C3 jibber jabber

[Highmark]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

I would tighten up C3 even more...say no more than 1/4" past the body. That still give you lots of build options.

I understand the whole "How do you have a small fortune in racing - start with a small one" philosophy, but again (and I think I speak for a lot of guys when I say this) - I'm not putting new axles on my rig. Period.

I'm cool with splitting C3, and in fact I'm also cool with widening the minimum width requirement to 5.5" with a minimum fender-inside of tire measurement of 1-.75" to keep everyone happy. However, there has to be some give and take on this as I know quite a few guys (myself included) who have rigs that were 100% legal last year will be illegal next year, and the level of modification needed will likely be the deciding factor on if they will compete. I recognize that there is a problem, but excluding people (and make no mistake - that's exactly what you want to do) is not the right answer.

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Many AR60 axle based rigs use bodies no wider than about 5-6". If that is scaled up to 1:1 (based on 1:8 scale) that makes the 6" body a 48" 1:1. That's the same width as a golf cart. If that doesn't put it into perspective, than nothing will.

I think that's exactly the point of contingency with a lot of you guys. It seems like people are claiming that you can't build a narrow rig thats proportional and appears scale - when in fact many of the more extreme builds out there scale down nicely to a 5.5-6" wide body. Not only is it possible in the 1:1 world, it's been proven feasible on many rigs:

The new Cole Worx Equalizer buggy is 43" wide, almost half a foot narrower than that golf cart:



Lil' nasty is in the mid 40's:



406's look huge on damn near anything:


There are plenty of commonly available 80" wide axles out there as well.

Point being (and a point Rockpiledriver brought up) - who are you guys to claim a 1:1 rig isn't scale?

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

No one here (I think) is out to make current builders have to totally re-build or to exclude anyone or to pick on any one build.

This comment isn't directed at you Monkey. I'm going to be honest here and call it how I see it - in my opinion that's exactly what's happening. To explain, this conversation never really came up until a few guys dominated at NWSC with narrow rigs on wide axles and MG's Dodge showed up. How many times have we seen Devlin's chevy and Tim's 34D brought up? That's no coincidence.

Fact is - the PNW is insane. I would argue that they have the most competitive scale comp culture in the world, with Utah close behind and no one (including the rules) has really been prepared for that. This is why I'm frustrated with people incessantly giving the rule committee guys crap. Those guys worked hard, came up with good rules, and in return were (in the other thread) getting the shit pestered out of them for not predicting the future. If you somehow knew better, and are the "Guardian of all things Scale and holy" then do what those guys did - get involved with your club and get on the rules committee so you can duke it out with the grown ups.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Highmark

I understand the whole "How do you have a small fortune in racing - start with a small one" philosophy, but again (and I think I speak for a lot of guys when I say this) - I'm not putting new axles on my rig. Period. However, there has to be some give and take on this as I know quite a few guys (myself included) who have rigs that were 100% legal last year will be illegal next year, and the level of modification needed will likely be the deciding factor on if they will compete. I recognize that there is a problem, but excluding people (and make no mistake - that's exactly what you want to do) is not the right answer.

Every rule change ever has made at least one persons rig illegal. Doesn't matter cost or time involved, that's the way it goes sometimes. Happened to me, happens to a lot of people.

I see no reason to make your rig fall into that hole, but at the same time its not fair to the more scale oriented people to have to run against it when scalism wasn't the main focus when it was built.

Originally Posted by Highmark

I think that's exactly the point of contingency with a lot of you guys. It seems like people are claiming that you can't build a narrow rig thats proportional and appears scale - when in fact many of the more extreme builds out there scale down nicely to a 5.5-6" wide body. Not only is it possible in the 1:1 world, it's been proven feasible on many rigs:

I agree 100% that it CAN be done. It was done before the AR60's were even conceived. What was being argued was that they are a whole new breed of offroad rig and are built very differently than a full width rig we saw in the past. That, and whether stuffing a 1:12 scale body onto 1:8 scale axles is "proportional" and acceptable even though it fit within the confines of the rules.

There are people that want to push performance, and that is fine. There are people that want to push scale realism, and that is also fine. Having them compete together in the same class where compability factors heavily on their scores is not fine, nor fair. Hence the suggestion of another class.

Just because C3 is more performance based does not mean it should become any less scale in nature compared to C1 and C2. The increased performance should be inherent in its scaled down design, meaning a faithfully scale built C3 should automatically be able to traverse more extreme terrain than the other two classes.

