I respectfully disagree that this sends a bad message to manufacturers. But even if you want to take that argument, think about Axial and what they've done for this sport and how they're being left out in the cold already. I've seen it happen in auto racing. Rules are often altered to keep costs and compeitiveness close once a potential loophole is discovered or utilized that is beyond the scope or the intent of the class. Maybe the rules makers all run MOAs?

And no one is suggesting banning MOA rigs. I think most folks are okay with them having their own class or becoming the new Super class. Speaking of, shouldn't Supers be the "premier" class, not 2.2?
engineerjoe, I appreciate your comments on the advantages of a shafty rig, but I have to disagree. Maybe unweighted shafties are lighter, but their CG is way higher so significant weight is added in the wheels/tires. There went any potential weight advantage...IMO. Simplicity is more in the favor of the MOAs, if you ask me.
Simply put, if MOA rigs aren't the top form of rig to own why are so many people spending quite a bit of money to upgrade to them? Certainly not to merely support EnRoute or Hot Racing.
So I'm still very much interested in hearing from those of you who feel the shafties have an advantage over the MOAs. Many have stated this. I'm just asking for examples.
I'll continue running a shafty for as long as I can because it's what I want to run. I don't like the "R/C robot" concept, either. I could afford to run a MOA setup, but I don't want to, nor do I feel anyone who truly wants to remain competitive should
have to. I sincerely hope the USRCCA realizes how many people are being adversely affected by this and address it before people just get disgusted. I've seen this sort of thing happen in other motorsports and I'd hate to see it happen here. This sport is growing quickly. I'm sure very soon there would be enough participation to support separate 2.2 classes.
Anyway, that's my two cents...