RCCrawler Forums

EvilTwin v2 · 03-09-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Sometimes on the internet you don't know when someone is kidding. If your not kidding please explain with a realistic example.:?

No. Not kidding. With these guys trying to skate around the rules, if the angle of the chassis were to change at full compression vs ride height...possibly due to limited shocks or different shock angle/position from front to rear, it's quite possible that the chassis might sit at a different angle at compression in which it measures less than the required height. Does it then become illegal?

Fishmaxx · 03-09-2010, 10:34 AM

Its a good point that will be discussed with the rest of committee, but if you want my opinion from a purely practical point of view it would be at ride height. I would really hate to see tech to become such a laborious task:-(

monkeyracer · 03-09-2010, 10:43 AM

Thanks fishmaxx for the clarification, I think you hit it on the head. I am not trying to "pull a fast one." if I was, I would have just cut the chassis, and "play dumb." I have enough variations of that design that fit into the rules any way you look at it, I just wanted to cut what fits the intention of the rule. I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit them, I'm looking to close or clarify them.

It was more a matter of "what if" the skid were at an angle or curved. There are a lot of bodiless chassis like that, and most probably meet the min either way, but how should it be measured nationwide?

As far as throughout the suspension travel, are you teching bodies the same way? That seems to be an impractical way to measure it, unless it's just at full extension/full compression. If you compress only the front or only the rear suspension, it will change the measurements.

Maybe it can be considered for 2011 rules to have the diagram include links and tires to clarify that it is to be teched RTR perpendicular to the ground, or at least adding something about how all measurements are to be taken.

I think the point should be that judges have enough to do on a comp day, if we can make the tech portion of it the quickest but still thorough, that would be ideal. We don't want them (or the competitor) having to disassemble a crawler to see if it meets the minimums.

So only based on the drawings of my "rotated chassis" I should be fine with that design?

EvilTwin v2 · 03-09-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Its a good point that will be discussed with the rest of committee, but if you want my opinion from a purely practical point of view it would be at ride height. I would really hate to see tech to become such a laborious task:-(

I agree completely. At the club level, I have yet to have anybody argue, complain, anything when tech'ing before the comp. However, at larger comps, there's always a person or two who is going to push the issue and argue to the end. It's just nice to have some clarification. Thanks.

BLUEJEEP · 03-09-2010, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Its a good point that will be discussed with the rest of committee, but if you want my opinion from a purely practical point of view it would be at ride height. I would really hate to see tech to become such a laborious task:-(

Agree %1000 It seems to take longer to tech everyone at each comp than to run. We measure a body in the ready to run position if the rig gets squeezed between two rocks and drops below specks we don't penalize for that.

constantmotion · 03-10-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUEJEEP

if the rig gets squeezed between two rocks and drops below specks we don't penalize for that.

No one will penalize for that example. If they do, they need a swift kick in their jewels.

One of the main issues is that with all the clubs using a modified version of the rules and ppl complaining when at the larger comps when the judges stick to the rules to a "T"

EvilTwin v2 · 03-10-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLUEJEEP

We measure a body in the ready to run position if the rig gets squeezed between two rocks and drops below specks we don't penalize for that.

While you don't measure while it's squeezed between the rocks, if the body does not return to spec after the squeeze, then you should re-tech it.

Fishmaxx · 03-10-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by constantmotion

One of the main issues is that with all the clubs using a modified version of the rules and ppl complaining when at the larger comps when the judges stick to the rules to a "T"

Thats why alot of clubs stick to the rules....even if they don't like them

Sooner or later being diffrent will bite you on the ass.

rock hard · 03-10-2010, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Sooner or later being diffrent will bite you on the ass.

then you better whatch out cuz your damn sure one of a kind

dpdsurf · 03-10-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

So only based on the drawings of my "rotated chassis" I should be fine with that design?

