2013 Rules

[HARDKNOCKZ]

Originally Posted by Olle P

No, my argument is that if one "attempt" is the entire time from clearing one gate until clearing the next (which is the way I read it) then you can pretty much
- clear one front wheel (or both) through the gate,
- back up,
- drive both front wheels past on the outside of the gate,
- steer in and get one rear wheel through (in the intended direction).
Once the entire rig is past the gate line the gate will be cleared with a 10pt gate penalty (not all four wheels passing between the markers) and 1pt for backing up.
Right?

(The reason for such a manoeuvre could for example be to get a good line for the next gate.)

Im sorry thats how you read it but that couldn't be more wrong.

I dont think we need to actually DEFINE the word attempt here but if we did, I wouldn't say that a new attempt starts the instant you leave the previous gate.

Riddle me this: If you left your house, drove 30 minutes to the grocery store & looked for a parking spot for another 30 minutes in the busy lot, would you tell me that you attempted to find a parking spot for over an hour? Would you include your drive time in that attempt to find parking?

Of course you wouldn't. No...your "attempt" at gate 3 does not start the second you leave gate 2. Even if it DID...what difference does that make? You may not enter a gate, back out of it & enter it from the wrong direction without incurring a 10 point penalty & a reposition. You have now broken the intended course direction rule REGARDLESS of when your attempt started.

Simplified: You may not break any rule just because you entered a gate. Once you left that gate, you have completed that attempt. It doesn't matter WHEN or WHERE your new attempt begins.

JD

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by HARDKNOCKZ

Riddle me this: If you left your house, drove 30 minutes to the grocery store & looked for a parking spot for another 30 minutes in the busy lot, would you tell me that you attempted to find a parking spot for over an hour? Would you include your drive time in that attempt to find parking?

Reaching the parking lot is (usually) not a problem.
Getting close to, or simply move into a position to reach, the next gate in a crawler course can be problematic. (In the one competition I took part there were several gates where I'd consider an attempt to clear a gate to actually start before clearing the previous one, because the line(s) available would depend highly on how the previous gate was exited.)

To me it's much more like alpine skiing, where the ability to pass a gate is often highly dependant on how you pass the previous one. But that's just for starting the attempt.
It's more interesting if/when/how an attempt is ended without clearing the gate, starting a new attempt on the same gate.

Originally Posted by HARDKNOCKZ

...your "attempt" at gate 3 does not start the second you leave gate 2. Even if it DID... what difference does that make? You may not enter a gate, back out of it & enter it from the wrong direction...

The rules committee just somewhat opposed that:

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

From the Rules committee:
... If a tire enters a gate in the wrong direction with out previously entering in the right direction, it is an illegal move ...

1. If I, during the same attempt, enter a wheel that previously entered in the right direction, it's fine.
2. If an attempt is not ended until the gate is cleared it's fine to "clear" one wheel at a time before passing the gate completely (on the side, if desired) to clear the gate.

Originally Posted by Fishmaxx

Thats not our intent in writing the rule. What wording would better define it for you?

To provide a better wording for the definition I must first know the intention of this rule, which I don't.
For a starter you could just remove the "attempt of the course" part in rules 1.10 and 1.12 (or change "course" to "gate"), since that phrase as written obviously leads away from the intention.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by Olle P

Reaching the parking lot is (usually) not a problem.
Getting close to, or simply move into a position to reach, the next gate in a crawler course can be problematic. (In the one competition I took part there were several gates where I'd consider an attempt to clear a gate to actually start before clearing the previous one, because the line(s) available would depend highly on how the previous gate was exited.)

To me it's much more like alpine skiing, where the ability to pass a gate is often highly dependant on how you pass the previous one. But that's just for starting the attempt.
It's more interesting if/when/how an attempt is ended without clearing the gate, starting a new attempt on the same gate.

