2018 Scale Rules

[Evo93]

Originally Posted by Evo93

Hello quick question about boat sides.
It says under class one any trimming behind the front tire is considered a boat side. Is this also true for class 2? Because I've already trimmed my fenders out and would like to pinch both the front and the back. Also going to bob the bed.
Any input would be awesome. Thanks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Just realized I'm in the wrong thread, sorry! Off to 2017 I go.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Ditchrat]

Originally Posted by Ironhide13

Ah, I see the difference now. So, back to my original question, the Dinky bedside kit should bring it up to C1 legal, right?

But those sides are tapered just like the honcho bed. If you look at the rear quarter panels they slightly taper in, causing the rear of the truck to not be flush with the ending of the sides.

That's the thing about rules, it doesn't matter if it is an inch or a thousands of an inch. Right?

[Ironhide13]

Originally Posted by Ditchrat

But those sides are tapered just like the honcho bed. If you look at the rear quarter panels they slightly taper in, causing the rear of the truck to not be flush with the ending of the sides.

That's the thing about rules, it doesn't matter if it is an inch or a thousands of an inch. Right?

I don't know, it looks square to me, like maybe it just has flared fenders.



But it may not really matter anymore. I was planning on doing some comps in C1 and C2 with the same truck, but one place has set their rules as only hardbodies for C1.

[stormridersp]

Originally Posted by Highmark

The gate defined in the rules is the minimum - course builders can make wider gates.

I believe we voted against incorporating dig in C2.

Thanks for voting against dig in C2.

[War Pig]

Originally Posted by stormridersp

Thanks for voting against dig in C2.

You’re welcome.

[binaryterror]

I thank the SORRCA team for the rules for 2018.

Now I do have a question I don't think I need to ask, but the way many on FB are reading it, I figured why not. People are saying in C1 a shock mounting point must now be on a welded/brazed or mechanically fastened piece. I don't see that in the rules, I do see if it needs shocks hoops they must be separate and of course if you want integrated hoop points.

Is my GCM Class 2 Skeleton chassis now illegal? It uses frame bolts front shocks, and a cantilever Dinky rear system since I made the JK body have a flat floor and not the rear seat (yes I know I removed possibly points, but I prefer my JK scaler to be exactly like my 1:1 JK).

If I read the rule the FB way, I'd need to cut off the front towers/mounts and some how reattach them. On most chassis I can see easy ways, not so when the GCM mount area also is integral to the trans mount.

How I read the rule, I'm good, but I'm not getting integrated Hoop points and I get that would be skipped.

Chassis in question (though I'm sure you guys know):

[Highmark]

The rule only affects C1 - for a C2 rig you're fine.

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by Highmark

The rule only affects C1 - for a C2 rig you're fine.

So in C1 the option is to cut and reattach in some manner, the most normal.

Or maybe run cantilever front set up as well? Would that be allowable?

[R2j]

I would just add a separate shock mount, and it would pass. As long as it mounts to the rail and not to the current mount.

[Robbob]

Can I ask why C1 was chosen to have the shock hoop rule? And why it would matter how the shocks are attached?

Just looking for insight on why that particular rule was placed.

Thanks

[Peaker]

"but you can not ignore the impact it has on any organization."

All organizations was doing fine before they got on FB, and they will be fine too if they wasent on FB.
And FB only have a minor impact if your store / organization or whatever get more traffic, at least if you only count the meaningful stuff.

Really FB are nothing and it have never been anything worth the effort of a sane person, but they are damn good at telling people that what they offer you just cant live without.
And i actually hope down the line in the future FB will be named the first digital decease.

Regarding the scale rules, then i think they are fine but its a clueless statement as i have never comped and if we do that here its pretty much just bring what you got and lets have some fun.
But in General people dont bring wraiths to run against the regular scalers even if our gate placement ( spacing ) are blowing the wind.

PS. I have never been on FB unless its a link concealed, and then i backtrack at once and wipe my cookies / browser files, and curse the person that put that concealed link there in the first place.

PPS. I would rather have 1 true friend that a million "friends" on any social media.

[R2j]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Can I ask why C1 was chosen to have the shock hoop rule? And why it would matter how the shocks are attached?

Just looking for insight on why that particular rule was placed.

Thanks

Simply to keep the noddle chassis out of the class. The ones that the rail rises up into a shock mount.

[EZCompany]

Originally Posted by R2j

Simply to keep the noddle chassis out of the class. The ones that the rail rises up into a shock mount.

Don't flame me, it's just a thought...
I wonder if that was done to keep the gen7 out of c1. It was a cms away from class 1 legal out of the box but now there's no way without a new frame. Maybe the shock tower rule is to keep a million newbs with gen7's from flooding c1.

I can't see it being a performance gain, but for scale looks however it most certainly would be a factor. I'm going to assume it's just for scale reasons. Realism is kind of the point I suppose.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by R2j

Simply to keep the noddle chassis out of the class. The ones that the rail rises up into a shock mount.

Gotcha, Thanks.

Originally Posted by EZCompany

Don't flame me, it's just a thought...
I wonder if that was done to keep the gen7 out of c1. It was a cms away from class 1 legal out of the box but now there's no way without a new frame. Maybe the shock tower rule is to keep a million newbs with gen7's from flooding c1.

I can't see it being a performance gain, but for scale looks however it most certainly would be a factor. I'm going to assume it's just for scale reasons. Realism is kind of the point I suppose.

The what chassis?

[EZCompany]

The shock hoops are part of the frame rail rather than an additional piece that is attached separately.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[R2j]

No, but it wouldn't be legal either.

[Scrap]

So my rc4wd gelande 1 based vehicle is now illegal in C1?


The chassis in question.

[EZCompany]

Originally Posted by Scrap

So my rc4wd gelande 1 based vehicle is now illegal in C1?

As I understand the rules, yes. You would have to cut the shock towers off and weld them back on. Or cut them off and make new that bolt on

[R2j]

Originally Posted by Scrap

So my rc4wd gelande 1 based vehicle is now illegal in C1?


The chassis in question.

Unfortunately yes, we realized there would be some chassis's that would fall out of spec. But in the same token, we also realized those chassis's could easily be modified back into spec.

It's an attempt to keep C1 pure and without the highly modified aftermarket chassis that are not exactly scale in appearance and function. Metal ladder style chassis with separate shock mounts was the best solution.

[binaryterror]

Totally get the idea, not complaining, just trying to be compliant for Nationals this year which I do intend to visit. And still want to run my GCM truck since it matches my real 1:1 JK.

If I make a plate similar to what is in red, and mount using 1 existing hole and 2 additional I plan to drill. Then this plate would be the only place to mount a shock (I drew it half covering the existing holes on purpose to show those would not be usable).

Would this make the GCM legal? 2 holes on the frame in red would be new for shock plate mounting. The 4 holes peppered in the plate would be the shock mount holes for options.