It may measure out ok, but I don't think it "resembles a 1:1 rig", so I'd fail it. :-P

monkeyracer · 03-10-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpdsurf

It may measure out ok, but I don't think it "resembles a 1:1 rig", so I'd fail it. :-P

Nah, looks nothing like a 1:1...

Reflection · 03-10-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

Nah, looks nothing like a 1:1...

3 letter kill it.

T V P

monkeyracer · 03-10-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reflection

3 letter kill it.

T V P

Well, then, none of the tvp's qualify.

dpdsurf · 03-10-2010, 09:35 PM

Ok, saying that looks like a VW bug is like saying that skeleton in the graveyard looks just like Jessica Alba. LOL

monkeyracer · 03-10-2010, 11:38 PM

Really, lets not kid ourselves, there's a lot of lexan bodies that don't resemble a 1:1... If you want scale realism, look at Trail Rigs.

There's nothing in the rules against TVP bodiless chassis. At least mine will have a compound curved roof and hood to attempt to resemble the bug better.

The rules also say "Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.", it says "should", not "must". The chassis fully fits within the rules, so I am going to cut it and run it.

Fishmaxx · 03-11-2010, 06:15 AM

Keyword is...

resemble : to be like or similar to

Word not in rules

identical : having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same <identical hats> —often used with to or with

03-10-2010, 09:35 PM	#74
dpdsurf I wanna be Dave Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Pacific Ocean Posts: 2,342	Ok, saying that looks like a VW bug is like saying that skeleton in the graveyard looks just like Jessica Alba. LOL Last edited by dpdsurf; 03-10-2010 at 09:37 PM.

03-10-2010, 11:38 PM	#75
monkeyracer I wanna be Dave Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Golden Posts: 2,588	Really, lets not kid ourselves, there's a lot of lexan bodies that don't resemble a 1:1... If you want scale realism, look at Trail Rigs. There's nothing in the rules against TVP bodiless chassis. At least mine will have a compound curved roof and hood to attempt to resemble the bug better. The rules also say "Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.", it says "should", not "must". The chassis fully fits within the rules, so I am going to cut it and run it. Last edited by monkeyracer; 03-10-2010 at 11:44 PM.

03-09-2010, 10:34 AM	#62
Fishmaxx I wanna be Dave Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: on a Big Rock Posts: 7,837	Its a good point that will be discussed with the rest of committee, but if you want my opinion from a purely practical point of view it would be at ride height. I would really hate to see tech to become such a laborious task:-(

03-09-2010, 10:43 AM	#63
monkeyracer I wanna be Dave Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Golden Posts: 2,588	Thanks fishmaxx for the clarification, I think you hit it on the head. I am not trying to "pull a fast one." if I was, I would have just cut the chassis, and "play dumb." I have enough variations of that design that fit into the rules any way you look at it, I just wanted to cut what fits the intention of the rule. I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit them, I'm looking to close or clarify them. It was more a matter of "what if" the skid were at an angle or curved. There are a lot of bodiless chassis like that, and most probably meet the min either way, but how should it be measured nationwide? As far as throughout the suspension travel, are you teching bodies the same way? That seems to be an impractical way to measure it, unless it's just at full extension/full compression. If you compress only the front or only the rear suspension, it will change the measurements. Maybe it can be considered for 2011 rules to have the diagram include links and tires to clarify that it is to be teched RTR perpendicular to the ground, or at least adding something about how all measurements are to be taken. I think the point should be that judges have enough to do on a comp day, if we can make the tech portion of it the quickest but still thorough, that would be ideal. We don't want them (or the competitor) having to disassemble a crawler to see if it meets the minimums. So only based on the drawings of my "rotated chassis" I should be fine with that design?

03-11-2010, 06:15 AM	#76
Fishmaxx I wanna be Dave Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: on a Big Rock Posts: 7,837	Keyword is... resemble : to be like or similar to Word not in rules identical : having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same <identical hats> —often used with to or with

Sponsored Links

RCCrawler Forums

Thread: 2010 Bodiless Rules Questions