twin hammers

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by heinie_21

Dang look at that ground clearance. Looks pretty neat.

Thanks. Stangkilla built most of that. I had initially not intended to use it in scaler comps, but was given suggestions to bolt rails to the sides and that would make it legal (that the center piece was just one large skid).

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by DISTURBIN' tha PEACE

Really Ricky? Now you're resorting to just calling us all brats. What was that about that kid growing up?

We have a discussion going on a brand new type of scaler & we're all making points & counter-points & this is what you come with. Seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black.

I'm just a grown man playing with toy trucks, I guess I grew up following rules and not trying to change the rules. Brats don't follow rules, they throw fits and yell not fair.

I have my opinion just like you guys, TH is a class 3 rig, there's no place in class 2 for this rig ,unless you want to completely take the class 2 class apart.
For someone the want to change rules so the TH will fit in class 2 when it already fits in class 3 is a Brat!! sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

If the rule committee changes it, I 'll follow it. Why is my opinion being attacked , like my opinion matter to anything anyway. I just someone whos following the rules that are laided out.

[heinie_21]

So maybe yall missed it because there were no name calling or penis measuring in the post, but some valid questions that might help lead to a solution were posted in post #90. Anybody know the answers?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by heinie_21

So im not a national caliber driver. I like our club comps though . I have a TWH. But I don't know which view I agree with yet.

I'm making my TWH to be a desert trophy truck, not a crawler at all, so my opinion of the TWH legality won't even matter anyways.

But my question is:
What is it about tub chassis that made them illegal in the first place?
Is it because they have an unfair advantage somehow over chassis railed vehicles? Or is it just because it's not scale?

If I were classifying a 1:1 jeep Cherokee in the rc world i'd call it a tub chassis. (seems closer to a tub chassis than a railed chassis)

So that's just a question I've always had. And it seems fairly pertinent to the debate at hand. Maybe instead of debating if it breaks a certain RULE or not, maybe we should ask what is the root, the reason, for the rule in the first place. And see if the TWH is consistent with the REASON , or an exception to the reason.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Maybe somebody from the rule committee could answer that.

[doublej]

You guys are killing me - Stop being kids and atleast pick up a phone.

Even the VW has to have a Full cage to run baja or any other real race or offroad event. They tech the vehicles or they don't run. That makes them a tuber not a pan chassis at that point. Think about it guys - Some of this your making harder than it needs to be.

Or you really are just wanting to skate the rules and suck at it.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by Tin Soldier

BTW - Not that anyone cares at all, but I don't think this should be a C2 rig just because of the 1.9s. To me C2 means a street truck that was modified for trail use. Tubers don't fit that. A Twin Hammers is more of a purpose built rig, like a tuber, and therefor belongs in Class 3. Now if a club wanted to make up their own rules or an open Class 2 that's their own choice.

I completely agree with your thinking here.

Originally Posted by heinie_21

But my question is:
What is it about tub chassis that made them illegal in the first place?
Most tub chassis vehicles are not scale looking and are "go fast" vehicles, I think the original thinking is that these aren't what are considered a scale looking or driving vehicle, therefore they were deemed illegal. The CC-01 was an exception do to the fact that it's pretty scale looking from the outside and limited in performance.

If I were classifying a 1:1 jeep Cherokee in the rc world i'd call it a tub chassis. (seems closer to a tub chassis than a railed chassis) I see where you are coming from, so should we only allow people to build Cherokees based on a CC-01 so it's truly scale?

Originally Posted by doublej

First how is the TH not scale? Really - I have asked a couple times.
It is a class1 car. Is this a mistake? Class 1 or did you mean Class 2?

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

VW pan chassis baja bug. Pretty popular actually.

So limit pan chassis vehicles to 2WD? You don't see any 4X4 VW bugs without a rail chassis.

Originally Posted by JeremyH

I had initially not intended to use it in scaler comps, but was given suggestions to bolt rails to the sides and that would make it legal (that the center piece was just one large skid).

Thinking like this is the problem with some "scale" guys, they don't care about keeping scale pure.

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

I'm just a grown man playing with toy trucks, I guess I grew up following rules and not trying to change the rules. Brats don't follow rules, they throw fits and yell not fair.

