|
Super mini class Just something that has been brought up as a fun idea AKA, just a bunch of guys talking and thinking. Nothing official or even heard of by USRCCA at this point. Just bringing the discussion in here. |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Super mini class Quote:
|
Re: Super mini class Have you looked at the Mod Trail class rules I posted in the rules thread? We have 4.75 and 6" tire classes already, a 4.25" class wouldn't be hard to add but it should probably have gates tighter than 16". The Mod class allows for 4ws and dig. |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
Quote:
I agree, 16" gates would be huge I am thinking. |
Re: Super mini class Like Super and Sporty I'll enjoy watching the builds for sure. J |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
|
Re: Super mini class Quote:
If 4.75" is close enough, then I've already laid out a minimal rules vehicle class for this Mini Super idea "thumbsup". The Trail vehicles all use 16" gates for Classic Comp style challenges, but are also expected to be able to run rock races, hill climbs, and anything else an event host wants to throw at you. The vehicles defined as of right now: Classic Comp Super Classic Comp 2.2 MOA Classic Comp 2.2 Shaft Driven Classic Comp Mini (1.9) Stock Trail Mod Trail 4.75 tire Mod Trail 6" tire Unlimited Trail (MOA ok) 6" tire |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
But a mrc gear set (R&P) probably would.. It's going to be a builders class, for sure! I've already started pulling parts around.. [emoji106] |
Re: Super mini class I haven't used anything other than the R&P from a mini in so long that I forgot that those terrible little tiny CVD's could be lumped into the term "mini." I think Erik has something else in mind though. Gonna be pretty damn funny when he convinces everybody into swapping their Bergs to a 4.25" tire for this new "class." Seriously Erik, what do you have in mind? This is beyond vague at this point. |
Re: Super mini class I guess I am still speaking from my fantasy... Since I am speaking from my fantasy still... one of my most favorite parts of this hobby is the building and thinking of how to build. Thats why I would never put rules to the car itself. Show up with a 10" wheelbase and spank somebody, show up with a 48" wheelbase and spank somebody. Every time somebody came with a car that was a bit different than the main crowd, it would really mess with peoples heads and make them think. Put it this way. Why is there a 12.5" wheelbase rule in 2.2? If you eliminated it, you would never worry about a guy running illegal nor would you ever have to tech anybodies wheelbase. Why dont we all figure out the ideal wheelbase through trial and error and then if you want to be the odd guy out and run something different, go for it. There are going to be as many down sides to running 16" wheelbase on a 2.2 as positives. Hopefully that makes sense? So, along the same lines of no wheelbase, track width etc,. why force anybody into a type of axle? I would opt for MOA axles since you would easily have dig with your ESC's. Again, maybe MRC would be better because of the tire size? Lots of options and things to think about. |
Re: Super mini class Ok, so the idea truly is "run what ya brung." Or built in this case. I can understand dropping the WB and width requirements, limiting only tire size, and letting everybody run together. While I have ZERO experience with 2.2 comp rigs of any sort, I do have a lot of mini drive time and builds under my belt. As a prior mini owner I do know that enough gates over a varied terrain will pretty well level the playing field regardless of size, power, or pride. Minis fits through things a Pro or Sportsman won't, while the Pro and Sportsman rigs can pull lines a mini can only dream of, limit them to a similar tire size and you may be in for a show. It goes back and forth, and would love to see how close they would really run. Even more interested in what the losers showed up with the next week! Honestly, I don't know if this is the craziest or most brilliant idea I've ever heard of. The comp scene around my area is fairly dead because it all got too serious for most guys, and they dropped it. The rest of us attempted to keep going, but eventually dropped it after running alone for a few years (me). But we all still have piles of parts and old rigs kicking around in corners begging for a new lease on life. Who knows, this may be just the friendly little class to bring it all back? I'll be talking to a few buddies today about organizing some local FOFF gatherings anyway, maybe we can get something going? |
Re: Super mini class Yeah, anything to breathe fresh air into the hobby. Who knows though? I dont know if its too much to ask but the course designers ideally should have a big role in this meaning, throw in some huge break overs that the short wheelbase guys dominate, throw in some big climbs that the long wheel base guys dominate, huge side hills that the wide guys dominate, narrow hard to get through gates that the narrow guys dominate... I think you get the idea... This would force people into a well rounded setup. Imagine if you were to win all the comps because you are narrow and can squeeze through gates but then there is a course where you need the stability of being wide and cannot finish a course (DNF). There went that whole comp because you were not balanced enough. Again, this is what comping should be. Rig specs that are determined by logic, not rules. It would just make for the best setup all around and thats what we really want anyway, right? |