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

you are obviously missing the point. a narrow body gets around corners easier than wide rigs. it's not just about getting through gates. it seems you have the mindset of comp before scale.
a lot of people worry that adding a new class would complicate comps, but if you split class 3, and only allow any one person to run in one or the other class, you don't add ANY time to events. if you don't have enough for two sub classes locally, then run them together and provide a deduction towards scale points for the new sub class. it really doesn't need to be hard to do.

i have seen class 3 rigs that are scale beat out narrow buggy body rigs, but it is much easier to compete with an 'edge of the rules' rig. within the current rules, i could take a 5" wide 1/12 scale tj body, toss it on ar60's, Max out scale points, and i would have something that looks crazy, but fits the rules. i really don't think that's what we want.

it's obvious that with the ar60 axles new types of rigs are possible. the rules just need to evolve to accommodate them in a way that keeps it fair, while encouraging scale realism.

No actually I am not missing the point. I know what goes around what... I also know that when there were two classes for scale I didnt like the classes and was all in for a mod class for rear steer and or dig. More like super class for scale. I also know there are 4 rules in the class and nowhere does it care what scale your rig is. If you want super scale junk go run c1..... Hell go ride with retired guys hand building shelf queens. By now you should realize I comp in the pnw... I think the poster above nailed it down perfectly. Yall should build better rigs.... Get involved.... Or just start driving better.

I know a lot of boards have been flooded with same topic and haven't heard more whining about how secretly your rig sucks or the lack of ability to drive. Up here our drivers have ran the rules to the T ...... Width and legnth. I dont care if dev runs 1:1 Dana 60 axles on a micro machine body. If it fits the rules.... His issue to get 69+ inches through a 13 inch gate. We also have some of the most diverse trails and not always is wide better.

I got better things to do than argue the point further. If the rules change they change.... If not rcc will be full of more gripes and whines such as this. Prolly why the other thread got cut out eh.....

Carry on

[demonoid369]

Originally Posted by JokersWild

By now you should realize I comp in the pnw...

then go and join the 2.2 shafty's, this wasnt about comping nor pushing the extreme in comping but to push the realm of scale, enough that if you took a picture, and showed it to random people, heck even car fanatics, they would honestly thought it was a 1:1
if you didn't like the first two because its too scale for you, again there is a 2.2 shafty's. this I will say again WAS NOT ABOUT COMPING it was about BEING SCALE. you can say all you want but the bottom line your showing is comp oriented thought, if that is how you look at it, then do a outlaw class or go do 2.2 shafty's

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Hell go ride with retired guys hand building shelf queens. By now you should realize I comp in the pnw... I think the poster above nailed it down perfectly. Yall should build better rigs.... Get involved.... Or just start driving better.

I know a lot of boards have been flooded with same topic and haven't heard more whining about how secretly your rig sucks or the lack of ability to drive.

If not rcc will be full of more gripes and whines such as this. Prolly why the other thread got cut out eh.....

Carry on

So that is your argument? That we suck and you don't?

Man, you PNW guys have egos as big as the trees...

[monkeyracer]

There are comp crawler competitions for those that want to "push the limits of capability" of rigs this size. Even in comp rigs there is a minimum body dimension. Why do you think that is? It's to at least grasp the last bits of scale and make something that "resembles" a 1:1 rig.

Coleworx makes a narrow buggy. You want to make a scale version, go right ahead, I encourage that. The point is that in 1:1 competition, you would NOT see that kind of rig competing against a comp-oriented full body rig.

As far as the equalizer is concerned, the CHASSIS is 43" wide, the body looks to be closer to 4 1/2' +. Take a look at this pic:



Inside gauge of the rails is 4' 8", and the body looks to be taking up all that space. Even still, we're splitting hairs until someone can show a tape measure on the 1:1.
The axles are custom built, so no dimensions to look up on that, but based on the railroad pic above, the inside of the tires are being squished by the rails so lets say the inside dimension of the tires is about an even 5' (60"). With AR60 sized axles, Assuming about 7.5" inside of tires (pretty average for AR60s) that makes it exactly 1:8 scale (60/7.5 = 8.)

So in order to build a scale realistic replica the dimensions need to be:
43" TSLs - 5.375" Tires
118" WB - 14.75" WB
68" Height - 8.5" Height
48" width - 6" width (this is a guess since we only have the chassis dimensions and based on the rail pic the body extends past the 43", so 48" assumes a middle ground average guess) which gives 3/4" between tires and body on each side.

