austinquattro
Newbie
Ok, I'm not trying to stir the pot, or pour salt on a wound, or add fuel to the flame...
I'm really trying to get an idea of what people think concerning the 2.2 class and the ability of the shaftys to compete with the MOA's.
Recently I attended a few R/C Rock Crawling competitions with a friend and promptly revived an interest in R/C cars that was absent since the '80's when I got my first RC-10 with the Gold Aluminum Tub Chassis. I purchased an AX-10 and spent quite a bit on modifications, as well as a lot of time fabricating things. I know they are not scale, but they at least are somewhat representative of a vehicle you may see at the Monster Truck races, or at a 1:1 scale rock crawling event.
Then, as I attended a few competitions, I noticed the MOA rigs. They seem to no longer even represent an evolution of the R/C truck or car as much as they represent an evolution of 4-wheel robotics. I've followed SCCA, NASCAR, INDY, IMSA...all 1:1 scale events. I know that 1:1 is different than 1/10th scale, but a few parallels are evident. In 1:1, rules are set out TO KEEP COMPETITION FAIR, not to inhibit advancements or enterprising solutions to common problems. In fact, the rules actually foster advancements. And what generally happens is this--someone finds a better way to make something or do something and gets away with it because it falls within the rules. It does, however, make it more difficult for the small teams to compete with the big boys since they often don't have the same level of sponsorship and money available. So, the powers that be look at the advancement or change or tweaked part, and usually change the rule to outlaw that. The point is, "Shafty's" are a DIFFERENT technology than the MOA's. Not better or worse, but different entirely. Thousands of people across the country have purchased Shafty's and R/C Rock Crawling has been responsible for drawing more people into R/C than anything else in many years. As a result, many advances have been made and many companies have grown. Now, the MOA's have started to dominate local competitions in such a way that people are beginning to see their options as A) Get an MOA to be competitive, or B) Don't compete. The MOA's can dig BOTH FRONT AND REAR axles, move each axle at different speeds and in different directions, and have nearly unlimited breakover, which fundamentally changes the dynamics of the "vehicle".
I'm not suggesting that MOA's be outlawed in any way, just that they and the Shafty's compete in different classes, just as there is a "scale" class and a "super" class. The folks running the MOA's would then face better competition and the National events would feature better drivers and rigs, and better products would emerge (MOA aftermarket development would probably get better too). And the Shafty's would likewise give one another better competition and focus more on the driver than on the guy who can use his checkbook to outrun the competition.
But one of the most important reasons to separate the two is both for the manufacturer of Shafty rigs and the aftermarket. Clearly, the 2.2 class is pointing towards MOA's as the only choice if competitiveness is the goal. That would limit the amount of available rigs that could be used, and it would limit the aftermarket for those rigs. The more people that are interested in R/C the more it grows, and the more advancements occur, and the more money is pumped into it.
Rules are made for a reason, and I believe, as do many others, that in this case the rules are to promote fairness and competitive spirit as well as to limit, to some extent, how different a vehicle can be so that competition is close. In Professional Drag Racing, Nitrous Oxide, known as a "cheater" technique when it first came about, is fully acceptable--but in it's own class! And Super Chargers are allowed in one class, while Normally Aspirated engines are in another class. And slicks in some but only street tires in others. In R/C competitions, the rules must have emerged and evolved in some way from 1:1 scale competitions. And in keeping with that, separating the MOA's from the Shafty's will do more for the "sport" than keeping them together. It's not an issue of not wanting to compete, but more an issue of wanting to compete with something like what I'm running. Bring a knife to a knife fight and a gun to a gun fight. The MOA is like a gun in a knife fight, where as I'd rather see better, sharper, more unique knives fighting one another.
I don't think anyone would agree that racing a sailboat against a motorboat is fair or reasonable, or a propeller plane against a jet. Or a NASCAR vehicle against an open wheel racer. Or even a four wheel drive vehicle against a two wheel drive one. Likewise, insisting that the MOA's should compete in the same class as Shafty's does not seem reasonable, fair, or in the interest of serving R/C racing as a whole, especially R/C Rock Crawling. Rules constantly change and are modified as advances take place in every sport in the world. Aluminum bats are not allowed in MLB, and if they were, then everyone would have to get an aluminum bat due the competitive advantage they allow. That's why they are not in MLB.