I have my opinion just like you guys, TH is a class 3 rig, there's no place in class 2 for this rig ,unless you want to completely take the class 2 class apart.
For someone the want to change rules so the TH will fit in class 2 when it already fits in class 3 is a Brat!! sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

If the rule committee changes it, I 'll follow it. Why is my opinion being attacked , like my opinion matter to anything anyway. I just someone whos following the rules that are laided out.

I believe that a Twin Hammer truck is a Class 3 rig out of the box. It is in no way what I think of when I say "built trail truck", it is a purpose built KOH type rig, and that is what we are trying to keep out of Class 2. The scale committee may think differently than me and a change in rules may reflect that. I am only one of 20 committee members and what I think doesn't really matter in the big picture, everything is voted on so please don't think that any of my replies above are a reflection of the committee......they are just my feelings.

[JeremyH]

Originally Posted by War Pig

Thinking like this is the problem with some "scale" guys, they don't care about keeping scale pure.

You'd be a little shocked then to find out which of those "scale" guys were making those suggestions. I am fairly certain most of them are "pure"....

[heinie_21]

Originally Posted by War Pig

Originally Posted by heinie_21
But my question is:
What is it about tub chassis that made them illegal in the first place?
Most tub chassis vehicles are not scale looking and are "go fast" vehicles, I think the original thinking is that these aren't what are considered a scale looking or driving vehicle, therefore they were deemed illegal. The CC-01 was an exception do to the fact that it's pretty scale looking from the outside and limited in performance.

That's kinda what i thought. But i wasn't around when the rule was made so i wasn't sure what the background of it was. I think if we get to the bottom of WHAT KIND OF RIGS this rule was meant to keep out, we can then determine if the TWH is that kind of rig or it it is an exception, like the cc-01.

If I were classifying a 1:1 jeep Cherokee in the rc world i'd call it a tub chassis. (seems closer to a tub chassis than a railed chassis) I see where you are coming from, so should we only allow people to build Cherokees based on a CC-01 so it's truly scale?

The tub/cherokee/cc-01 is self contradictory (which you already know). We cant say all cherokees need to be on cc-01 chassis so that it's more accurate to a unibody. If we require cherokees to be on a cc-01 for scale unibody accuracy, then at the same time we should prohibit a cherokee on a CC-01 because of the IFS of a cc-01. The reason I brought up the 1:1 cherokee unibody was solely to point out that many 1:1 crawlers we see every day do not have chassis rails. So it sorta seems contradictory that a unibody/tub chassis crawler isn't allowed.


It's unfortunate that we can't just have perfect rules that account for every rig and every custom build. There's no such thing as perfect rules. we know that. I hope that the committee doesn't take these types of threads as an insult to their rule making process. I dont think i could come up with better rules for a national standard. Even if i did come up with "better" rules, there would still be people that dont agree with them.




Where i'm at right now is I AGREE that the TWH out of the box is NOT a c2 legal rig. (for me it's about tire covereage WAY more than it being about tub vs. rails.)

BUT I think it would be a shame to close the c2 door completely for the TWH because I know a lot of people are planning on running different bodies on the TWH which would provide more tire coverage, add height, etc. This would leave the TUB as the ONLY thing keeping it from c2. I think that's kinda sad.

[Rockpiledriver]

The only real point I have been trying to make is this. The TH fits in class 3, but at a big disadvantage. Therefore I don't people would even want to try to run one. Which more or less eliminates it based on its size.

The debate about it on a performance level in class 2 has people saying it would do well, and others saying a well thought out class 2 would still kill it.

The question is should the rules always be proactive for new products or a closed door because as Ricky puts it rules are rules. This isn't the USRCCA, this is scale, some flexibility could go a long way.

Don't bother saying anything Ricky, it's clear you disagree with every comment I make. I'll stop shirt of calling you names though.

[doublej]

WarPig - I meant Class1 baja rig, my mistake by not fully explaining myself.

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

The only real point I have been trying to make is this. The TH fits in class 3, but at a big disadvantage. Therefore I don't people would even want to try to run one. Which more or less eliminates it based on its size.
And a stock honcho or dingo isnt at a disavantage?
The debate about it on a performance level in class 2 has people saying it would do well, and others saying a well thought out class 2 would still kill it.

