twin hammers

[Highmark]

Originally Posted by DISTURBIN' tha PEACE

C2 doesn't need any tire coverage, just inner tire must be inside the body at the doors. I think the TH meets that. If not, offset will.

Yup - my bad, poorly worded on my part.

[DISTURBIN' tha PEACE]

I agree with you, although I think it's way too small for C3.

[sally1800]

Originally Posted by Dready

Well at the moment

You must run a rail chassis (for example: Bruiser/Mountaineer, SCX-10, Reign RC K2-3S, 3L, 4, 5, MFM, X-Trail, CR-01, UTE, etc...) No TVP (twin vertical plate) chassis' or frame rail extensions on a TVPs. The exception to this rule is the Tamiya CC-01 or TA-02 ,(Hummer, S-10, Ford F-150 and Toyota Hilux)and Modified class Tubers.

We're looking into adding the Twin Hammers into this list.

BUt not a wraith chassis?

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

If we allow a pan chassis because some manufactor made one , then throw the 2 rail chassis rule out all together. Cause now I want to build my own pan chassis scaler. Keep adding and the 2 rail rule will be gone away. I think it's a mistake to what these rules and scale spirit had in mind.

As far as a club goes have at it. National event not with the rules we have now.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by DISTURBIN' tha PEACE

C2 doesn't need any tire coverage, just inner tire must be inside the body at the doors. I think the TH meets that. If not, offset will.



How do you know? I'm 99% positive we are the only ones that have had a C2 comp that had a TH run. The driver is kinda green & it was basically stock. Didn't do great, but there is potential.

I am building mine as a crawler first & foremost.

It don't fit in the rules, so it is illegal as they are writen now. Thats how I know, If we just rewrite the rules everytime a new rig comes out, whats the point of having them. Thats great to let the clubs do what they want, but when we all meet from all over and are following the rules, the twin hammer won't be there, they don't fit in the rules.

[R2j]

I would feel comfortable just leaving it up to the local clubs myself. It is more of a rock racer/G6 type of rig in my opinion. As far as it being compared to the CC-01 or TA-02, it seems to be far more capable than them. And I would also consider the CC and TA more a C1 entry anyway.


And sally, the Wraith chassis is and always will be a C3 chassis. "Tuber" homie

[Dready]

Originally Posted by sally1800

BUt not a wraith chassis?

Really

Just to Concur with Shon and Make you feel a little smaller

The Wraith Chassis is a Tube Chassis

[sally1800]

Originally Posted by Dready

Really

Just to Concur with Shon and Make you feel a little smaller

The Wraith Chassis is a Tube Chassis

That's true. Thin Hammer is a tub chassis with tube frame. Wraith is All Tube.

[hotwheels000]

Originally Posted by sally1800

That's true. Thin Hammer is a tub chassis with tube frame. Wraith is All Tube.

Kinda like the old VW dunebuggysflat pan chassis with a rollbar

[Tgreer]

I'm all about running mine on a gate course, and I will, but it's a rock racer, this is not a platform to fit with the c1, c2, or c3! If I want to competitively compete, then I will look at G6 stuff

That's how I see it

[scottanthony]

It may be possible in the near future comps will consist of the WR-Exos and Tub style classes..
Wr-Exos are fast thru the turns and can end up being serious competitors in the 2.2 class.
Also, Im having fun with my Twammer as both being fast and crawler-esque capabilities as a 1.9....
So, Comps to stay competetive with the others will have to follow the G6'n Affliction....

**NEW** - 1.9 PRO-V Class (Tub Chassis)

Hell Yeah, we'll be seein a lot of them this weekend at the Moon Rocks...!!

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by scottanthony

It may be possible in the near future comps will consist of the WR-Exos and Tub style classes..
Wr-Exos are fast thru the turns and can end up being serious competitors in the 2.2 class.
Also, Im having fun with my Twammer as both being fast and crawler-esque capabilities as a 1.9....
So, Comps to stay competetive with the others will have to follow the G6'n Affliction....