Re: Super mini class Exactly! I have two full comp courses in my yard that haven't been touched in months. I'm onto what you're saying, digging for parts now, drooling, and may even have to park a few other projects for a few. This is exactly what the hobby needs (at least locally), and wouldn't necessarily have to be a big dollar game. Personally, in the last few years I have gained a few mouths to feed (I love em to death, and wouldn't trade them for my toy cars, don't get the wrong idea), and can't afford all the big expenses. I can however, build 90% of a rig, help others build theirs, and buy the parts we can't build from guys like you. I remember and miss the days of home built rigs and new ideas. My daughter's mini is more than due for a face lift, she's more than interested in running gates, and she's old enough to start learning to build like used to be almost required. Whether anything actually happens with this on a large scale or not, I now have a thread to direct others to, with words that explain it better than I could. |
Re: Super mini class The Unlimited Trail spec allows for MOA, and it would be no problem to add a 4.25 or 4.75" tire vehicle type to it. The Mod Trail vehicle is shaft driven chassis mount tranny. |
Re: Super mini class I think we need a two man driver class. One guy stands in point "A" and can't leave. Other guy verbally directs driver... LOL, practical no. But we did this the other day at a local comp and it was a freaking blast. Builders class sounds like a blast as well, but I'm really pushing to simply combine scale and comp to one event instead of sepearate. Would help all parties involved in the long run if you ask me. Adding another rig to my stable and attempting to particpate in both sides of the hobby as a driver and vendor is getting extremely hard. It would allow me to pick my 2 or 3 favorite trucks and focus on them instead of 6 and i could travel to more comps too. Then donate to one comp for prizes instead of two. etc... |
Re: Super mini class Are we talking trail type rigs though, or comp type rigs? I love the idea of a friendlier more open class, but want to get away from the scale stuff that already took over the hobby. Personal preference I guess, but I really like the idea of getting back to the days of home-brew odds and ends, well executed crazy ideas constructed with minimal tools and little cash, and possibly even see a true tuber build or two again. |
Re: Super mini class Whats the real difference between trail and comp rigs? If the vehicle definition isn't based on RTRs, if it is open to all construction, with nothing besides "should look like a scaled rig" which is part of the comp class definitions too, then what's left besides the name? |
Re: Super mini class That's my question though, why do we need that "should look like a scaled rig" description at all? You seen 2.2 Pro lately? Nothing scale other than the silhouette of a tube chassis and the fact that it rolls on round tires. 2.2S, same thing...but with a lid that could best be described as a protective cover, if even that. Scale and comp are two totally different worlds, and I have a really hard time believing that anything scale will keep up with anything remotely described as a "unlimited" or "open." Then again, been a while since I've seen a Berg in a mud bog... Not trying to ruffle any feathers, just my opinions and thoughts. Anybody else have input? |
Re: Super mini class Simply put, because people are more interested in scale models than robots on the rocks. Even if it is just a silhouette that makes it look familiar, without something to describe what the object represents there is no common interest. If having this familiar shape wasn't important, the more scale RTR models wouldn't have taken over. Scale and Comp are only two different worlds when you make them be. Both are just driving toy trucks. Many "Class 3" scalers are hardly less capable than a 2.2s rig anyway. |
Re: Super mini class So, either way, the idea is the same. No rules other than a 4.75" tire, and the intent being the "ultimate" setup. No chassis limits, no motor limits, any sized wheel as long as the tires aren't over spec, and any axle/trans/chassis setup you deem "ultimate." Am I getting this right? What about bodies while we're here? Bodiless topper or lexan body with no limits on either? |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
Why water down the classes already in place? Need another 1.9 class to fail? Or another Super class to fail? |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
|
Re: Super mini class Well, that's good news then. PNW was always strong on attendance. I remember seeing a pile of trucks and people there, unlike almost anywhere else. But across the board? Not. |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
