Legal Body Panels Help Guide and Disscussion

[krawlfreak]

I have to say he has a very compelling argument.

[articzap]

Originally Posted by Der Kampfer

So with that rational: If it didnt look like a body then it would be fine?

We are debating the rules here, so why are we going to "Forget every rule you are looking it."?

"Is the cab, by itself, a body? Answer the question as its worded. "

OK. It is not a body. It does not meet the USRCCA requirements for a body.

Why forget? Simple as this. You can't follow the rules until you know what category it fits in. Just because it doesn't meet the rules of one category does it mean it can be used in another category.

Even if the same exact "cab" in question was made of a different material, it'd still be classified the same.

Can a cab for a bodiless be one piece? Sure can. Look at krawlfreaks exo bjv4 as a perfect example.

You can only follow the rules for the category that applies to what you're building.

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by articzap

You can only follow the rules for the category that applies to what you're building.

I think this is it in a nutshell. People are arguing the rules for the wrong category. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is whether or not there is a body. If there is a body, then it is a bodied vehicle. If there is no body then it is a bodiless vehicle.

Only after that is established, should the specific rules of the category it fits into be applied. Don't put the cart before the horse.

Sorry, but I have to change my opinion. I feel this is a bodied vehicle, and should be subject to bodied rules.

[binaryterror]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

and on a side note, just out of curiosity, who actually makes a comp 2.2 kit at this point?

No one, want to know why - the market is dead. That's right, this segment of RC is barely alive compared to other segments that are rolling in cash and sales.

How's that one big company doing who made a worm gear truck? They even had their own special mini class. How are they doing supporting RC Crawling now?

When it gained steam to be what it is now, things were changing in our rules and classes too quickly for a manufacturer to keep up and many deemed waiting to be smarter. After those changes, the market flat lined and now we are talking about limiting those companies who make bodies a big "oh so sorry we won't buy anymore because we got a new rule". Think how quickly they'd care to jump back in and help.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

No one, want to know why - the market is dead. That's right, this segment of RC is barely alive compared to other segments that are rolling in cash and sales.

How's that one big company doing who made a worm gear truck? They even had their own special mini class. How are they doing supporting RC Crawling now?

When it gained steam to be what it is now, things were changing in our rules and classes too quickly for a manufacturer to keep up and many deemed waiting to be smarter. After those changes, the market flat lined and now we are talking about limiting those companies who make bodies a big "oh so sorry we won't buy anymore because we got a new rule". Think how quickly they'd care to jump back in and help.

maybe your right maybe not. losi had its own class,that nothing changed in, but they still stopped with production of the mini...

the core of the big company issue is not rules, it is very poor advertising on the part of the crawling world. they get no return for sponsoring, or developing so why do it?

to me it seems this segment of rc is so poorly advertised that noone cares..

since 2.2pro has been and will probably always be small vender based, due to the rapid changing enviroment, why limit it with hopes of grandure to get the big companies back that could in all honesty give two shits.

[Hardline]

It's neither rules issues or advertising. The crawling market is just too small to keep the attention of the big name mfg'rs. I'd bet Axial sells hundreds of Ridgecrests and Evos for every XR. They're just making prudent business decisions. We'll get by. I remember Nabil's recent XR-based build thread where he used nothing Axial except maybe lower axle housings.

Don't change the rules on body/bodiless. Lotsa angst and drama, no payoff. It ain't broken, don't fix it.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

No one, want to know why - the market is dead. That's right, this segment of RC is barely alive compared to other segments that are rolling in cash and sales.

How's that one big company doing who made a worm gear truck? They even had their own special mini class. How are they doing supporting RC Crawling now?

When it gained steam to be what it is now, things were changing in our rules and classes too quickly for a manufacturer to keep up and many deemed waiting to be smarter. After those changes, the market flat lined and now we are talking about limiting those companies who make bodies a big "oh so sorry we won't buy anymore because we got a new rule". Think how quickly they'd care to jump back in and help.

It is a numbers game to the big companies. Why support competition crawling when scale kits sell 100:1 over them? Want to know how many machine wound motors I sell over hand wounds? Its not at all even, I will tell you that. I really don't see rules affecting what big companies do for our competition scene. Even if body sizes are changed, thats maybe a few hundred sales lost over the course of a year? The only companies that will even notice are the small ones that are OK with popping a few hundred molds a year and will gladly make a new body size for the new rules.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

maybe your right maybe not. losi had its own class,that nothing changed in, but they still stopped with production of the mini...

the core of the big company issue is not rules, it is very poor advertising on the part of the crawling world. they get no return for sponsoring, or developing so why do it?

to me it seems this segment of rc is so poorly advertised that noone cares..

since 2.2pro has been and will probably always be small vender based, due to the rapid changing enviroment, why limit it with hopes of grandure to get the big companies back that could in all honesty give two shits.

I'm with you here. I contacted a few magazines about scale nats and comp nats for 2012. Nobody even knew they were going on until I let them know. If event organizers don't care enough to contact media outlets outside of RCC, why should outside vendors care about our niche?