The rules committee just somewhat opposed that:
1. If I, during the same attempt, enter a wheel that previously entered in the right direction, it's fine.
2. If an attempt is not ended until the gate is cleared it's fine to "clear" one wheel at a time before passing the gate completely (on the side, if desired) to clear the gate.

To provide a better wording for the definition I must first know the intention of this rule, which I don't.
For a starter you could just remove the "attempt of the course" part in rules 1.10 and 1.12 (or change "course" to "gate"), since that phrase as written obviously leads away from the intention.

Are you serious?
Let me put this in a better context for you, because the adult one is not working.

you put your left foot in,
you take left foot out ,

New attempt.

you put your right foot in
then your right foot out,

Guess what, new attempt...

There is no interpretation of this rule.
Rules committee explicitly ruled your interpretation is incorrect...



This talk is over.

[Olle P]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

There is no interpretation of this rule.
Rules committee explicitly ruled your interpretation is incorrect...

This talk is over.

If you consider this 25 page (and any future additions) thread to be "the rules", then you're probably about right...

... but I don't think it's handy to scrutinize all of these pages to find out what the rules really are.

Instead the discussion now boils down to what the rules should say about attempts, to clarify the intention(s).

I think an addition in section 6 (glossary) defining the term "Attempt", as used in the rules, is in order.
1. There needs to be defined that there can be more than one attempt per gate and run.
2. It needs to be defined what conditon(s) must be fulfilled for one attempt (to clear a gate) to end.

[JeremyH]

Can we also please define the terms "rule" and "crawler"?

[HARDKNOCKZ]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

Are you serious?
Let me put this in a better context for you, because the adult one is not working.

you put your left foot in,
you take left foot out ,

New attempt.

you put your right foot in
then your right foot out,

Guess what, new attempt...

There is no interpretation of this rule.
Rules committee explicitly ruled your interpretation is incorrect...



This talk is over.

OK...but what about when you go to shake it all about? Is THAT a new attempt or is that WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT?

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by HARDKNOCKZ

OK...but what about when you go to shake it all about? Is THAT a new attempt or is that WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT?

After you turn yourself around, THAT'S what it's all about.

[chad30w]

It's cracks me up how the rules committee has to sit here and babysit some people, and get the crayons out to get you people to understand. Just drive te trucks thru the gates, you don't need a crafty process if you have a truck that works simple as that. If ya gotta have a twenty page discuss in order to clean a gate as you say the course designer failed....... In my opinion . But I bet ya some where out there some one could clean the gate in question with out the crafty approach

[ROWDY RACING]

Originally Posted by chad30w

It's cracks me up how the rules committee has to sit here and babysit some people, and get the crayons out to get you people to understand. Just drive te trucks thru the gates, you don't need a crafty process if you have a truck that works simple as that. If ya gotta have a twenty page discuss in order to clean a gate as you say the course designer failed....... In my opinion . But I bet ya some where out there some one could clean the gate in question with out the crafty approach

We like arts and crafts, and the hokie pokie.

[The Violator]

Originally Posted by chad30w

It's cracks me up how the rules committee has to sit here and babysit some people, and get the crayons out to get you people to understand. Just drive te trucks thru the gates, you don't need a crafty process if you have a truck that works simple as that. If ya gotta have a twenty page discuss in order to clean a gate as you say the course designer failed....... In my opinion . But I bet ya some where out there some one could clean the gate in question with out the crafty approach

I wanna drive over my foot backwards through the gates that never start or finish. And I am gonna argue until Obama issues an executive order saying I am wrong.

[Calderwood]

Krawlfreak asked for one of us to ask in this thread so here it is. Lets hear 8 pages of how I'm wrong...

Originally Posted by noahzhou

Thank you very much.



The minimum overall height of 2.2 is 3.75''. But I do not know how to measure the height.



Let the vehicle in a flat surface?







Or let the chasis horizontal？

Originally Posted by nigels_world

Definitely A.