So, if you want to build your rig to match those specs, you are building a SCALE version of a performance oriented rig, but keep in mind you would have 3/8" shorter tire than the max 5.75", and a wheelbase of almost 15". I would not mind competing against something of those dimensions with a comp-oriented full body rig.

The problem comes in because most builders don't take overall scale into consideration. They build a 1:10 scale (or 1:12) body with a wheelbase of around 13" on 5.75" tires with the AR60 axle because that's how they can take advantage of the rules and build a rig that is more able to compete.

The rules could not have predicted this, and it seems that the changes are leaning towards tightening up C3. Where does that leave the wide axle narrow body rigs? in a new class. This means NO ONE rig is illegal, it just gets reclassified.
We had to do this back when there were only 2 classes, remember? There were scale realistic builds that had to compete against box-stock honchos, and there WAS a decline in scale realistic builds. Then 1.9 class was split into C1 and C2. How many people think that was a mistake? (I would say VERY FEW.) So in a year, if we split C3, are we going to regret it? (I don't think so)

[badhoopty]

this is completely un-related to outside scale proportions, but i see no reason why a transfer case has a lessor point value than a cms. just 4 points for a transfer case and much more scale drivetrain?

i can get 2 servo posts and screw my servo to the chassis rails and get more points than if i relocated my trans/motor fwd and incorporated a transfer case. i just dont think thats right...

the one thing that will kill a scale rig imo is seeing the stocker axial skid mounted motor/trans setup.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by badhoopty

this is completely un-related to outside scale proportions, but i see no reason why a transfer case has a lessor point value than a cms. just 4 points for a transfer case and much more scale drivetrain?

i can get 2 servo posts and screw my servo to the chassis rails and get more points than if i relocated my trans/motor fwd and incorporated a transfer case. i just dont think thats right...

the one thing that will kill a scale rig imo is seeing the stocker axial skid mounted motor/trans setup.

I'll give you my thoughts on this.

First and foremost, I believe that ALL scale trucks should have CMS. A CMS is not as easy as bolting a servo to the frame and calling it good. It can effect a lot of things like steering throw, the way the suspension works etc. Also, with a t-case it opens the possibilities to getting a bunch more scale points with interiors. I think the biggest reason that CMS gets more points than a t-case is that it effects the performance more and it's a more "visible" item.

[badhoopty]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I'll give you my thoughts on this.

First and foremost, I believe that ALL scale trucks should have CMS. A CMS is not as easy as bolting a servo to the frame and calling it good. It can effect a lot of things like steering throw, the way the suspension works etc. Also, with a t-case it opens the possibilities to getting a bunch more scale points with interiors. I think the biggest reason that CMS gets more points than a t-case is that it effects the performance more and it's a more "visible" item.

good point with the full interior points you gain from a transfer case.
how about an extra point for keeping the knees and feet on the driver.

for me running a transfer case is one of the most scale things you can do with a build, its just a hell of alot more scale to have the weight of the motor where it should be and to have the drivetrain emulate what the typical 1:1 layout is.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by badhoopty

good point with the full interior points you gain from a transfer case.
how about an extra point for keeping the knees and feet on the driver.

I think it's more important to have a very realistic looking driver that's missing his feet than no driver at all

for me running a transfer case is one of the most scale things you can do with a build, its just a hell of alot more scale to have the weight of the motor where it should be and to have the drivetrain emulate what the typical 1:1 layout is.

I run t-cases in all my rigs. It is nice to be able to put the motor and transmission anywhere you want. Of course it does cause issues with more moving parts and loose set screws, but it's definitely worth it in my book. Also allows you to get your stuff down lower for a better center of gravity.

[MG200]

I think that in order to allow for the best variation of builds the tire's should stick out a maximum of .75" or .5" per side from the body.

Stock wraith inside tire to inside tire is about 7.5", That would mean your body needs to be 6" or 6.5" minimum.

[doublej]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I run t-cases in all my rigs. It is nice to be able to put the motor and transmission anywhere you want. Of course it does cause issues with more moving parts and loose set screws, but it's definitely worth it in my book. Also allows you to get your stuff down lower for a better center of gravity.

Would that be a preformance modification?

