Bodied vs. bodiless dimensions?

[youngblood]

I would like to know why a lexan body is required to be so much larger than a bodiless chassis?

Thanks -Brian

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Bodied rig resemble a 1:1 full size truck and bodiless rigs resemble a tuber rig.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by youngblood

I would like to know why a lexan body is required to be so much larger than a bodiless chassis?

Thanks -Brian

Bodiless class was a spin off of Tube Frame Chassis class that had smaller specs.

A huge controversy erupted over metal plate and solid rod being used on "tubers" because it wasn't tube. There was also some talk of some composite material chassis being developed. That lead to debates about brazing and welding vs glue and screws. It got very technical, so we decided we didn't want to become engineers to write the rules and Bodiless Class was created. We just used the old Tuber Class dimensions.

[aaugman]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Bodied rig resemble a 1:1 full size truck and bodiless rigs resemble a tuber rig.

There are ways around it. Build "tubeless chassis" that meets the 8x3x3.75, buy the small body you want, cut it up into the hood, side panels and roof, attached them to the chassis independently and you have a tubeless bodied rig that meets the rules.

[monkeyracer]

It was basically a rule to give those designing their rigs a choice between having a shorter body, with the lexan body, or having a narrow chassis with the bodiless chassis.

Most 1/10th scale lexan bodies are more than 5" wide, and they are almost all over 12.5" long. This prevents someone from using a 1/18th scale body (unless it fits in the limits.)

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

It was basically a rule to give those designing their rigs a choice between having a shorter body, with the lexan body, or having a narrow chassis with the bodiless chassis.

Your statement is not accurate. Giving choice was never a consideration. Tubers already existed before the class was created. We just standardized a class that already existed, and then modified it to include all different types of materials....not just tubing.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Your statement is not accurate. Giving choice was never a consideration. Tubers already existed before the class was created. We just standardized a class that already existed, and then modified it to include all different types of materials....not just tubing.

So when I asked this:

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

One other thing I wanted to know on bodiless is this:

A bodied vehicle needs to be a minimum of 3" tall, but a bodiless needs to be a minimum of 3.75".

Why the extra .75" for the bodiless?

I've noticed with the tunnels we have here, some of them are tight squeezes for the 3" bodies, so the 3.75" bodiless height makes it almost impossible (in this specific tunnel.)

Also, with the extra height turtled rollovers are also harder, makes it so the tires are further from the ground and harder to flip back over.

Why not make it the same height requirement for both?

And followed it up with this:

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Ricky,

I think the OP's question related to whether or not the shock standoffs were considered a part of the chassis to be considered for the overall width.


What about my question as far as why a bodied vehicle can be shorter than a bodiless vehicle? (Dimension C from your post.)

Ricky replied with:

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Shock standoffs are not part of the chassis, If that was the case you could have a 1" wide chassis with 1" standoffs on each side. The word standoffs kinda of says it for me ,(Stands off the chassis)

It's the same question as to why bodiless are 3" wide and bodied are 5" wide. We want to keep our rigs looking some what like 1:1 rigs. There was lots of talks about all this and this is what we got. I think it's all good and for the best of the sport.

And another non-Rules Committee member suggested:

Originally Posted by ripper7777777

MR I can't say for sure but I would think the reason for the different Dims is to give the bodiless some different limitations than the bodied, make you kinda think about your setup and weigh out the pro's and con's.

Just a guess.

The thing that doesn't make sense with the reasoning Ricky posted is that if we are attempting the same proportions as the 1:1 rigs, why would someone in the 1:1 world make a tube-buggy taller than the truck counterpart? They'd likely make it the same height or shorter. At least I would if I were building a 1:1 tube-frame crawler.

[JeremyH]

Maybe the rules were written for a narrower bodiless/tuber class to help them with what used to be a weight problem with the tubers...

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

So when I asked this....

I can only speak for myself, and I am telling you the what happened because I was there.

Originally Posted by JeremyH

Maybe the rules were written for a narrower bodiless/tuber class to help them with what used to be a weight problem with the tubers...

Exactly. Tubers were already being built smaller. All we did was gather info on popular existing tubers that we thought were apptopriate, and wrote the spec around them. Its that simple.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Wow, I think was said a long time ago and was my opinion on a disgussion we were having in another thread.

Ricky replied with:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY
Shock standoffs are not part of the chassis, If that was the case you could have a 1" wide chassis with 1" standoffs on each side. The word standoffs kinda of says it for me ,(Stands off the chassis)

It's the same question as to why bodiless are 3" wide and bodied are 5" wide. We want to keep our rigs looking some what like 1:1 rigs. There was lots of talks about all this and this is what we got. I think it's all good and for the best of the sport.