Remember when people were worried about splitting 2.2 class when MOAs hit? Nothing was done for years because it was feared it would water down the comps. We all know how well that worked out. |
Re: Super mini class We are considering running shafty pro rigs again here in Oregon. just saying... |
Re: Super mini class Not much to lose when there's hardly anyone around I guess. :ror: Of course I remember that. Ultimately, it led to the Sporty class to get attendance back up, which led to people spending quite a lot on trucks and not doing what the point of the class was to do. That's completely debatable, I suppose. Spec class was shot down, which was brought up to keep costs down. Buy an AX-10, do minimal allowable stuff, and rock out. Nope. 1.9 class was done in 3 years? With Losi as the heavy hitter, maybe the only hitter I suppose, that would have been the perfect spec class. Missed opportunity, maybe. I can't see how this would be good for anyone's wallet, or newcomers. I have no dog in this hunt but I've seen a heck of a lot go down. This doesn't make sense to me. 14'r made more sense. |
Re: Super mini class 2 wheeled trail bike class! |
Re: Super mini class Well I wrote about 2 pages and after looking at it I thought , it really don't matter as long as a few people are making there $$ the rest of us will follow. 30 years of playing with advanced "big kid toys" I have seen just about everything ruled and dollared to death and really don't see comp crawling being any different. Kind of hard to explain to a new guy with a 350.00 rtr kit why I have 2700 in a moa, they just don't get it. Guess that's why I have 1 comp rig and 6 trail rigs. |
Re: Super mini class My personal thoughts on the original talk: was to build a super 1.9.. 4ws, Dig(not motor mixing or dual esc's), 4.25" tire limit, and 12"(?) Gates.. Body or bodiless.. Not scale...... My OG thought for a rig was/is.. LCC tranny, maybe xr or ar60 modded mrc axle's.. Then Erik's 1.9 popped into my head.. LCC tranny and axle's(narrowed and fitted with XR steering).. But that's just me and my take on it.. 1.9 shaft driven super.. |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
If it was born to Pro class, let it there.. I've talked to a few guys that wants to build rigs and start crawling.. They asked, "what's the point in spending the money/building a modified sporty, just to not have it keep up with a MOA axled sporty?" I dunno.. I welcome any challenge, that makes me a better crawler or strive to make me the best I can. If it's going to drive more ppl away from the hobby, it's not worth it tho... |
Re: Super mini class Quote:
|
Re: Super mini class I could handle that.. It would still be a mini super class.. Tire height limit and gate width would handle the rest.. |
Re: Super mini class Agreed. So where'e Erik @??? He started all this, then left the party. |
Re: Super mini class Having more than one comp rig for a certain class isnt more to play with, it's more often just a spare parts rig with the old chassis. But having 6 trail rigs probably means you have variety in just about every one. Different tire sizes, wheelbases, track widths, cg, suspension, look, etc... The only real distinguishing trait to the classic comp rig is specific dimensions which also make the body proportionally smaller than the wheelbase, like a rock buggy on roids. There is nothing inherently unscale about them otherwise. There are many examples of carbon fiber bodiless chassis that look fantastic, merely made from materials that are more affordable in toy amounts. The BAstard jr. chassis is a great example of a welded buggy that would pass any "scale" event. It looks great and is comp legal too. When you say "not scale" I don't understand where the line is drawn. |
Re: Super mini class Fair point... I meant, not limited to a scale road worthy vehicle look.. |
Re: Super mini class Sounds like a Mod (shafty) or Unlimited (MOA) trail vehicle with a 4.25" tire and 12" gate for classic comp style fits everything y'all want. Manufacturers would like to see the Stock Trail vehicles broken into smaller tire sizes as well, so it makes sense to apply it to all. |
Re: Super mini class I agree with a topper, a body, and even tube and rod cages if that's your thing and allows you to run in multiple classes. What I am afraid of is this turning into another scale points pissing match, when all we want to do are build some comp rigs to push the edges of what is possible with as few rules as possible, a wide range of parts, and a common tire size. Should it look like a real rig in one way or another? Yes. Should my CF topper'd rig be at a disadvantage right off the start because it doesn't have any scale features other than a silhouette of cage? No. |
Re: Super mini class Your in the wrong section of this forum to be worried about scale points creeping in :lol: |
Re: Super mini class If a full interior and a full bodied driver is required then that's scale... I think I know what Erik is trying to build, just think of a Super in its current "robot" form and make it much much smaller. Sounds fun to me, I'm in. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-2014 RCCrawler.com