I'll be supporting the comp scene as much as possible. Its where I came from, it is what drives me to develop new products, it keeps me up at night thinking about the next step. I am extremely appreciative that competitive support has allowed me to work for myself. Can't say I would be making a wise choice to focus only on it though, I have to keep a roof over my family and scale or play rigs are the ones that pay the bills. Being able to scratch build a motor is extremely rewarding. Being able to sticker slap and pay the bills is the ugly truth.

[Nova's Ark]

Originally Posted by binaryterror

No one, want to know why - the market is dead. That's right, this segment of RC is barely alive compared to other segments that are rolling in cash and sales.

How's that one big company doing who made a worm gear truck? They even had their own special mini class. How are they doing supporting RC Crawling now?

When it gained steam to be what it is now, things were changing in our rules and classes too quickly for a manufacturer to keep up and many deemed waiting to be smarter. After those changes, the market flat lined and now we are talking about limiting those companies who make bodies a big "oh so sorry we won't buy anymore because we got a new rule". Think how quickly they'd care to jump back in and help.

Totally agree and know it's fact from the manufacturers I have talked to in the industry.

[Nova's Ark]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

I'm with you here. I contacted a few magazines about scale nats and comp nats for 2012. Nobody even knew they were going on until I let them know. If event organizers don't care enough to contact media outlets outside of RCC, why should outside vendors care about our niche?

Exactly. Even RCC said nothing about Nationals on the front page / home page! From June until October nothing new on the RCC home page! The USRCCA is failing the hobby and sport.

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by BC-Brian

The fact is this meets all the current rules and requirements. So by all records it is Legal...Why is this not legal, what is legal?

I really like the looks of your truck, but this is where I think the line is clearly drawn...do you honestly not think that is a body? Regardless of what it is made of, how thick it is or how it is mounted, would you or would you not call it a body?

I see a body. Therefore to me, that immediately puts it into the "bodied" section of the rules, and negates any "bodiless rules" that are trying to be applied to it, in order to make it "bodiless" legal.

The rules committee may have a different idea, but that's how I see it.

[BC-Brian]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

I really like the looks of your truck, but this is where I think the line is clearly drawn...do you honestly not think that is a body? Regardless of what it is made of, how thick it is or how it is mounted, would you or would you not call it a body?

I see a body. Therefore to me, that immediately puts it into the "bodied" section of the rules, and negates any "bodiless rules" that are trying to be applied to it, in order to make it "bodiless" legal.

The rules committee may have a different idea, but that's how I see it.

You cannot say something is a body just because it is made of the same material and manufactured the same way. A table is not a chair, they both use the same material and tools.

I understand why people are arguing it, but this is why it is controversial.
There needs to be a way to define it, not simply, well it looks like a body.

If I had made this out of delrin and cut out the sides, windows, etc. I suspect there would be less to talk about. But I pushed the design to the limits and according to the rules it is legal.

If they want to say that bodiless must be comprised of multiple pieces and a body is a single piece then that will be clear (arguably I could just cut it in half and fasten it together with aluminum spacers).

I am looking for a clear verdict as to what is legal and what is not. Like I said before where is the line. Any good designer will want to know that so they can push their designs as far as the can.

[articzap]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

I really like the looks of your truck, but this is where I think the line is clearly drawn...do you honestly not think that is a body? Regardless of what it is made of, how thick it is or how it is mounted, would you or would you not call it a body?

I see a body. Therefore to me, that immediately puts it into the "bodied" section of the rules, and negates any "bodiless rules" that are trying to be applied to it, in order to make it "bodiless" legal.

The rules committee may have a different idea, but that's how I see it.

This is the exact reason. It doesn't look like a structural frame. It looks like a body with body panels slapped over it.

You keep trying to use rules that don't apply to what your cab fits into. I don't see how this isn't clear to you?

Let's play role reversal for a second. What do you think a body is? What sets your cab apart from being a body(and don't say body panels)?

[articzap]

Originally Posted by BC-Brian

You cannot say something is a body just because it is made of the same material and manufactured the same way. A table is not a chair, they both use the same material and tools.

I understand why people are arguing it, but this is why it is controversial.
There needs to be a way to define it, not simply, well it looks like a body.

If I had made this out of delrin and cut out the sides, windows, etc. I suspect there would be less to talk about. But I pushed the design to the limits and according to the rules it is legal.

If they want to say that bodiless must be comprised of multiple pieces and a body is a single piece then that will be clear (arguably I could just cut it in half and fasten it together with aluminum spacers).

I am looking for a clear verdict as to what is legal and what is not. Like I said before where is the line. Any good designer will want to know that so they can push their designs as far as the can.

There is no clear defined cut rule right now. At this point intent rule is what makes the truck a body. Cutting out windows wouldn't make it any less of a body. Changing the material its made of doesn't make it any less of a body.

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by C*H*U*D

... This is where I didn't agree with referring to the body as a monocoque. It doesn't bear the load... the chassis underneath does. ...