The question is should the rules always be proactive for new products or a closed door because as Ricky puts it rules are rules. This isn't the USRCCA, this is scale, some flexibility could go a long way.
Agreed - but how far do we go? You leave enough gray area and it will get used in a way even you don't want.

[R2j]

Originally Posted by War Pig

I believe that a Twin Hammer truck is a Class 3 rig out of the box. It is in no way what I think of when I say "built trail truck", it is a purpose built KOH type rig, and that is what we are trying to keep out of Class 2. The scale committee may think differently than me and a change in rules may reflect that. I am only one of 20 committee members and what I think doesn't really matter in the big picture, everything is voted on so please don't think that any of my replies above are a reflection of the committee......they are just my feelings.

I agree with this. The purpose of the rule as I see it, and with each class is to keep the purity of scale in there. I'm not saying the TH is not scale looking, it just doesn't fit the C2 rules. Purpose built go fast is what I see. Just my two cents.

[doublej]

And I agree with you and Tim but here is the flip to that.

Class2 is the widest used class and the easiest for new guys. With the agreement that a tube chassis rig can be made street legal why are we not opening the doors to that for the new guys?

Make it so it has to e street legal and still be within the c2 rules. I don't want to see skinny buggies in class2. But I do think you see more custom rigs from new guys. Which then equals more work and support to some of our vendors ect ect ect.

Remember the rules keep the rigs within the classes on equal playing field. Not the style of rig. That almost can't be controlled really.

[TURTLE]

Originally Posted by doublej

First how is the TH not scale? Really - I have asked a couple times.
It is a class1 car. It has an interior with drivers head. 1.9s ect ect

And here is something food for the brain:
Where have you ever seen a unibody turned into a tuber in the 1:1 world where they leave the floor as the only thing left from the org vehicle?
You don't. Unibodies are not strong enough for prolonged use. Thats why JeepSpeed XJs get used for a season or two and then thrown away.

As a group we have to classify rigs as their 1:1 conterparts. The Tub on the TH means nothing. Its a Tuber that will have a pretty strong following and could add to the masses at any level of event bc it is a RTR. Thats my only issue with all this - why are we limiting our hobby as a whole?

And I agree with you Turtle, allowing unibodies in class2 or even class1 might add more builds but nothing crazier than we already see.
Heck we have talked about it local.

Class1 is a stock rig correct?
Why aren't the masses forced to use stock sespension that would be on that rig in the real world? It would make the entire class a completely different world. IFS, more leaf springs, ect ect

Sorry Chief I wasn't talking specifically about the Twin Hammers, just talking about tub chassis in general.

But why we are there. Personally I classify a tuber as a rig that is supported and braced with tube work. Just as my chassis Taco Time and the Raisin are not tubers neither is the Twin Hammers.

This to me looks like it is supported by a tub/pan with a "body" being bolted to it.




See my point? If it was truly a tuber, when the cage was taken off there should be nothing left. The twin hammers looks like you can run it without the tube work, sounds like a body, albeit a complicated body a body nonetheless.

[heinie_21]

I've run it without the cage a few time to test gearing and what not. It's definitely a bolt on body. Minimal structural properties. Just protects your electronics and tranny imo.

Originally Posted by doublej

And I agree with you and Tim but here is the flip to that.

Class2 is the widest used class and the easiest for new guys. With the agreement that a tube chassis rig can be made street legal why are we not opening the doors to that for the new guys?

Make it so [the twin hammers has to look] street legal and still be within the c2 rules. I don't want to see skinny buggies in class2.

This is what I was saying too. Make them fit c2 rules for everything but the chassis rails and i dont see a problem with people running them in c2.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by heinie_21

It's unfortunate that we can't just have perfect rules that account for every rig and every custom build. There's no such thing as perfect rules. we know that. I hope that the committee doesn't take these types of threads as an insult to their rule making process. I dont think i could come up with better rules for a national standard. Even if i did come up with "better" rules, there would still be people that dont agree with them.

Oh so true.

Where i'm at right now is I AGREE that the TWH out of the box is NOT a c2 legal rig. (for me it's about tire covereage WAY more than it being about tub vs. rails.)

Me too, but to a point. It's more about the look of a vehicle and the TH doesn't look like a Class 2 rig.