So, does anyone have any input on this? I'm I crazy?
I'm really trying to get an idea of what people think concerning the 2.2 class and the ability of the shaftys to compete with the MOA's.
Recently I attended a few R/C Rock Crawling competitions with a friend and promptly revived an interest in R/C cars that was absent since the '80's when I got my first RC-10 with the Gold Aluminum Tub Chassis. I purchased an AX-10 and spent quite a bit on modifications, as well as a lot of time fabricating things. I know they are not scale, but they at least are somewhat representative of a vehicle you may see at the Monster Truck races, or at a 1:1 scale rock crawling event.
Then, as I attended a few competitions, I noticed the MOA rigs. They seem to no longer even represent an evolution of the R/C truck or car as much as they represent an evolution of 4-wheel robotics. I've followed SCCA, NASCAR, INDY, IMSA...all 1:1 scale events. I know that 1:1 is different than 1/10th scale, but a few parallels are evident. In 1:1, rules are set out TO KEEP COMPETITION FAIR, not to inhibit advancements or enterprising solutions to common problems. In fact, the rules actually foster advancements. And what generally happens is this--someone finds a better way to make something or do something and gets away with it because it falls within the rules. It does, however, make it more difficult for the small teams to compete with the big boys since they often don't have the same level of sponsorship and money available. So, the powers that be look at the advancement or change or tweaked part, and usually change the rule to outlaw that. The point is, "Shafty's" are a DIFFERENT technology than the MOA's. Not better or worse, but different entirely. Thousands of people across the country have purchased Shafty's and R/C Rock Crawling has been responsible for drawing more people into R/C than anything else in many years. As a result, many advances have been made and many companies have grown. Now, the MOA's have started to dominate local competitions in such a way that people are beginning to see their options as A) Get an MOA to be competitive, or B) Don't compete. The MOA's can dig BOTH FRONT AND REAR axles, move each axle at different speeds and in different directions, and have nearly unlimited breakover, which fundamentally changes the dynamics of the "vehicle".
I'm not suggesting that MOA's be outlawed in any way, just that they and the Shafty's compete in different classes, just as there is a "scale" class and a "super" class. The folks running the MOA's would then face better competition and the National events would feature better drivers and rigs, and better products would emerge (MOA aftermarket development would probably get better too). And the Shafty's would likewise give one another better competition and focus more on the driver than on the guy who can use his checkbook to outrun the competition.
But one of the most important reasons to separate the two is both for the manufacturer of Shafty rigs and the aftermarket. Clearly, the 2.2 class is pointing towards MOA's as the only choice if competitiveness is the goal. That would limit the amount of available rigs that could be used, and it would limit the aftermarket for those rigs. The more people that are interested in R/C the more it grows, and the more advancements occur, and the more money is pumped into it.
Rules are made for a reason, and I believe, as do many others, that in this case the rules are to promote fairness and competitive spirit as well as to limit, to some extent, how different a vehicle can be so that competition is close. In Professional Drag Racing, Nitrous Oxide, known as a "cheater" technique when it first came about, is fully acceptable--but in it's own class! And Super Chargers are allowed in one class, while Normally Aspirated engines are in another class. And slicks in some but only street tires in others. In R/C competitions, the rules must have emerged and evolved in some way from 1:1 scale competitions. And in keeping with that, separating the MOA's from the Shafty's will do more for the "sport" than keeping them together. It's not an issue of not wanting to compete, but more an issue of wanting to compete with something like what I'm running. Bring a knife to a knife fight and a gun to a gun fight. The MOA is like a gun in a knife fight, where as I'd rather see better, sharper, more unique knives fighting one another.
I don't think anyone would agree that racing a sailboat against a motorboat is fair or reasonable, or a propeller plane against a jet. Or a NASCAR vehicle against an open wheel racer. Or even a four wheel drive vehicle against a two wheel drive one. Likewise, insisting that the MOA's should compete in the same class as Shafty's does not seem reasonable, fair, or in the interest of serving R/C racing as a whole, especially R/C Rock Crawling. Rules constantly change and are modified as advances take place in every sport in the world. Aluminum bats are not allowed in MLB, and if they were, then everyone would have to get an aluminum bat due the competitive advantage they allow. That's why they are not in MLB.
So, does anyone have any input on this? I'm I crazy?
Last edited:
