Petition for unified body/bodiless measurements

[Speedracer19]

Originally Posted by HARDKNOCKZ

The weight watchers haven't jumped on your idea simply because the chassis still has to WORK. Screwing shocks & links to a stick may save a ton of weight but what good is that weight savings if the rig works like poo?

Your right, but i never said stick did I? But since everyone on this tread is playing "what if" i thought i would give it a whirl...seems that Yocci has been working on it and has a pretty good handle on it.

[Speedracer19]

Originally Posted by RcBro

Most lexan bodies weight more then a full cf bodiless rig

Maybe, but i've seen holes drilled in them, aka Stubs179 and if the rules are changed to make bodies small you can always use thinner lexan

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

One day things will change, if it is not with usrcca it will be with another association.

Sorry I called you a name, it was un called for.

But you might have the answer, Those that don't like the USRCCA rules, could then go build another association instead of trying to tear this one apart. That way everyone is happy.

[TSK]

I'd like to know who is gonna strong arm the body manufacturers into making smaller comp specific bodies for what is still a just a small blip of a segment in the RC universe.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by TheSCorpionKing

I'd like to know who is gonna strong arm the body manufacturers into making smaller comp specific bodies for what is still a just a small blip of a segment in the RC universe.

They already do.

We just have to find one within those specs and fit our needs. You know like the old days



Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[ROWDY RACING]

Has the rules committee began talking about this most recent issue yet?

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Sorry I called you a name, it was un called for.

But you might have the answer, Those that don't like the USRCCA rules, could then go build another association instead of trying to tear this one apart. That way everyone is happy.

In all honestly the reluctance to change anything, advertise, or publicize the events, or listen to the masses is what is tearing the current association apart..

I personally would like to see that changed, but some are a little hard headed about the matter.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

In all honestly the reluctance to change anything, advertise, or publicize the events, or listen to the masses is what is tearing the current association apart..

Not to change the subject but has anyone gone to the manufacturers out there and even asked what they would like seen done?

It seemed like things were going in a positive direction up to the World's. After the debockle of happenings and the USRCCA uncertainty they all just about jumped ship.

I mean you can't even get a GC3 anymore and that was picked up by a company that showed signs of wanting involvement.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Originally Posted by ROWDY RACING

Has the rules committee began talking about this most recent issue yet?

Waiting for krawlerfreak to bring it up.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

In all honestly the reluctance to change anything, advertise, or publicize the events, or listen to the masses is what is tearing the current association apart..

I personally would like to see that changed, but some are a little hard headed about the matter.

I'm up for change if change is good. I ready to see what you got. Bring all the changes up for reveiw, talk cheap, do work.

[BC-Brian]

Before I start, don't you guys have turkey to eat or something....

Originally Posted by HARDKNOCKZ

Holy moly thats a lotta poop!

I think the arguments can be made without name calling & harsh words. Claiming Jeremy is simple minded is not only unnecessary but IMO...kinda silly based on his constant innovation in our sport. I may not agree or fully subscribe to his thoughts or opinions on the matter but he...like many are only trying to further the sport by finding that new edge. I see nothing wrong with that as long as it all stays within the scope of the current rules. There's nothing wrong with stating a case to change those rules but turning to insults to defend current rulings will only muddy the waters.

I was definitely digging this discussion before it got "heated". We all have different opinions and we are all clearly passionate about crawling, so lets see if we can figure this crap out.

Originally Posted by Robbob

They already do.

We just have to find one within those specs and fit our needs. You know like the old days

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

Anyone ever think maybe the body MFG's would jump at the opportunity to release a new design. They already have all the tooling to make the parts. If i can do it in my stove after 4 hours of work, imagine what they can do.

As for bolting shocks and links to the initial body I designed, that was not the intention, since I am running the Secret Agent and they have graciously provided me with all those mounting points on the bottom half of the rig.

Who would have thought the can of worms this sh!t would open
But I would be in favor of unified rules as well. Plain and simple, less grey area, and room to be creative. People that want to rock panelized bodiless rigs can do so, and people that want to run bodied can do so.

Go with the minimum dimensions as discussed previously. The bodiless guys have some room to slam their rigs and get the CG a bit lower, and the guys with bodies have the option to run a smaller lid if they want to (maybe the keep the regular body because they like how it performs upside down, who knows).

My $0.02

[jeremyfowler33]

Originally Posted by BC-Brian

Go with the minimum dimensions as discussed previously. The bodiless guys have some room to slam their rigs and get the CG a bit lower, and the guys with bodies have the option to run a smaller lid if they want to (maybe the keep the regular body because they like how it performs upside down, who knows).

My $0.02

This was my suggestion in the very begining it seems to be the best way I believe and no one gets hurt and it lets you have more of a choice for your 2.2s rigs!

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by jeremyfowler33

2.2s rigs!

Pretty sure they are talking 2.2p here, I do not see 2.2s changing.

[DickyT]

Originally Posted by Speedracer19

mount the electronics behind the motor and the battery to the front axle, with nothing in a postage stamp sized chassis,..

fixed it

[krawlfreak]

Well here it is..

The specifics are being left out until we can determine if it is a viable request from the public voting.

The idea is to unify the measurements between body and bodiless trucks in 2.2 pro by reducing the body minimums to the bodiless area. I say area because there has been discussion on the board about using a shorter cab measurement for the bodiless spec( so for shits and giggles lets call it 3 tall, 3 wide and 8 long)

Keep it civil, make a vote and let's see where this goes.

[ROWDY RACING]

I vote yay.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by ROCKEDUP RICKY

Waiting for krawlerfreak to bring it up.


I'm up for change if change is good. I ready to see what you got. Bring all the changes up for reveiw, talk cheap, do work.

Posted in rules

And let's hear what the Public has to say.

Keep in mind this is for 22 pro only!

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/rules...surements.html

[ROWDY RACING]

Nice move Krawl, I believe more things around here should be voted on by the public.

[The Violator]

I would say if they are going to unify the sizes, it should eliminate the difference between the two. Just an overall size. There is no need to have them look scale. Push the envelope and make what works best regardless of what it looks like as long as it meets the minimum size. If I want to run a brick, as long as it is the proper size I should be allowed to.

[RcBro]

I vote yes, only makes sense to me and leaves more options for everyone

[DickyT]

Originally Posted by RcBro

I vote yes, only makes sense to me and leaves more options for everyone

You should click the poll at the top Will

Voted Yes. But it will need to be clear and not lose sight of them being 'trucks'. Things like minimum height from where the hood and windshield meet to the roof line should stay. With defined hood, roof, and sides with minimums for each, so that they continue to resemble vehicles and don't become just abstract shapes on wheels.