Originally Posted by stubs179

B is correct. You could make any height chassis legal if A was correct.

Originally Posted by josh6575

If it was b then the Mantis would have never made it when it was 3.75".

Originally Posted by TheWheelman

I am pretty sure option "A" is correct

Originally Posted by Erik D_lux

I would agree with Stubs, I am not sure there is a definition though.



With that chassis, I would be more concerned that the "hood" is less than 1" shorter than the "roof".

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

it is measured as the truck would sit on the tech table, so neither of those are correct. ( althought A looks like it might be close to the actual ride height position.)



i would agree with dlux on the A pillar rise possibly not being the right spec. i am also not sure if it meets the width as is...

Originally Posted by Erik D_lux

Still siding with "b"

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

of course you are



2.1.2

Originally Posted by Erik D_lux

The illustration does not go against what you said? Sure looks like it does....



If its how it sits on the table, is that full compression, extension, whatever you want, however it sits naturally? Your idea seems pretty confusing and non repeatable compared to what is illustrated in the rules.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

read 2.1.2 and you will understand.



feel free to bring it up in the rules section and we can take 8 pages to tell you that you are wrong...

Originally Posted by nigels_world

Wtf are you talking about? The a picture is sitting on a table. How is that not correct?





▪ 2.1.2 - All vehicle specifications regardless of class, body or bodiless the measurements are to be taken in the vehicle's ready to run condition while sitting on a flat surface (i.e. tech table).

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

do you drive your truck without tires?



ready to run condition, thats wtf i am talkin abooouuuut!

Originally Posted by nigels_world

How are tires going to affect measuring the cab? The whole thing will just be taller.... we aren't measuring from the table.

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

well i guess you got it all figured out..



like i said, bring it up in the rules section so all of the rules committee members can take their turn explaining that you are wrong. maybe someone other than i can explain it in a better way.

Originally Posted by nigels_world

I don't understand why you think anything would change when putting tires on A. To me B is obviously wrong since we don't hold our trucks at a weird angle while we measure them but I don't see how you can say that A isn't right either.

[ROWDY RACING]

A! That's how it would sit rtr on the tech table.

[krawlfreak]

the 8 page comment was directed to the few saying B was the correct way and tried to argue the rule ....wich it most certainly is not the correct way to measure height!!

then you jumped in with the attitude.

put tires on and present it ready to run, and if the position of A stays the same then you are fine.

if you are at a comp, the judges are NOT going to tech it the way the photo is showning... thats all i am saying..

argue away!

[Calderwood]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

the 8 page comment was directed to the few saying B was the correct way and tried to argue the rule ....wich it most certainly is not the correct way to measure height!!

then you jumped in with the attitude.

put tires on and present it ready to run, and if the position of A stays the same then you are fine.

if you are at a comp, the judges are NOT going to tech it the way the photo is showning... thats all i am saying..

argue away!

No attitude from me homey. I moved this over here like you asked to get clarity on the a b argument and Ill say it again, I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. The guy wants to know which way you measure a cab and since nothing would change in a when you add tires a is clearly correct. He didn't say he was going to try to pass tech without tires... Come on.

[ROWDY RACING]

A! Dammit!

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by nigels_world

No attitude from me homey. I moved this over here like you asked to get clarity on the a b argument and Ill say it again, I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. The guy wants to know which way you measure a cab and since nothing would change in a when you add tires a is clearly correct. He didn't say he was going to try to pass tech without tires... Come on.

i am not arguing with you, A already, as long as nothing changes in the ready to run stance.

B is wrong,

[Calderwood]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

i am not arguing with you, A already, as long as nothing changes in the ready to run stance.

B is wrong,

I knew you would come to your senses.

[krawlfreak]

Originally Posted by nigels_world

I knew you would come to your senses.

same thing i was saying since the beginning..

glad you feel better about yourself now

[JeremyH]

C!!

[Jslick]

Bacon, damn that was not a choice.