Petition/poll ~ Keep bodiless rigs in Sportsman!!!!

[chad30w]

Dang i got a migraine from all this reading.......I did run this class at palooza with a bodied rig and it was FUN......

 

[Stormin2u]

Randy, even though I am quoting you don't take this a directed at you;-)

If this class allows bodiless rigs I will run a bodiless chassis or tuber. Maybe that sounds hypocritical, but I am trying to think beyond my personal preferences. If we chase off more than we attract then that is not growth, and I understand that.

Randy, I have the sense looking at the high level of enthusiasm we have for this class and based on it's simplicity and low cost comparatively. It should be a barn burner for both old and new members. The important part of the formula is 2.2 Shaft rigs only, no dig.

What a great way to come into our hobby by becoming part of a serious well entered class were you can learn, grow and meet others. I don't think many of our elder members spend any quality time with the current Sportsman Class new comers simply because their not involved and tend to focus elsewhere.

We have a history of sharing, mentoring and bonding when we are all focused and directly involved through competition. I don't really see this effort discouraging anyone. In fact I think this will more than likely amaze us by extending a sudo new class so to speak of our most popular scale for crawling 2.2.

New members have much more to gain competing with the general membership rather than being in the Novice class. Typically any veteran can be extremely helpful to someone learning the ropes with just a small amount of attention and that will go a long way to creating a long term new members and retention of existing ones.

 

[rock hard]

If you guys had any historical knowledge then you would know that when the dimensions for bodiless trucks was setup they were typically metal tube frame.

They were top heavy and didn't slide on the rocks, and Lexan VW Bug bodies ruled the day. Overtime people figured out ways to make bodiless trucks out of stronger lighter materials. In the future someone else will figure something else out.

Personally I would rather see what someone can figure out within the existing rules. The bodiless guys figured out a way to get ahead of the bug bodies, so now its time for the body guys to figure out something new.

Bottom line its not Bull $hit ....its Evolution!



yeah,you tell em fish...oh wait...you guys did change the rules

just messin with ya

 

[rock hard]

Body or Bodiless is not some much an issue with me.


Its Body Clip or Body Clipless issue with for me!


I Fv<%!$& HATE BODY CLIPS

agreed!

 

[rock hard]

Dang i got a migraine from all this reading.......I did run this class at palooza with a bodied rig and it was FUN......

X2 Bodies do it for me!!!!!!

hater

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

If you wish to discuss this topic in a serious intelligent manner with me feel free to shoot me your number. I will call ASAP"thumbsup"

Pm sent. "thumbsup"

 

[rock hard]

here is where it all started....no mention of "no" bodiless cuz in 09 they hadnt taken flight like now.

but this is what drives it IMO...not anything more than nastalgia
http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/general-crawlers/190717-class-1-discussion-thread.html

its a good read,enjoy

this is from post 154
what comes to my minnd in this is "keep it fun" well bodiless is fun
this was in 09,and things have changed for sure,but some things havnt.alot of what is mentioned is evident today.

I completely agree. Our club is small but the guys are pretty serious competitors and most have bergs. We had people show up to comps with stock axials, comp one time and never return. It was the fault of us club members to not reach out better to them. What we need to do, and now there has been some discussion, is create a 2.2 sportsman class. Something more low buck, shafty only and with some limitations to keep it low buck, simple and fun.



I have talked with other club members around the country who had growing clubs. I was told that once there members started building and competing with berg axle'd rigs, the size of the attendance was cut by almost half in some areas. I don't think it's so much about competing and winning as it is about having fun. If you can't complete courses and you keep getting beat by bergs with $1K or more invested into them, where's the fun? At that point competition crawling has now become 1/8 scale buggy, truggy or sedan racing. It's almost about what equipment you have first, and how good you drive second.



I was rc rock crawling months before I joined RCC with a somewhat scale 2.2 because you could do it anywhere. It got you out into nature and it had no formal structure. You didn't have to pay to practice, pay to race, etc. Add in the current world's fiasco and other drama and more people will walk away unless some new classes or a new sanctioning body is created. It's sad to see this happen so fast to RC rock crawling. Although I am thankfully not part of the crawlinati or OG establishment, I liked it better two years ago.

read below......this is a fun class,and the sportsman would be srved well to adapt it rules
I guess 1.9 wont have the "strictist" of rules anymore



Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Crawler State
Posts: 12,461
USRCCA adds another class!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The USRCCA is pround to announce the addition of a new competition class, the 1.9 Class.

With the release of the Losi MRC and several other 1.9 sized rigs about to hit the market we wanted to stay on top of the game and get a class going for these awesome little rigs.

This new class has the strictest set of rules which will keep competition super tight yet still allow for some modification and customization of the rigs all while keeping the builds very affordable.

As always you can see the complete USRCCA rules HERE

Here are the new additions regarding this class.


