggestions, and questions

[War Pig]

Saydee, you suddenly seem overly concerned.....what's up? You also didn't reply to my PM.

[dezfan]

[neillarson]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its not fair.

You don't have to follow the official rules on a local level. Nobody is telling you how to build and play with your toys.

But I like people telling me how to play with my toy. Oh wait, your talking about RC's

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by dezfan

What does that mean?

[dezfan]

I means I find the entire "interpretation" of these rules insane!

Guido isn't a tuber?

Your EB isn't a tuber, but your new 34 is?

Seems to me it's semantics more than reason that separate them.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by War Pig

What does that mean?

He does that a lot. You get used to it.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

He does that a lot. You get used to it.

Don't you have some old porn to post about or something?

Oh yeah,

[666]

Originally Posted by dezfan

I means I find the entire "interpretation" of these rules insane!

Guido isn't a tuber?

Your EB isn't a tuber, but your new 34 is?

Seems to me it's semantics more than reason that separate them.

I'm quotable insane...

Guido if he has a frame that is not tube?? No it's not a tuber, tube is tube.

The 34 is not a tuber because it has frame rails, scx-10 frame rails to be exact..

The EB is not a tuber, I have tried for points to call it as one. It's not, it's a truggy. Unless you call square stock tube.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by 666

I'm quotable insane...

Guido if he has a frame that is not tube?? No it's not a tuber, tube is tube.

The 34 is not a tuber because it has frame rails, scx-10 frame rails to be exact..

The EB is not a tuber, I have tried for points to call it as one. It's not, it's a truggy. Unless you call square stock tube.

And there lies the problem Patrick. Everyone's interpretation is different.

IMO, if the majority of the chassis is tube, it's a tuber.

[666]

Originally Posted by dezfan

And there lies the problem Patrick. Everyone's interpretation is different.

IMO, if the majority of the chassis is tube, it's a tuber.

Of what?

A tuber is made of tube, otherwise it is not, kinda simple really. *

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by 666

Of what?

A tuber is made of tube, otherwise it is not, kinda simple really. *

So if you were to take Tim's Willys, remove a single section of "tube" and replaced it w/ a piece of C channel, it is no longer a "tuber"?

[666]

Originally Posted by dezfan

So if you were to take Tim's Willys, remove a single section of "tube" and replaced it w/ a piece of C channel, it is no longer a "tuber"?

Depends on where it was really, let's use common sense.

But I will add c-channel vs square tubing....tubing....

Oh my let me google tubing....

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by 666

Depends on where it was really, let's use common sense.

But I will add c-channel vs square tubing....tubing....

Oh my let me google tubing....

Semantics, plain and simple.

I'm done, common sense left the building long ago.

[666]

Originally Posted by dezfan

Semantics, plain and simple.

I'm done, common sense left the building long ago.

No it didn't, I don't see why you see it that way.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by 666

No it didn't, I don't see why you see it that way.

Again, it's all semantics.

If you use solid rod, then technically, that's not a "tuber" either as it's not made from tube.

What if I used octangular "tube?"

Do you see my point?

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

If you use solid rod, then technically, that's not a "tuber" either as it's not made from tube.

But it has the appearance of tube.

[dezfan]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

But it has the appearance of tube.

Oops, there I go again.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by dezfan

Oops, there I go again.

IMO tube is tube, and for what we are doing, solid rod is an acceptable substitute.

Round, square, octagonal, rectangular. If its got a hole running through the middle of it or could work as a straw in a strawberry milkshake, its tube.

[Grizzly4x4]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I've never considered Guido a tuber.

For MSD's he was considered a tuber. I am not disagreeing with you or the rules, they are what they are and it's not that big of a deal. I understand the spirit of the rules.
Although, I would personally consider him a tuber since the rails and tube work are designed to work together. The frame rails have no crossmembers that are not attached to the tube work. The rear suspension is also attached to the tube work and not the frame rails.

Pat, square tube is tube. The EB could be considered a tuber but by my calculations you get more points if it is a truggy.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by dezfan

I means I find the entire "interpretation" of these rules insane!

Unfortunately with scale comp rules there are so many variables that there will have to be some kind of "interpretation" .

Guido isn't a tuber?

Your EB isn't a tuber, but your new 34 is?

By the 2012 rules the EB is a tuber because the main frame rails are rectangular tube, and if you look at the '34 it is an SCX10 chassis with tube added. My Willys was a full tuber.

Seems to me it's semantics more than reason that separate them.

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

He does that a lot. You get used to it.
No, people that roll their eyes are just bored and trying to stir up crap.

Originally Posted by dezfan

And there lies the problem Patrick. Everyone's interpretation is different.

IMO, if the majority of the chassis is tube, it's a tuber. Cool, so what percentage of "majority" does it suddenly become a tuber? 51%? 90%? And how do you determine the percentage of tubing? Very important to know if you are teching people at a big scale comp.

Originally Posted by dezfan

So if you were to take Tim's Willys, remove a single section of "tube" and replaced it w/ a piece of C channel, it is no longer a "tuber"? Correct, by the 2012 rules.

Originally Posted by Grizzly4x4

For MSD's he was considered a tuber. I am not disagreeing with you or the rules, they are what they are and it's not that big of a deal. I understand the spirit of the rules.
Although, I would personally consider him a tuber since the rails and tube work are designed to work together. The frame rails have no crossmembers that are not attached to the tube work. The rear suspension is also attached to the tube work and not the frame rails. If you guys have a better way of defining tuber, please tell me.

Pat, square tube is tube. The EB could be considered a tuber but by my calculations you get more points if it is a truggy.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is no way to have concrete definitions of these rules. If your rig is completely tube, then it's a tuber. If it has c channel rails, then it's not. Simple and absolute.