2010 Bodiless Rules Questions

[monkeyracer]

Ok, in the 2010 rules theres an expanded section relating to bodiless vehicles. I'm in the process of re-designing my chassis, and want to make sure it's "legal"

Here's the section about bodiless from the 2010 rules:

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.

Clear as day, except the "resemble a 1:1 vehicle" part. Can someone show an example of a bodiless chassis that otherwise fits in the rules but doesn't resemble a 1:1 vehicle?

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1 - Bodiless vehicles must have solid hood panel, solid roof panel and a minimum of 2 solid side-panels.

So, you can't just use metal mesh, right? (Solid isn't referring to it's molecular state right? Not sure how to use a liquid or gaseous panel anyway...)

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.1 - Hood, roof and side panels must be separate pieces of solid material installed onto the bodiless vehicle frame.

Clear!

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.2 - All body panels are to be separate pieces from the complete structural frame.

Sort of repeats the previous rule...

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.3 - Body panels must be solidly installed in a manner that is representative of a 1:1 vehicle.

so, no velcro or gum right? Zip ties and screws are ok?

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.4 - It is required that at least one point of the side-panel must reach to a span of 1” tall or more & at least one other point of the side-panel must reach to a span of 2.5” long or more.

So, a side panel that is vertically 1" tall, and diagonally 2.5" is ok? Or is the 2.5" measured perpendicular to the 1" measurement?

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.5 - Body panels must be fitted to the vehicle, and not be overly exaggerated in size in order to distort vehicles legal measurements.

This I am a little confused about, how can it distort the measurement? The side panel is part of the measurement according to 2.1.4.1.7, so if it has a slight curve to it, to get to the minimum width, is that legal?

What was the intention of this rule? What is it designed to prevent someone from doing?

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.6 - Shocks and fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, or spacers) shall not be included in the measurements of the vehicle.

That's clear, so you can't use the height of a cap head screw to get to the minimum dimensions. Maybe the word "vehicle" should have been chassis, but that's minor...

Originally Posted by 2010 Rules

2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.
See Illustration B.

For the height, is this measured parallel from the ground?


Here's my new chassis design, is this legal? (as long as I add a roof and hood?)





As far as the A, B, and C dimms, I am just fine. It's mostly the side panels that I am curious to know.

[ol' gravy leg]

Clear as day, except the "resemble a 1:1 vehicle" part. Can someone show an example of a bodiless chassis that otherwise fits in the rules but doesn't resemble a 1:1 vehicle?

This one is pretty vague. from what I can tell it you can do whatever you want.

So, you can't just use metal mesh, right? (Solid isn't referring to it's molecular state right? Not sure how to use a liquid or gaseous panel anyway...)

i dont know about this one. I wouldnt have a problem with it.

so, no velcro or gum right? Zip ties and screws are ok?

yes

So, a side panel that is vertically 1" tall, and diagonally 2.5" is ok? Or is the 2.5" measured perpendicular to the 1" measurement?

measured perpendicular

This I am a little confused about, how can it distort the measurement? The side panel is part of the measurement according to 2.1.4.1.7, so if it has a slight curve to it, to get to the minimum width, is that legal?

What was the intention of this rule? What is it designed to prevent someone from doing?

This one is because we used to flare out the body panel like this to meet width.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6..._5059Large.jpg
Now the panels need to be flat against the chassis, for the most part.

Here's my new chassis design, is this legal? (as long as I add a roof and hood?)

If you are using those spaced out side plates to meet 3", I don't think you're legal. Those would be considered bumpers, not part of the chassis. The old rockshow had bumper pieces like that, although much smaller in size.

[Rockshow]

Originally Posted by ol' gravy leg

If you are using those spaced out side plates to meet 3", I don't think you're legal. Those would be considered bumpers, not part of the chassis. The old rockshow had bumper pieces like that, although much smaller in size.

o 2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may
include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Rockshow

o 2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may
include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.