Quote:
o 2.1.2.2 – 1.9 Class body must be 2.75” minimum height on sides. No less than 9” total length and full original width, and no less than 3” in the center. All bodies should resemble its original form (Jeep bodies look like a Jeep)

Quote:
o 2.1.3.5 - 1.9 class minimum overall bodiless dimensions must be 6.75” overall length, 2.5” overall width, & 3.25” overall height.

Quote:
2.4 - Class 3 – Class 1.9: If a Class 3 vehicle violates any of the following requirements it must run in Class 2 or Class 1 respectively.
• 2.4.1 - Vehicle wheelbase is limited to a maximum of 8.5 inches. This is determined by measuring from centerline of front axle stub to centerline of rear axle stub, with all the wheels pointing straight ahead, with the vehicles suspension holding it's own weight.
• 2.4.2 - Vehicle track width is limited to a maximum of 8 inches. This is determined by measuring the bottom of the outer most edge of the front and rear tires while the vehicle is sitting on level ground.
• 2.4.3 - Vehicle is limited to 1.9 inch wheels/rims or smaller at the bead surface. Wheels may be modified provided that the tire bead surface does not exceed 1.9 inches in diameter. Tires may be modified from other sized tires using only a pliable rubber but must not exceed a total uncompressed outer diameter of 4.25 inches.
• 2.4.4 - Vehicles are limited to 2-wheel steering on front axle only.
• 2.4.5 - Vehicles are limited to the use of 2 channels radio control (one for steering & one for throttle) only. Neither channel can be used to perform more than one function. Radio systems with more than 2 channels are allowed but only 2 channels can be used to control the vehicle.
• 2.4.6 - Vehicles are limited to 1 ESC & 1 servo only.
• 2.4.7 - Vehicles are limited to 1 motor powering both of the axles.
• 2.4.8 – No driver controlled devices, other than steering and throttle control, will be allowed. Independent throttle control to the front or rear axles (“burn” or “dig”), winching down the axles, and forced articulation are not allowed in this class.
• 2.4.9 – A battery is limited to 8.4 nominal voltage (7 cell nimh/nicd & 2 cell lipo/limoly).
• 2.4.10 – 1.9 Crawler class bodiless overall dimension of the complete chassis must be at least 6.75" overall length, 2.5" overall width, and 3.25" overall height.
• 2.4.11 - If at any point during a run your vehicle falls out of these vehicle specs for any reason you will be required to take a touch penalty and correct the problem.

Let the games begin!





I like what this guys says!!


I think that is a great idea. The USRCCA should represent the people who compete in the sanctioning body. Competition is just that, competition. To determine the best driver that day. Less rules and more drive time would be so nice.

Some vendors want a pro shafty class because they sell dig units and don't want a shafty only digless class. So no matter what, there are a number of issues and politics at play right now. I hate to admit it, but the more I learn about the industry and those involved in it, along with the politics I see played out on a public forum dedicated to toy trucks just amazes & saddens me every week. If you push people around long enough, they finally just give up and walk away. This hobby is suppose to be fun and nice diversion to the daily rat race. The rules should promote that and allow for greater creativity. Not limit something in the hopes to draw in new people or appease certain companies. At the end of the day, when you give in to certain people or companies, it's the beginning of corruption and it loses the home grown support and momentum you once had. You can't please everyone either, which is why you have multiple sanctioning bodies for other RC genres.

 

[Robbob]

This is what I get out of it (from reading this and other threads)... The committee is heavily Axial favored, and Axial needs to sell some ax10's.
.

Dont forget Losi with the LCC and LNC but then again we dont even know what their plans are. :roll:

Its just some people remembered what happen when rules got written for another class and there was multiple vehicles already out.

In real estate they call it curb appeal. Its a proven method of attracting home buyers. A house could be perfect on the inside, but if the first thing you see is weeds, leafs, and crap in the yard you get turned off. In RC Crawling some people get turned of by bodiless rigs. Again the thought was doing something that would possible attract some new blood WHILE AT THE SAME TIME keeping it attractive to current drivers.

But covering it up with a body makes it all better? Isnt that false advertising and even illegal in real estate? Yes some people dont like bodiless but some dont like bodied either but they have the choice. All bodied rigs is gonna do is paint an image that everyone can be good at it and we see the type of people RTR's can bread.

If this class allows bodiless rigs I will run a bodiless chassis or tuber. Maybe that sounds hypocritical, but I am trying to think beyond my personal preferences. If we chase off more than we attract then that is not growth, and I understand that.

Dont think it makes you a hypocrit, youre just exercising your choice. Will it make you dominate the class though? Will a bodiless rig make you any more or less intimidating to a new person?

It'll never work. No, I mean really.

Sportsman is a dual-use class. Some use it for sport entry, others want it to be another hard-core comp class. Anything you do to help one side will hurt the other.