I think what most people are not willing to accept is that no matter what you do to the rules people will always find ways to build what they want. Weather part of the community likes it or not.
For MANY of us it is not about make it is scale - Its about making scale preform. You can word it anyway you like but I don't think any of us are moving to MOA rigs.

What I don't get is this FEAR of others ideas. So what some build something different. Most will say its not about competing, so you shouldn't care what you compete against?
But even more over how exactly would our ideas take over the Scale community? So many seem passionate against it, so unless all of you build around our ideas its not like much changes.

[Highmark]

Originally Posted by doublej

I think what most people are not willing to accept is that no matter what you do to the rules people will always find ways to build what they want. Weather part of the community likes it or not.
For MANY of us it is not about make it is scale - Its about making scale preform. You can word it anyway you like but I don't think any of us are moving to MOA rigs.

What I don't get is this FEAR of others ideas. So what some build something different. Most will say its not about competing, so you shouldn't care what you compete against?
But even more over how exactly would our ideas take over the Scale community? So many seem passionate against it, so unless all of you build around our ideas its not like much changes.

Very well said man

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by doublej

I think what most people are not willing to accept is that no matter what you do to the rules people will always find ways to build what they want. Weather part of the community likes it or not.
For MANY of us it is not about make it is scale - Its about making scale preform. You can word it anyway you like but I don't think any of us are moving to MOA rigs.

What I don't get is this FEAR of others ideas. So what some build something different. Most will say its not about competing, so you shouldn't care what you compete against?
But even more over how exactly would our ideas take over the Scale community? So many seem passionate against it, so unless all of you build around our ideas its not like much changes.

Nobody ever said that people can't build what they want, and that is fine that there are many that put performance over realism, but the founding principals of the scale classes were the exact opposite. That is what myself and others are trying to protect. Realism and building skills are what should be paramount at scale comps or events.

No one is afraid of ideas, they are afraid of what those ideas might lead to. If nobody said anything these past few weeks, and the skinny body/wide axle points chasing thing really took off, nobody would be building a true to scale C3 anymore because they would think they could not keep up. The scale aspect would be lost in favor of winning a crawling competition where the skill and craftsmanship the and time involved in creating a realistic looking rig is unappreciated and in the end accounts for very little in a performance slanted class.

All of that doesn't mean those that do want more performance and less realism should be shut out, only that they shouldn't be in the same class as those that think the opposite and try to keep the spirit of scale building true.

I guess the big question is: for those that want performance, why not build a comp rig instead? Its been brought up many times but no one ever gave an answer.

[doublej]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Nobody ever said that people can't build what they want, and that is fine that there are many that put performance over realism, but the founding principals of the scale classes were the exact opposite. That is what myself and others are trying to protect. Realism and building skills are what should be paramount at scale comps or events.

What got you all giddy and into RCs doesn't have to be the same thing that gets my Rocks off mate. You can have your set of principals and I can have mine but we don't need WWIII over it.
Because you are telling me what I can and cannot build by asking the rules to be changed that govern what I build.
For those of us that like to compete - we build every rig to the rules. And as I see it these rules were written so the local and state clubs can add to as they see fit. So modify those to restrict what you don't want and leave the over all basics alone.

No one is afraid of ideas, they are afraid of what those ideas might lead to. If nobody said anything these past few weeks, and the skinny body/wide axle points chasing thing really took off, nobody would be building a true to scale C3 anymore because they would think they could not keep up. The scale aspect would be lost in favor of winning a crawling competition where the skill and craftsmanship the and time involved in creating a realistic looking rig is unappreciated and in the end accounts for very little in a performance slanted class.
All of that doesn't mean those that do want more performance and less realism should be shut out, only that they shouldn't be in the same class as those that think the opposite and try to keep the spirit of scale building true.

Everyone on both sides of this debate wants the same thing - we all want the spirit of scale, we just define it differently. We have different tastes and principles. Your ideas will never disappear unless YOU stop building by them.

I guess the big question is: for those that want performance, why not build a comp rig instead? Its been brought up many times but no one ever gave an answer.

We all have given the answer in many different forms. "We want to make a scale rig preform." There is nothing scale about a comp rig.
The 1:1 world does the same thing. You build a rig to do the best it can within its means. Comp rigs pushes everything - IMO.

But this is where opinion comes in - proportions, widths, scale dimensions. Does a scale rig have to be scale down to the smallest detail? Can it skirt the edges of the 1:1 world or do all rigs have to be a direct copy of what has been seen not what could be seen.
Mate - that topic will ALWAYS be debated long past any of us.