That's the one that I was the most concerned with. My side panels are cut from lexan, and are firmly mounted to the chassis. You could press on them pretty hard and they are not going to go inside the 3" minimum.

The 2.1.4.1.7 rule says to include those in the measurement, and they are more than the minumum dimensions for a side panel.

Someone on the RC want to confirm?

[dboy1k]

sounds good from my house

[Fishmaxx]

2.1.4 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.


The information you have provided is incomplete, so its impossible to accurately evaluate your design.

For example if your going to say your side panels are part of the frame its must be part of the structurally complete, rigid frame not just a scrap piece of .030 lexan hanging out in the air.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

2.1.4 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.


The information you have provided is incomplete, so impossible to accurately evaluate your design.

For example if your going to say your side panels are part of the frame its must be part of the structurally complete, rigid frame not just a scrap piece of .030 lexan hanging out in the air.

The body panels actually help to reinforce the chassis plates, and prevent them from over flexing. The side panels will be cut from .125 lexan, which is what my current "karnage" chassis is made from. It's rigid, for sure. It's mounted in 4 points to the chassis, and you could press pretty hard on the side panel, and it will never flex below the minimum 3" (I'd be surprised to see almost any deflection, actually) Structurally complete? I can throw the chassis off a second story balcony, and it will still be in one piece, does that make it structurally complete?.

How is that part of it going to be judged by the judge though? Unless they have an engineering degree and all the specs, how is the average judge going to know if it's structurally complete?

Also, as rockshow posted, the width measurement may include side panels. As it appears in that rule.

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

The information you have provided is incomplete, so impossible to accurately evaluate your design.

The 3D picture is the same thing a judge is going to be looking at to determine if it is in spec, what other info do you need?

[Fishmaxx]

I answered your question to the best of my abilities, and doubt you will get a better one from anyone else on Rules Committee. If that's not good enough for you, and your comfortable with your interpretation of the rules then go for it.

I am curious if already know all the answers why did you ask the question?

[EvilTwin v2]

What is the width of the chassis itself (not counting the side plates)? From my interpretation of the rules, that's where you'd have to have the 3". Also, lack of a horizontal structural bar to seperate the lower & upper chassis, this chassis may not fit into the structurally complete to represent a 1:1 bodiless (or tube) chassis.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by Rockshow

o 2.1.4.1.7 - Bodiless vehicles must reach a minimum of (A) width, (B) length, and (C) height. Measurements may
include, but not limited to bumpers, stingers, frame-rails, side-rails, skid plates, roof, hood, and side panels.

true, says it right there in the rules

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

2.1.4 - Bodiless vehicles: Must be a self-supporting, structurally complete, rigid frame. The roof must be raised a minimum of 1” from the main chassis to resemble a cockpit. The frame sides must be an overall minimum of 1” tall (The cockpit & frame side are to be measured vertically from where the hood intersects the cab). Bodiless vehicles should resemble a 1:1 vehicle.

doesnt the above post kinda strew structurally complete?


The information you have provided is incomplete, so its impossible to accurately evaluate your design.

For example if your going to say your side panels are part of the frame its must be part of the structurally complete, rigid frame not just a scrap piece of .030 lexan hanging out in the air.

a piece of thin lexan probably wont pass but a piece of 1/8" delrin has to pass same as a spaced out cab right?

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

Also, lack of a horizontal structural bar to seperate the lower & upper chassis, this chassis may not fit into the structurally complete to represent a 1:1 bodiless (or tube) chassis.

i dont see any where in the rules that you have to have any horizontal stuctural bars to be deemed legal.

as far as i would be concerned if you threw a piece of 1/8"delrin on the outer most section with a very thin piece of lexan to cover your body panel spec you would be the same or as or close to a rockshow to reach the minimum width spec.

not a stab just how i would interpret the rule.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

a piece of thin lexan probably wont pass but a piece of 1/8" delrin has to pass same as a spaced out cab right?