Just making it a national class will attract many accomplished drivers to the "new" national class which will move it further from a "novice class". Most on this forum would refuse to call it a novice class anyway, yet it's frequently used as such.

For those who think the future of the sport requires an entry level, then you better keep thinking. I don't like the idea of adding classes, but if you actually offered a class named NOVICE, maybe the hot-shots looking for low-hanging fruit would be too embarresed to enter it.

One half-hearted vote for a national 2.2S and a NOVICE class. Yes locals could do it on their own -- but few do. If it were part of the USRCCA rule-set, might get some action.

/s/ Sportsman Novice

We started sportsman last winter for our indoor winter series. We gained about 10 new faces and felt adopting the club was a good thing. When we started our outdoor season we were able to get 1 person to come with us. I feel its because the outdoor season we let the Pro's run in sportsman where as the winter we didnt because of course size. I feel they new guys felt intimidated by running with the pros.

Your still gonna get the hotshots running the class, it doesnt matter what you call it. A title is a title to a competitive person, it has nothing to do with what the title is. Until you restrict who can run those beginner/novice/sportsman/whatever you wanna call it classes your not gonna retain many new comers. (my opinion)

The only way a real Novice class (i feel) is if everyone brings their LCC's or AX10's to the comp in unopened rtr boxes. The problem lies when some one cant win at that then they want another class made up.

Im all for a sportsman class but what attracted me to crawling was the part about imagination, fabrication and taking a personal touch to every truck I built and run. Choice ..... it was mine and I just had minimal guidelines I needed to stay in.

The previous organizer of USRCCA Nationals was not interested adding another class to the event. I just took my new position in Sept. At that time I was given authority to add additional classes if I wished to organize them..

Maybe your right its too late to try to this for 2012, and honestly if its going to be source of this much drama it might be easier to scrap the idea all together.

Thank you for stepping up for that responsibility.


From all Ive read in this I dont think anyone is saying to scrap the idea, just reevaluate the decision/ideas.

 

[chad30w]

hater

Hey Paul who was the last body less chassied national champion????Mr. Historian.....lol

 

[rock hard]

Hey Paul who was the last body less chassied national champion????Mr. Historian.....lol

I dont ever plan on being a national champion
but I also dont ever plan on running a body on my cralwer..ever again

hell,wasnt yo part of the original "body for life" movement

Oh I forgot,this class doesnt exist yet...so there hasnt been a champion yet...

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Its just some people remembered what happen when rules got written for another class and there was multiple vehicles already out.

Yup.

From all Ive read in this I dont think anyone is saying to scrap the idea, just reevaluate the decision/ideas.

Here's a super simple idea: take the Sportsman class as it exists today, rename it 2.2s and make it nationally recognized.

The drivers are there, the rigs are there, the rules are there, vendors have already invested time and money, some are gearing up to do more, just leave it alone and let it happen.

Adding a new rule to something that is already working just fine as it is makes no sense.

 

[rock hard]

Yup.

Here's a super simple idea: take the Sportsman class as it exists today, rename it 2.2s and make it nationally recognized.

The drivers are there, the rigs are there, vendors have already invested time and money, some are gearing up to do more, so leave it alone and let it happen.

Adding a new rule to something that is already working just fine as it is makes no sense.

wooo,wait a minute......that might just fkin work....
nope,I forgot,,,,its way to damn simple:roll:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Its so quiet in here.



Did everybody get tuckered out? :ror:

 

[666]

Really you made this look worse than it was. :roll:

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

Really you made this look worse than it was. :roll:

Maybe so, but the powers that be had plenty of time to nip it in the bud before it got half as far as it did. Hell, it could of been done before this thread was even started...

 

[Erin]

Why not run 2.2S as everyone would like to see for this year as a trial period. All rules apply but body or bodiless.

Look at attendance numbers after the season and the evaluate whether a body only class will bring attendance up or make attendance fall.

I will run what I have to to compete, but I would prefee to run my moonbuggy as it was intended, with the cab and no body.

 

[666]

Maybe so, but the powers that be had plenty of time to nip it in the bud before it got half as far as it did. Hell, it could of been done before this thread was even started...

You don't even have a clue what your talking about.

 

[Duuuuuuuude]

You don't even have a clue what your talking about.

Then enlighten me.

When this first arose, we were more or less told it was no big deal and to simply put bodies on our rigs. Nothing more.

 

[666]

Then enlighten me.

When this first arose, we were more or less told it was no big deal and to simply put bodies on our rigs. Nothing more.

I think you have 17 pages of enlightenment. "thumbsup"

 

[rock hard]

I think you have 17 pages of enlightenment. "thumbsup"

really?

I would hope that the rules commitie members be the ones who have been enlightened.
for the sake of the class I hope that is teh case,suurely you dont think the arguemnets made on behalf of the rule hold much water in comparison to the aurguments against it...