2013 Rules

[ittybitty]

Although I know this doesn't answer your questions I thought you might not have seen the previous discussions concerning what you are talking about...

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/axial...sportsman.html

[ittybitty]

Although I know this doesn't answer your questions I thought you might not have seen the previous discussions concerning what you are talking about...

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/axial...sportsman.html

[ROWDY RACING]

2.2 shafty is not going to change for 2013, or the forseeable future as far as I know.

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

Was curious if theres any update on the New rules taking effect in the very near future? Thanks

[BC-Brian]

I am also curious to know when the 2013 rules will go Live!

Exciting times.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

Real soon, you'll be all right, don't worry.

[Tomy]

Sorry for posting this here as the rules are not published yet. But the 2012 rules thread is closed.

I was told this question has been discussed before. Despite searches, I could not find this discussion.

So on to my question. I this considered a legal way to achieve minimum chassis width (shocks spaced out and plastic strips added from shock mount to chassis)?

[BC-Brian]

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

▪ 2.1.5.1.7 - 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.

In my opinion... You should be good. As long as you are not counting the screw heads in your measurements. If you really wanted to be on the safe side you could incorperate that small piece into your side panel and they you are definitly to the letter of the law.

Nice looking rig BTW.

[Fishmaxx]

Official Link added to post #1

During a brief public review I have some highlighted rules.

Please feel free to mention punctuation, grammar, and spelling issues

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

Awesome thanks for the changes Fish. Just so I'm 100 % sure,others want too know as well,Is my rig in the picture above legal width by having my "sliders'' protect the shocks?

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by Tomy

So on to my question. I this considered a legal way to achieve minimum chassis width (shocks spaced out and plastic strips added from shock mount to chassis)?

Clearly with these 2 rules in place we were trying to prevent this kind of technique to achieve minimum widths even though it specifically did not include the exact method you used. You can push it if you want, but that will probably result in rule review.


▪ 2.1.5.5 - Body panels must be fitted to the vehicle, and not be exaggerated in size or shape that intentionally
distorts the vehicles legal measurements.

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

[Tomy]

I am sorry if I gave the impression I want to push and bend the rules. I don't. The rig in the picture I showed is not mine. I am merely asking if this is a legal way to achieve minimum width as I was told by forum members that the owner of this rig had run similar setups for two years already and that it had been considered a legal way when he first came up with the design.

So all I am asking for is a yes or no to this method. I do understand it may not be easy to answer as it may be "grey area".

And the bottom reason to my question, beeing a chassis builder, is that if this is in fact a legal way to achieve minimum width, then this is the obvious way to construct a very lightweight bodiless chassis as it reduces the lenght of hardware and spacers to a minimum.

Other comparable ways to go about getting to legal width may include the use of a delrin block, say shaped as a shark fin, fitted in front of the shocks. The builder may reason this is to protect the shocks or mimic a fender or anything else convenient.

As I have seen a few rigs on rcc constructed this way I just wanted to check if this is an accepted way to get to minimum dimensions. Similar techniques could be applied to legal lenght and height as well.

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

I don't want too push it and be the guy that people say ''Ur rigs not legal'' not my style. I will simply make a one piece ''wedge slider'' that is an extension of the chassis and wont include shocks or spacers into the measurement.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by Tomy

So all I am asking for is a yes or no to this method. I do understand it may not be easy to answer as it may be "grey area".

Definitely approaching the grey area, and we often end up amending the rules to make them more black and white. I would say that technique of achieving minimum width is not what IMO was the obvious intent of the rule. Yes it could be argued that is in compliance with the current wording. I personally would not go into mass production before it has been officially reviewed.

I am curious is the part in question a body panel or chassis part?

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by J-FAB NOR-CAL

I don't want too push it and be the guy that people say ''Ur rigs not legal'' not my style. I will simply make a one piece ''wedge slider'' that is an extension of the chassis and wont include shocks or spacers into the measurement.

No worries its a valid question, and I am giving my opinion. The rules have to be somewhat dynamic to adjust to things we did not consider.

If we had thought of that particular method at the time of the wording we would have different wording.

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

If we want to get real technical all bodiless are not legal by the rules stated if ''spacers'' and ''bolts'' shall not be used to get these bodiless minimums. All bodilles chassis that i've have seen use spacers and bolts to get their width.So when i came up with the idea for the sliders i figured,"I'm not using bolts or spacers to get my width,I'm using a ''slider'' to get my width''. Not trying to stir the pot and create a big issue,just stating my interpritation of the rules.

[ROCKEDUP RICKY]

One way to look at things and it will make it easier on all of us is, If the white starts to turn gray ,then stay in the white. The gray is trouble ,it's not good for the sport.


An other helpful thing when building a rig is, read all the rules and not just the ones you like.

To me these 2 rules tell me that rig is a little deep in the gray. If the strip is call a panel and then the strip needs 2 spots at 1inch and 3.5 square inches of area.


▪ 2.1.5.5 - Body panels must be fitted to the vehicle, and not be exaggerated in size or shape that intentionally
distorts the vehicles legal measurements.

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

[krawlfreak]

this is the exact reason i was pushing for smaller dimensions with strict measuring guidelines.

the legal dims are really easy to get around with the current rules and wording in place.
the sliders are another form of bumper which is specifically stated in the rules are a usable item to get to the overall measurement.

[Fishmaxx]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

this is the exact reason i was pushing for smaller dimensions with strict measuring guidelines.

the legal dims are really easy to get around with the current rules and wording in place.

Not sure what wanting smaller dimensions has to do with it. Why not fix the easy to "get around" wording with current dimensions.

I would be very interested in seeing some wording that clear this up regardless of the dimensions used.

[J-FAB NOR-CAL]

Originally Posted by krawlfreak

this is the exact reason i was pushing for smaller dimensions with strict measuring guidelines.

the legal dims are really easy to get around with the current rules and wording in place.
the sliders are another form of bumper which is specifically stated in the rules are a usable item to get to the overall measurement.

Well put, thanks Krawl. yeah the rules need to cut and dry,theres too many ''grey area's '' in the bodiless tech in itself. When the rules state that we are not limited to bumpers,side-rails,body panals etc. to get these minimums why not take advantage of them? And that is exactly what i have, a side-rail. Like I said i will make a ''side-rail'' that does not use spacers or shocks to get its width and there should be no ? to it being legal. And Tomy is right,this is the lightest way to construct a bodiless chassis as it uses shorter ''bolts and ''spacers'' . This is what the craze has been,lighter,more nimble trucks with the lightest chassis possible,and then add weight from there.So if we as builders get flak for taking advantage of the rules that state what we can use to get these minimum requirements we will be stuck in 2012 with no moving forward in pusing the limits of 2.2 pro bodiless chassis which is what i have clearly done.