The diffrence to me is I know your cab is part of the stucture, and it achives the width without relying on the side panel.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

The diffrence to me is I know your cab is part of the stucture, and it achives the width without relying on the side panel.

i was just more curious if a bumper is legal, wouldn't that be an extremely large bumper?

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

i was just more curious if a bumper is legal, wouldn't that be an extremely large bumper?

It still has to have structure, so a bumper made of zipties is illegal.

BTW...I did not say his chassis was illegal. I said it depends on the materials used.

[krawlfreak]

point taken

thanks fish

[EvilTwin v2]

If his may be legal, then how about the 1st generation T1e Rockshow that uses a thin sideplate spaced out to support the side panel at 3"? Are they legal?

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by EvilTwin v2

If his may be legal, then how about the 1st generation T1e Rockshow that uses a thin sideplate spaced out to support the side panel at 3"? Are they legal?

I'll answer your question with a question.

Are you talking about the side plate thats constructed from the same material as the rest of the chassis?

[monkeyracer]

I designed my Karnage Chassis a long time ago, with the cab inset from the main chassis. This way I can change the cab design without having to cut an entirely new chassis. The Rockshow came out with a similar design, and everything was fine. Then there was the controversy with the beetlejuice chassis. That's why I am asking my question.

The way it's designed, the upper link rod end mounts between the main chassis and the side panel. The main chassis is going to be cut from .126" Delrin, with the side panel cut from .125" Lexan.

I don't see where a "horizontal structural bar" is required. What about in a 1:1 with a doorless vehicle. There's no "horizontal structural bar" there. This design doesn't have a horizontal bar because it gets in the way of the motor and dig servo.

The chassis is structural with or without the side panel. The side panel does a few things:

- Protects the motor and transmission (for an AX10) on the sides.
- Supports the main chassis to add rigidity (and therefore becomes a part of the structure, IMO)
- Satisfies the requirement of having a body panel
- Allows the upper link to mount more securely
- Made from lexan to allow the user to customize the panel with paint or graphics, protected from rocks behind the panel
- Satisfies the minimum width requirement. (If I am interpreting the rules correctly)

The chassis is spaced out at 60mm which is about 2.6" so if it weren't for the side panels, it wouldn't be wide enough, but I want to mount the shocks 60mm apart, on the outside of the chassis.


I didn't answer my own questions in the first post, I posted my interpretation of the rules, and wanted confirmation that I was interpreting the rules as they were intended, and if not, need clarification on them so that I can adjust the design as necessary.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by monkeyracer

......wanted confirmation that I was interpreting the rules as they were intended, and if not, need clarification on them so that I can adjust the design as necessary.

I would suggest you submit a dimensional drawing with the materials to be used to the rules committee if you want to be absolutely certain there are going to be no issues post production.

[monkeyracer]

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

I would suggest you submit a dimensional drawing with the materials to be used to the rules committee if you want to be absolutely certain there are going to be no issues post production.

Before I submit something to Griz, which of these methods of measuring dimension "C" from the rules is correct:



I've seen a few chassis designed with the skid plate at an angle (to allow the rear of the chassis better ground clearance to be able to get over an obstacle better.) So is the 3.75 measured perpendicular to the skid plate (A) or to the ground (B)?

If it's method A, how would the measurement be made with a round skid?(like what the DNA/BWD mantis chassis has?)

For method B, I guess I can forsee the question being asked "What if one guy set's his skid angle different from the next?" I would guess that would be up to that user to make sure that the total distance from lowest point to highest point, perpendicular to the ground is at least 3.75"

It doesn't state this in the rules, so I wanted to know before I sent my local committe rep any dimensions how it will be measured.

Thanks!

[rockbound]

personally i read the rules to reflect your drawing "A" on measurements.. round skid, i would measure from the bottom of the rounded skid to the top of chassis.