You can tell from some posts back that the rules have been changed and it does not sound like there will be a 4th class. Just more limits.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Nobody ever said that people can't build what they want, and that is fine that there are many that put performance over realism, but the founding principals of the scale classes were the exact opposite. That is what myself and others are trying to protect. Realism and building skills are what should be paramount at scale comps or events.

No one is afraid of ideas, they are afraid of what those ideas might lead to. If nobody said anything these past few weeks, and the skinny body/wide axle points chasing thing really took off, nobody would be building a true to scale C3 anymore because they would think they could not keep up. The scale aspect would be lost in favor of winning a crawling competition where the skill and craftsmanship the and time involved in creating a realistic looking rig is unappreciated and in the end accounts for very little in a performance slanted class.

All of that doesn't mean those that do want more performance and less realism should be shut out, only that they shouldn't be in the same class as those that think the opposite and try to keep the spirit of scale building true.

I guess the big question is: for those that want performance, why not build a comp rig instead? Its been brought up many times but no one ever gave an answer.

I think there are two types of "performance first" people; those with driving skill that want to expand and dominate other forms of competition, and those that couldn't compete well in Comp events and want to try to win in scale events. Anyone that says they want a scale rig of a performance driven vehicle that builds a mis-proportioned vehicle is hiding behind that veil.

On the other hand, there are two types of "scale first" builders. Those that have little fab skill, but do their best to keep with the spirit of the competition and build a realistic version of a 1:1 rig that sacrifices some performance for the realism, and those that have a little better fabrication skill that want to make the rig as close to the 1:1 that they can, making accommodations for the limits of scaling things down (we won't have a scale internal combustion engine, etc). This doesn't mean they don't want to build a vehicle that sucks, many want to build something that looks good AND performs as a scale version of the 1:1 should. (A stock XJ is not going to outcrawl a purpose built buggy)

If your real intention is to build a scale version of a performance rig, it would be something that would be the "have to look twice" kind of rigs where you would have to try and figure out if it is scale or not. You would take the time to hide the electronics, get (as close as you can) to the proportions of the 1:1, and do what you could to make it look scale.
It's obvious looking at some of the builds that the first and only consideration was performance, hidden by rule-stretching bodies with some points chasing accessories thrown in for good measure. So, those wanting that type of rig will compete against others who think/build that same way (we have comp crawlers, but you want to toss a wrestler and a bed roll in it and call it scale, go ahead), the rest of us that want to hold on to the idea that a scale rig should be a scale realistic replica of a 1:1 can compete against each other.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by doublej

Because you are telling me what I can and cannot build by asking the rules to be changed that govern what I build.

I've never said you can or cannot build something. I've never asked for the rules to be changed to prevent you from building anything. Will I fight to keep the comp scene from overrunning the scale scene if it looks like its heading that way? Absolutely.

However, the rules must be modified as new ideas and new parts come to life so that scale building does not lose touch with reality, and its always easier to stop something when it starts vs waiting until its built up momentum.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

On the other hand, there are two types of "scale first" builders. Those that have little fab skill, but do their best to keep with the spirit of the competition and build a realistic version of a 1:1 rig that sacrifices some performance for the realism, and those that have a little better fabrication skill that want to make the rig as close to the 1:1 that they can, making accommodations for the limits of scaling things down (we won't have a scale internal combustion engine, etc). This doesn't mean they don't want to build a vehicle that sucks, many want to build something that looks good AND performs as a scale version of the 1:1 should. (A stock XJ is not going to outcrawl a purpose built buggy)

Yes, and that can be said about any group of people doing anything. Some will excel in an area that others won't, and they in turn will excel in an area that the first group doesn't.

We already have a group that awards drivers and tuners. Why water down the other group that awards builders and detailers just so a handful of highly competitive people can kick everyone elses butts?

[baddman]

I like the rules how they are now.

[SlickRockSpider]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I think the biggest reason that CMS gets more points than a t-case is that it effects the performance more and it's a more "visible" item.

The rule committee is giving more points for a cms mod then a t-case. Because it is more for performance (competition) than scale. And because its more visible its more scale. The point is to hide the steering servo. (?)
Why not give points to a person who hides the steering servo how ever they see fit. Not how the rule committee sees fit.

This looks good. (?)


Thanks to The Doc for pic. I hope its ok.

What to do about IFS hybrid. ???


Evan