C3 jibber jabber

[Duuuuuuuude]

Since its hard not to talk about it, here's a thread to put the chit chat and whatnot without mucking up other more dedicated threads.


FWIW: nobody is suggesting that AR60 axles should be outlawed. Builders just need to be mindful of their width when building. Since they are a more or less 1:8 scale parts, whatever is bolted on to them needs to be proportional.

The term "outlaw" was used in suggestion of another class specifically for those who do not wish to maintain a more strict scale appearance and put performance first, the skinny bodies/cages, fat tires, and wide axled types. That will leave C3 more dedicated to the scale aspect without builders having to run against pseudo-comp rigs.

The committee is sorting stuff out, but there is no reason why that the rest of us can't discuss it publicly if we keep it civil!

[justinart24]

Give up man, just move on. You have said more then enough for everyone and then some.

Sorry if you take this as negitive but the good guys on the scale committee have it handled.

I would suggest go building something to take up your time.

Justin,

[Duuuuuuuude]

Nope, not here to argue, just thought I'd make a thread to keep the talking out of the one for the pictures. If nobody wants it I'll make it go away...

[C*H*U*D]

I think that the Rules Committee has enough on their plate to discuss right now. I said a lot in the last thread, so until they come out with answers and new rules, I'm ready to keep quiet for awhile.

[Duuuuuuuude]

I agree, and really I just wanted to make sure that nobody thinks that those of us that raised the questions and pressed the issue were out to kill those rigs or those axles.

[monkeyracer]

I think there has been quite a bit of discussion on the topic, but I don't think it's done yet. To say that the rules committee has it handled and that we should all shut up until they come up with something is a bit asinine.

The key points are:

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.

Those that use AX10 axles with a 1:10 scale body or those with a 1:8 scale body on AR60's should not be in the same competition class as the golf carts on steroids, just the same as those type of vehicles would not be in the same class in 1:1.

There are some narrow body/wide axle 1:1's, such as single seater custom builds, and builders wanting to build something scale realistic can use AR60's, but should keep overall proportion in mind. Skewing the proportion for performance advantage is not what I would consider the spirit of building scale vehicles.

There are many passionate people in the hobby that have their opinions, and some of them take these discussions personally, get offended, and fly off the handle. 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. As long as the intention of the new rules is to encourage scale realistic proportional builds, then I am all for it. If the rules allow both types of rigs to compete in the same class, you WILL see a decline in scale realistic builds. We don't want disguised comp rigs, we want scale.

[badhoopty]

i'm eager to know what the solve is gonna be...

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by badhoopty

i'm eager to know what the solve is gonna be...

Some kind of body to axle ratio maybe.

[sally1800]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Some kind of body to axle ratio maybe.

Axial Ridgecrest

Just remember don't bit the hand that feeds you.

[badhoopty]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Some kind of body to axle ratio maybe.

imo it should be related to the c2 body to inner tire rule, but a little kicked out.

then again what applies to a body to axle ratio with wraith axles could possibly result in a really skinny body on scx axles.

[sally1800]

Originally Posted by badhoopty

imo it should be related to the c2 body to inner tire rule, but a little kicked out.

Wait you and I both hated that rule.

[badhoopty]

Originally Posted by sally1800

Wait you and I both hated that rule.

i didnt hate it as much as i think it gives wider bodies a much better advantage.

but that rule definitely keeps people from using a really skinny body with really wide axles.

[monkeyracer]

So, the (read between the lines) suggestion is to base class on tire size and how much tire sticks out? Not a bad idea.

Based on that:

C1 - 4.19" Max tire, 1/2 Max tread exposed (Same as current)
C2 - 4.75" max tire, inside of tread even with outside of body
C3 - 5.5" max tire, inside of tread within 1/2" of overall body width.
C3X - 5.75" max tire, no restriction on inside of tread compared to body.

C3 and C3X run on same course, can only run one or the other class.

ideas?

[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.

[War Pig]

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.

It will be more than that. We almost have this nailed down, just trying to get it worded correctly so it's easy to understand.

Great ideas guys, please keep giving input on other Class 3 items.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by War Pig

Great ideas guys, please keep giving input on other Class 3 items.

Jello wrestling.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

We don't want disguised comp rigs, we want scale.

X1,000%

Well said sir.

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

C1 - 4.19" Max tire, 1/2 Max tread exposed (Same as current)
C2 - 4.75" max tire, inside of tread even with outside of body
C3 - 5.5" max tire, inside of tread within 1/2" of overall body width.
C3X - 5.75" max tire, no restriction on inside of tread compared to body.

C3 and C3X run on same course, can only run one or the other class.

Those proportions sound pretty good.

[indiana mudcat]

I'm not so sure a certain width out solves anything, it's proportional to what body you run. A Toyota or Jeep should hang the tires out quite a bit in class three, a full size Chevy or Ford shouldn't though. Maybe outlaw Tamiya bodies, seems 90% or more of the sportsman trucks running class 3 use them. As it stands now the only options to be competitive in class 3 and truly look scale are buggies anyways.

[JokersWild]

Originally Posted by Duuuuuuuude

Since its hard not to talk about it, here's a thread to put the chit chat and whatnot without mucking up other more dedicated threads.


FWIW: nobody is suggesting that AR60 axles should be outlawed. Builders just need to be mindful of their width when building who cares how wide they build.... The gate is 13 inch. If you can get a 13 inch wide rig through the gate then more power to ya. I'm sure that the course builders are not going to make gates easily passable for rigs like that. It says mind your width not that there is such a limit. I don't care if you build a 4 ft rig.... Your problem if you can't get through our gates. . Since they are a more or less 1:8 scale parts, whatever is bolted on to them needs to be proportional. who says it should be. Class 3 is fine the way it is. If you wish to take your class 2 rig... Toss on rear steer and 2.2 tires go right ahead but it will not get you in the top spot.
The term "outlaw" was used in suggestion of another class specifically for those who do not wish to maintain a more strict scale appearance and put performance first, the skinny bodies/cages, fat tires, and wide axled types. That will leave C3 more dedicated to the scale aspect without builders having to run against pseudo-comp rigs.
this is stupid.... Create another class... Hell lets make c2 mod class too while we are here. Ridiculous
The committee is sorting stuff out, but there is no reason why that the rest of us can't discuss it publicly if we keep it civil!

Take it how ya wish but I waited too long for a c3 class from when scalers were just a novelty till now and splitting into another class where our clubs up here are quite large just makes no sense.... Its all to familiar to the shafty vs moa debate played out long ago in 2.2 comps. We still had guys in top 3 running shaftys. Build a more competitive rig. Rules are short and sweet and say it best you are encouraged to make look real but not required.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by JokersWild

Take it how ya wish but I waited too long for a c3 class from when scalers were just a novelty till now and splitting into another class where our clubs up here are quite large just makes no sense.... Its all to familiar to the shafty vs moa debate played out long ago in 2.2 comps. We still had guys in top 3 running shaftys. Build a more competitive rig. Rules are short and sweet and say it best you are encouraged to make look real but not required.

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.