2016 RCCA Traditional Comp class rule updates

[JohnRobHolmes]

There will be some changes to the rules for 2016, here is your more than half a year warning


2.2 Sport- will be renamed 2.2 Shafty (or Shafted, Shaft, etc..)- Motor and transmission will be defined as chassis mounted. In other words, MOA "shafty" rigs will no longer be allowed in this class.


2.2 Pro- Will be renamed 2.2 Modified- Motors will be limited to two motors. This is forward effort to keep motor-in-wheel and dual motor on axle vehicles out. I feel if 4 motor vehicles were allows to populate this class it would effectively wipe out remaining support for MOA designs like the berg, xr, and bully.

Unlimited classes- Mini and Standard unlimited classes will remain completely open. Motor in wheel, 4 wheel steering, adjustable wheelbase, and any other crazy ideas can be build into this class of rig.




http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/usrcc...-rulesets.html

[Zarizi Tech]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

There will be some changes to the rules for 2016, here is your more than half a year warning


2.2S class- Motor will be defined as chassis mounted. In other words, front axle mounted "shafty" rigs will no longer be allowed in this class.



I would also like to discuss allowing these soon to be outlawed MOA shafty rigs into 2.2P class with 4 wheel steering. Just a thought to spice things up a bit, nothing more than a thought.

That sounds like my kinda s**t! It's good to know this change to become early. Thanks JRH.

[Robbob]

PURELY just a question .... is there any other plans or thoughts about things to limit in the 2.2S class that would help bring the cost (or image) of the class down to help get fresher people in?

IE: weight minimums, chassis materials .....

Applaud the 'shafty moa' ruling coming into play

[JohnRobHolmes]

Even weight limits aren't so good at keeping cost down, folks will still spend the money for light and just add more knuckleweight and have even further advantage. The only way to lock in low cost is a spec class, which is practically what the stock trail class is now. But you get a choice of more than just one vehicle.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Even weight limits aren't so good at keeping cost down, folks will still spend the money for light and just add more knuckleweight and have even further advantage. The only way to lock in low cost is a spec class, which is practically what the stock trail class is now. But you get a choice of more than just one vehicle.

Limit the amount of knuckle weight used

[crawlinghulls]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Limit the amount of knuckle weight used

How about a minimum weight and no knuckle weights

[SkaldidDog]

If 2.2P goes to rear steer or undergoes spec changes (no wts etc) or changes in a manner that makes current pro rigs uncompetitive or illegal, then you'll have to count me out of RC crawling. Sad that more difficult/complex/expensive rigs may replace a class that newbs already find almost impossible to break into. Don't change the foundation of comp crawling. It'll only make attendance worse. Spice it up, but count me out.

Old School

[JohnRobHolmes]

We already have the unlimited class for 4ws and such. The mention of allowing a shafty to compete in 2.2moa with 4ws is just for discussion of what folks with shafty moa rigs could do, besides the change of 2.2S requiring chassis mount motors for 2016 there is nothing else changing at this time.

[SkaldidDog]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

allowing a shafty to compete in 2.2moa with 4ws

These would kill current pro rigs. Current shaftys are almost there without rear steer. This is the kind of pro class spec changes I was referring to.

[Zarizi Tech]

Originally Posted by SkaldidDog

These would kill current pro rigs. Current shaftys are almost there without rear steer. This is the kind of pro class spec changes I was referring to.

Not sure if they would kill it, but you may have a point. And since there are not so many of these builds yet, this kind of change in the rules is not needed. I'll just use the parts from my shafty to spare parts of my pro next year.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Dang, I need to get up on the latest shafty rigs if they are back on the level of MOA! It was just a point for discussion, so don't worry about something so drastic happening to our existing classic classes.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Dang, I need to get up on the latest shafty rigs if they are back on the level of MOA! It was just a point for discussion, so don't worry about something so drastic happening to our existing classic classes.

Id just like to see the existing 2.2S class taken back a bit to almost a grass root scenario. Leave the 2.2P alone, the hardcores will stay. Innovation wont suffer in 2.2S like some think but its a breeding ground for future 2.2P drivers.

