Go Back   RCCrawler Forums > Competitions and Events > WRCCA > WRCCA Rules
Loading

Notices

Thread: Rules Committee members

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-30-2009, 06:02 AM   #21
666
MODERHATER™
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,939
Default

Guys thanks for your input and professionalism, if thats even a word.
666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-30-2009, 09:14 AM   #22
Moderator
 
RXcrawler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In my head
Posts: 2,744
Default

My copperhead is 18.5" and my old Area 51 was 17.5"

I also voted for the 18"max. I really think once they get over that it doesn't really matter that much unless all your doing is huge verticle climbs. With having a close range of 16" to 18" at least we have something to go by when setting up courses. Where as before if the guy setting up courses has a super long truck they may set the course with the ideal that all trucks can handle the big climbs. I loved the tight techinical courses of ECC, a 16" super would have done very well there.

Patrick what would you like to see done. I wasn't all happy with changing it but I thought we needed min and max guidelines to direct the class and keep those pesky little crawlers out of the class.
RXcrawler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2009, 09:46 AM   #23
Pebble Pounder
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 180
Default

I have no vested interest in the rules of super. I have actually never run a super as my comps do not have a class for them at this time. I wouldn't mind trying a super in the future though. Just something else to get stomped at.

With that said I noticed the minimum length proposed for supers affects one of the 2.2 rules stating a vehicle must run in class 1 if it falls out of spec but it can't because it is not 16 inches.

Quote:
2.3 - Class 2 – Class 2.2: If a Class 2 vehicle violates any of the following requirements it must run in Class 1.
Dewmerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 10:51 AM   #24
RCC Addict
 
Nicklepimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Minnehopeless
Posts: 1,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewmerz View Post
With that said I noticed the minimum length proposed for supers affects one of the 2.2 rules stating a vehicle must run in class 1 if it falls out of spec but it can't because it is not 16 inches.
This has been brought up and will be addressed. Good eyes.




Fishy, you can change my name to green as well. We have a super class, and intend to keep it. I do participate in our super class as well.

I like the idea of having a min & max measurements to keep things close. At last year's Nats, there were people out there with 14 or 15" rigs. There were a couple spots there that were impossible for them, but no problem for the larger rigs. With keeping all the supers close in wheelbase, the courses can be aimed towards those specs.
Nicklepimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 12:53 PM   #25
I wanna be Dave
 
DISTURBIN' tha PEACE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: On the G-Train!!!!!
Posts: 6,081
Default

Patrick, we do not run super anymore in Hawaii. I also did not vote on those for the fact that we don't run them & didn't feel I should help decide something we don't run.
DISTURBIN' tha PEACE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 01:32 PM   #26
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Here
Posts: 7,317
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicklepimp View Post
At last year's Nats, there were people out there with 14 or 15" rigs. There were a couple spots there that were impossible for them, but no problem for the larger rigs. With keeping all the supers close in wheelbase, the courses can be aimed towards those specs.
I like when the specs are tight...It brings out the driver in everyone...
Rckcrwlr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 02:13 PM   #27
666
MODERHATER™
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,939
Default

All I am asking for is a couple more inches. Is it that big of a deal for a couple of inches? There is alot of people that feel the same way I do, does that not mean anything?
666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 02:36 PM   #28
I wanna be Dave
 
slowrockr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under the 4444
Posts: 2,345
Default

Judging by the responses here it's obvious nothing will sway any minds but I'll throw my $.02 in anyway. I think it's stupid, if a max is deemed necessary I think it needs to be longer than 18".
slowrockr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 02:37 PM   #29
RCC Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chuck Chuck Chuckin Rocks.
Posts: 1,224
Default

I guess I don't really have anything to bitch about, BUT, with the ability today to take an on-line poll of all memberships involved, and as casually as it could have been done before this was changed, it seems to me that alot of input could have been considered.

I also think the board does a fantastic job and has done so for years.
Some things do need to change, some things maybe not. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in this case, I think the group that complained at National's really got heard.

I have voice'd my vote about having a minimum but removing the maximum before. Again, this was JMO then and it still is.

That being said, an on-line poll again, could be the squeaky wheel in the future.

JMO!

JC
skid plate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 03:00 PM   #30
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: on a Big Rock
Posts: 7,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 666 View Post
There is alot of people that feel the same way I do, does that not mean anything?
Yes it does, and just like any other rules change you might want to see you should contact someone on Rules Committee. Get them to bring it up for a vote.


Quote:
Originally Posted by skid plate View Post
.... the ability today to take an on-line poll of all memberships involved, and as casually as it could have been done before this was changed, it seems to me that alot of input could have been considered.

I also think the board does a fantastic job and has done so for years.
Some things do need to change, some things maybe not. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and in this case, I think the group that complained at National's really got heard.
That is correct some drivers at Nationals had their complaint brought up in Rules Committee. It was voted on, and its now 18". I don't see any reason why Patrick couldn't do the same. I however would use something besides the "dumb" and "stupid" arguement if you really want anyone to change their minds
Fishmaxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 03:04 PM   #31
666
MODERHATER™
 
666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishmaxx View Post
Yes it does, and just like any other rules change you might want to see you should contact someone on Rules Committee. Get them to bring it up for a vote.


I think by starting these threads, I am bringing it to everyones attention!
666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 03:40 PM   #32
TEAM MODERATOR
 
Reflection's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 10,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 666 View Post
All I am asking for is a couple more inches. Is it that big of a deal for a couple of inches? There is alot of people that feel the same way I do, does that not mean anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowrockr View Post
Judging by the responses here it's obvious nothing will sway any minds but I'll throw my $.02 in anyway. I think it's stupid, if a max is deemed necessary I think it needs to be longer than 18".

I know a big group of guys that would like more wheelbase and another big group that are happy with the new rules. What if there was a class added where everyone could be happy?

Gargantuan class-16"-20" WB,14" track,40 series wheel and unlimited tire size

OG super class-14"-16" WB,13" track,2.2 or Maxx size wheel and 6 1/2" max tire height?

I'm pretty sure a handful of guys in ETRC would be up for an OG class. They could be run on the same courses,so no added time for course set up would be needed. Most people know I'm a die hard shaftie guy. To make it a true OG class,make it shaftie only.
Reflection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 03:50 PM   #33
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: spring hill TN
Posts: 2,959
Default

All I have to say is this.

If anyone thinks making a shorter WB limit is going to slow me down any or even up the playing field

Its not going to Help



joesbruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2009, 04:00 PM   #34
I wanna be Dave
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: spring hill TN
Posts: 2,959
Default

Just so no one gets all mad or thinks that I think I can not be beat I know I can Tyler does it all the time.
Im just poking fun
joesbruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply




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 01:43 AM.


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