BUT I think it would be a shame to close the c2 door completely for the TWH because I know a lot of people are planning on running different bodies on the TWH which would provide more tire coverage, add height, etc. This would leave the TUB as the ONLY thing keeping it from c2. I think that's kinda sad.

I would love to see what someone could do by putting a hardbody on this rig, but I'm pretty sure most guys are just going to show up with a relatively stock Twin Hammer and expect to compete in Class 2.

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

The only real point I have been trying to make is this. The TH fits in class 3, but at a big disadvantage. Therefore I don't people would even want to try to run one. Which more or less eliminates it based on its size.

The debate about it on a performance level in class 2 has people saying it would do well, and others saying a well thought out class 2 would still kill it.

To me how it performs in Class 2 isn't the point, it looks like a Class 3 rig. You use an enlargement ray on it and make it 30% bigger and it's a solid Class 3 rig. The fact that it's small and doesn't fit Class 2 isn't my fault.

The question is should the rules always be proactive for new products or a closed door because as Ricky puts it rules are rules. This isn't the USRCCA, this is scale, some flexibility could go a long way.

Sure, but we have guidelines for a reason.

Originally Posted by R2j

I agree with this. The purpose of the rule as I see it, and with each class is to keep the purity of scale in there. I'm not saying the TH is not scale looking, it just doesn't fit the C2 rules. Purpose built go fast is what I see. Just my two cents.

Yup.

Originally Posted by doublej

And I agree with you and Tim but here is the flip to that.

Class2 is the widest used class and the easiest for new guys. With the agreement that a tube chassis rig can be made street legal why are we not opening the doors to that for the new guys?

It's not about what can be made street legal it's about the "look" we are going for in Class 2

Make it so it has to e street legal and still be within the c2 rules. I don't want to see skinny buggies in class2. But I do think you see more custom rigs from new guys. Which then equals more work and support to some of our vendors ect ect ect.

Steet legal? That's the way we are going to determine Class 2? Oh brother do you have alot to learn......

Remember the rules keep the rigs within the classes on equal playing field. Not the style of rig. That almost can't be controlled really.

So a stock Honcho and a full tube buggy are on an equal playing field?

Do you consider these equal (as far as being scale and their performance)?

[finishline]

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

The question is should the rules always be proactive for new products or a closed door because as Ricky puts it rules are rules. This isn't the USRCCA, this is scale, some flexibility could go a long way.

So since its not USRCCA in doesn't matter? The time that the scale club members, club leaders, event organizers, SORCCA committee members and the vendors have put into this genre of the hobby means nothing.... Ok this discussion has officially hit rock bottom. I wonder if in some ROAR thread some where on the net there is a guy complaining that he should'nt have to follow any rules and his toy truck should be able to run in the Stadium Truck class because it goes fast.

[heinie_21]

Originally Posted by finishline

So since its not USRCCA in doesn't matter?...... Ok this discussion has officially hit rock bottom. I wonder if in some ROAR thread some where on the net there is a guy complaining that he should'nt have to follow any rules and his toy truck should be able to run in the Stadium Truck class because it goes fast.

Garaunteed

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by Rockpiledriver

Don't bother saying anything Ricky, it's clear you disagree with every comment I make. I'll stop short of calling you names though.

I'll bet you're thinking about some.

What ever the rule committee comes up with, I'll follow. Will the changes in the rules start now or next year, just wondering.

Maybe let them in class 2 with a different body, being the body it has is a tuber. Cause you know if you let it in class 2 the way it is, then why not let the Wraith in or build a tuber. Someone down the road will say, but why not the TH is.

Maybe have a 2 rail chassis class 2 and then have a what ever chassis class 2.

I can fix all this for you,just get rid of all the rules and just have 3 different size tire classes. Rear steer and dig in the big tire class. There all the problems are solved.
I think thats where I'm going.

[doublej]

I am on my phone and can't quote but to put it short and sweet.

Looks should have nothing todo with any class Sirs. Are these scale concord rules or scale driving rules?

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

I can fix all this for you,just get rid of all the rules and just have 3 different size tire classes. Rear steer and dig in the big tire class. There all the problems are solved.
I think thats where I'm going.

That is the best statement regarding scale rules EVER!