Thats the only reason I brought up limitations on shafty's. Personally not a fan of these unlimited/run what you brung classes. I race and even in that theres too many classes and attendance is still crappy.

[SkaldidDog]

The point of shafty was a gateway to pro. Some bad ass builders worked within the rules to develop rigs that no ordinary shafty can compete with. See 2014 Worlds. Anyone without one of these is bringing a knife to a gun fight this year. Clarify the rules to keep sporty the introductory class. More classes are not good for crawling. We need consistent classes with rig specs that vendors can target. We need another XR10 like product. If the core class rigs (pro and sporty) change specs or overall design then vendors may bow out.

Guys should always push the boundaries of design within class rules. That's when the rules need to be tuned to adhere to the intention of the class.

[tapped-out]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

Dang, I need to get up on the latest shafty rigs if they are back on the level of MOA! It was just a point for discussion, so don't worry about something so drastic happening to our existing classic classes.

Thanks JRH, I'm glad changing 2.2p specs was only for discussion.
IMO 2.2p class specs are perfect & don't need any fine tuning/tweaking.
2.2s I understand the clarification on this class spec (chassis mounted motor).
Although I loved the 2.2s berg rig, this driver really thought outside the box
Staying with in class specs.

[Zarizi Tech]

Originally Posted by SkaldidDog

The point of shafty was a gateway to pro. Some bad ass builders worked within the rules to develop rigs that no ordinary shafty can compete with. See 2014 Worlds. Anyone without one of these is bringing a knife to a gun fight this year. Clarify the rules to keep sporty the introductory class. More classes are not good for crawling. We need consistent classes with rig specs that vendors can target. We need another XR10 like product. If the core class rigs (pro and sporty) change specs or overall design then vendors may bow out.

Guys should always push the boundaries of design within class rules. That's when the rules need to be tuned to adhere to the intention of the class.

I completely agree with Joel on this one. In my head there will be four classes next year as well.

[KingGee]

I also completely agree as well with Joel. Leave Pro alone as well as super as it seems those are the only 2 classes that are still running smoothly. Complicating the pro class would end up destroying the comp scene. Leave the 4WS pro's out of the equation and leave it as a thought. You want to have a MOA 4ws comp rig....build a super.

[cboggs]

Keeping pro and super classes running the same which have been doing fine for years is a smart move. If you include 4WS into pro that's going to kill the most popular and well ran class in comp crawling. Make your chassis mounted motor rule in 2.2s and call it good in that class. Maybe its just me but the only class that needs spicing up would be the 1.9 class. Try not to make additional classes as then it would be getting out of control and a nightmare for events to run through all these in a weekend. All we need is better organization and promotion, not changing everything comp crawling has stood for since the beginning.

[JohnRobHolmes]

Since my discussion point has already veered into folks shaking fists about kids on the lawn, I'll ask that yall stay focused and bring up current issues that need addressing instead of writing "what if" paragraphs about impending death at all angles. I should know better than to brainstorm publicly, you guys freak out faster than my Puerto Rican ex.


I agree that four main pro comp classes is a good number, or more precisely four course types that could work for multiple classes.

[SkaldidDog]

Got the Puerto Rican kids off my lawn.

RC Crawler Super License for you would be a good thing. Other than that just keep up the kick ass crawler parts. The comp scene is in the hands of local clubs and the organizers and competitors of qualifiers. We are all responsible for the future of comp crawling at this point.

[Zarizi Tech]

Originally Posted by JohnRobHolmes

There will be some changes to the rules for 2016, here is your more than half a year warning


2.2S class- Motor will be defined as chassis mounted. In other words, front axle mounted "shafty" rigs will no longer be allowed in this class.



I would also like to discuss allowing these soon to be outlawed MOA shafty rigs into 2.2P class with 4 wheel steering. Just a thought to spice things up a bit, nothing more than a thought.



Also, please note that we have "Unlimited" 12" and 16" gate vehicles for 2015. So you can take that 1.9 course or 2.2 course and throw some crazy vehicles into them. No limits!

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/usrcc...-rulesets.html

John, please make sure to consider all the options while writing the new rule down.... TGS shafty