... until you flip it over.

A 4" drop onto a horizontal surface with the vehicle upside down to check the structural integrity and stiffness of the cab should be a mandatory test at the tech table...

[C*H*U*D]

Originally Posted by Olle P

... until you flip it over.

A 4" drop onto a horizontal surface with the vehicle upside down to check the structural integrity and stiffness of the cab should be a mandatory test at the tech table...

A roll cage wouldn't make your truck a monocoque would it? That's the only point I am trying to make.

[BC-Brian]

Originally Posted by articzap

This is the exact reason. It doesn't look like a structural frame. It looks like a body with body panels slapped over it.

You keep trying to use rules that don't apply to what your cab fits into. I don't see how this isn't clear to you?

Let's play role reversal for a second. What do you think a body is? What sets your cab apart from being a body(and don't say body panels)?

▪ 2.1.4 - Bodied vehicles: Any support chassis allowed

This is the only rule about Bodies. If they want to say a bodied vehicle is any single formed shell comprised of any material. Then we can call it a body.

The fact that is, it's not a purchased body, it resembles my bodiless vehicle that passed inspection at 2011 nationals, and Does have body panels.

To others points, why is there a difference in classification sizes, and how much advantage do you really think it offers. If you think it offers little advantage then what is the problem?

If you think it offers a great advantage then why do we want to squash design progress?

What happened when the first guy showed up with a carbon chassis instead of a brazed tuber?

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by BC-Brian

There needs to be something put in place to specifically identify why this is not legal. Not just intent.

Its a body. Even if you make it out of Delrin its still a body.

Originally Posted by binaryterror

One side is going to get hurt either way...

Originally Posted by crawlinghulls

When is the intent of the rule explained? When someone sees something they don't like? Or is different?

The Rules Committee has lengthy discussions on almost every topic and then condenses those discussion down into manageable text. Do we cover every possibility in those final drafts.....No. Thats why we added the intent rule. Because every so often people try to do things that goes against what is clearly a violation. Your first clue that something might be wrong is when you have to put so much effort into justifying why its legal.

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

I'm sure you are just stirring the pot here, but Thumbs down. Bring all specs to bodiless size. There were tubers at 2006 nats too.

In 2006 it would seem absurd to reduce the body specs to tuber dimensions. It would be pure lunacy.

Now that all the cool kids play with bodiless it seems equally absurd to increase the spec to match bodies. (An idea that was kicked around at the time, but declined to do to avoid make some tubers illegal)

I am not saying the Spec rules will never change, but I am 99% sure its not happening anytime soon


WE will however be defining what a body to help those needing more clarity

[BC-Brian]

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Its a body. Even if you make it out of Delrin its still a body.







The Rules Committee has lengthy discussions on almost every topic and then condenses those discussion down into manageable text. Do we cover every possibility in those final drafts.....No. Thats why we added the intent rule. Because every so often people try to do things that goes against what is clearly a violation. Your first clue that something might be wrong is when you have to put so much effort into justifying why its legal.




In 2006 it would seem absurd to reduce the body specs to tuber dimensions. It would be pure lunacy.

Now that all the cool kids play with bodiless it seems equally absurd to increase the spec to match bodies. (An idea that was kicked around at the time, but declined to do to avoid make some tubers illegal)

I am not saying the Spec rules will never change, but I am 99% sure its not happening anytime soon


WE will however be defining what a body to help those needing more clarity

We don't have a rules committee at every event so naturally things like this pop up. I appreciate you guys taking the time to clarify the ruling so we have more information for future determination.

[articzap]

Originally Posted by BC-Brian

▪ 2.1.4 - Bodied vehicles: Any support chassis allowed

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]This is the only rule about Bodies. If they want to say a bodied vehicle is any single formed shell comprised of any material. Then we can call it a body.

The fact that is, it's not a purchased body, it resembles my bodiless vehicle that passed inspection at 2011 nationals, and Does have body panels.

To others points, why is there a difference in classification sizes, and how much advantage do you really think it offers. If you think it offers little advantage then what is the problem?

You want me to believe your cab is not a body, right? Well prove it to me.

What is your definition of a body? What makes your cab not a body? You avoid answering this question. How are going to argue the fact that it is a bodiless cab when you can't tell me what YOU think a body is.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but you should be able to defend yourself and know both sides of the argument, if you want to make the argument.

[BC-Brian]

The point is that they have not defined what a body is so who is to say what is or isn't.

Does it resemble a body. sure. As I have said before I took this design to the very edge. I can do alot of things to make it different, but I wanted to identfy a gap in the rules and determine how to move forward.

Fish says they are going to define body so maybe we will have our answer.

Without testing the boundaries how are we supposed to know where they are. The ultimate point is that wether you like it or not it meets all the requirements of a Bodiless vehicle. So lets clarify the rules. I am not going to go into a HULK rage if I cannot use my topper. The point still remains for those of us who want to push the limits we need to know where the line is and vague rules don't help.