**NEW** - 1.9 PRO-V Class (Tub Chassis)

Hell Yeah, we'll be seein a lot of them this weekend at the Moon Rocks...!!

There you go, make a new class.

[foratm]

You know if people really wanted it scale just make a real chassis for it. I'm in the process now of making a chassis right now

Sent from my MB855 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

[doublej]

Every time someone wants something added, removed or modified in the rules.... " make a new class"....

Why?

Do you not see IFS rigs on the trail? Do you not see Tubers driven on the street between trails legally? I can go on if someone would like but its plain as day in the 1:1 world, some people just do not want to recognize it for fear or killing the scale spirit.

The Twin Hammer is already legal in C3, but I agree with DTP that it is to small.
Now if your telling me that pan makes it not a tuber - guess what.... It is legal in class2 with nothing but a rim change. And so it should be. I own one myself, it has no advantage over any normal rig you've been seeing in C2 - If anything if has disadvantages.

[finishline]

doublej is correct in saying it has its disadvantages in C2 and definitely in C3. After driving mine this weekend I really don't see the potential of the rig being a big threat at all to any seriously modded C2 or C3 scale comp rigs. This rig is a blast to run and I really believe it belongs in a whole different type of event all together something like the event that ROLANDROCKSHOP just had at the Superlift ORV Park

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

How is that chassis legal in class 2. If so, I'm starting my pan chassis build, I won't have IFS on mine.

[doublej]

Originally Posted by finishline

doublej is correct in saying it has its disadvantages in C2 and definitely in C3. After driving mine this weekend I really don't see the potential of the rig being a big threat at all to any seriously modded C2 or C3 scale comp rigs. This rig is a blast to run and I really believe it belongs in a whole different type of event all together something like the event that ROLANDROCKSHOP just had at the Superlift ORV Park

Its yur wirding that bothers me - it belongs where ever the driver wants to drive it, so long as it fits the rules. No doubt that is what you mean but thatbis the attitude and thought process that limits growth IMO.

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

How is that chassis legal in class 2. If so, I'm starting my pan chassis build, I won't have IFS on mine.

"The exception to this rule is the Tamiya CC-01 or TA-02 ,(Hummer, S-10, Ford F-150 and Toyota Hilux)and Modified class Tubers."
If your claiming that the TH is a pan chassis and not a tuber then it is no different then CC-01. Allow it or edit the rules to write it out cometely and explain why it is not allowed and the CC-01 is.
Till then your basicly not allowing it because of your "opinion" and not something being illegal about it. And that is the biggest issue with every ruling issue we hve hd for the last year....... Opinions.

If your claiming to copy the 1:1 world then do it, not pick and choose what is within "the spirt".

[finishline]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

How is that chassis legal in class 2. If so, I'm starting my pan chassis build, I won't have IFS on mine.

The chassis is not legal in C2, i think that some people would like it to be. If you could what were you thinking for rig design, pan, solid axel front and back and 2 speed tranny?

[doublej]

It is not - your right. But not that the rig as been classed as a pan chassis and not a tuber. The scale committee has to either allow it or state why it is not and write it into the rules that it is not legal. Basicly by not working quick they have put them selves into a corner really. Just my 2cents.
Till then - Sorry but it is just like the CC-01 and is legal, weather it is worded or not. Ill buy CC-01 decals and run it. 1:1s change full bodys and leave very little of the orginal vehicle but still badge it as they want right?

[finishline]

Originally Posted by doublej

Its yur wirding that bothers me - it belongs where ever the driver wants to drive it, so long as it fits the rules. No doubt that is what you mean but thatbis the attitude and thought process that limits growth IMO.

My wording is also my opinion as you stated yours. As for growth I want nothing more but in order to have growth there has to be regulation. This rig is no different than some of the custom IFS rigs that were built in the past that ran in C3. The only difference is it is an RTR and many more people will have them. If the complaint is its to small be creative and find or make some longer rear links, stretch it and slap 2.2's on it and run it in C3. Just my opinion. I am always open to hear reasonings I really like to see others views and most of the time it's when I learn and understand things I may have not before.