Go Back   RCCrawler.com Bulletin Board > Competitions and Events > USRCCA > USRCCA Rules
Loading

Notices


Thread: Bodied vs. bodiless dimensions?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2010, 06:47 AM   #1
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 895
Default Bodied vs. bodiless dimensions?

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

Thanks -Brian
youngblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-08-2010, 07:15 AM   #2
On the run again.
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,679
Default

Bodied rig resemble a 1:1 full size truck and bodiless rigs resemble a tuber rig.
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 07:18 AM   #3
TCS Team Manager
 
Fishmaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: on a Big Rock
Posts: 7,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngblood View Post
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.
Fishmaxx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 08:02 AM   #4
Rock Crawler
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in my bubble
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY View Post
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.
aaugman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 11:26 AM   #5
JC Auto Design
 
monkeyracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lakehood, Crawlerado
Posts: 2,150
Default

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.)
monkeyracer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 12:03 PM   #6
TCS Team Manager
 
Fishmaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: on a Big Rock
Posts: 7,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyracer View Post
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.
Fishmaxx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:19 PM   #7
JC Auto Design
 
monkeyracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lakehood, Crawlerado
Posts: 2,150
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishmaxx View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyracer View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyracer View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY View Post
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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ripper7777777 View Post
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.
monkeyracer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:47 PM   #8
Gold Star Baby!
 
JeremyH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 17,006
Default

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...
JeremyH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:19 PM   #9
TCS Team Manager
 
Fishmaxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: on a Big Rock
Posts: 7,691
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyracer View Post
So when I asked this....
I can only speak for myself, and I am telling you the what happened because I was there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyH View Post
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.
Fishmaxx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:33 PM   #10
On the run again.
 
ROCKEDUP RICKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northwest Arkie-saw and we got ROCKS!
Posts: 7,679
Default

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 Click the image to open in full size.
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.
ROCKEDUP RICKY is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-20010 RCCrawler.com