PDA

View Full Version : USRCCA rules debate...



TURBOFEST
11-29-2012, 06:23 PM
Hey guys. I know im the gsrcrc rules rep, but its looking like thats gonna turn into more of a regional thing, so i am going to be posting in here too in order to get some more opinions of people in my area of the world.

There ALOT going on in the usrcca rules committee right now after the body/bodiless explosion last week on rcc. So, im doing my duty and inquiring here to see what you all think about the potential changes.

Basically right now we need to vote on 2 options. Im torn between the two and currently the vote is 7 to 7.

Option 1:
- unify bodies and bodiless to share the same height, width & length dimensions. Details to be debated upon should this option win.

Option 2:
- no change to current bodied/bodiless specs, but add a definition of what a body is

JSLICK
11-29-2012, 06:37 PM
Jimmy I was looking for the link and I can't seem to find it on RCC. Do you know what it is?

rik
11-29-2012, 07:23 PM
I was looking at this the other night. There is a thread in the chit chat on rcc. But you are not supposed to argue one side or the other in that specific thread. There is a link in the first post to the og thread. But I think that thread is closed. however, I vote to not make any changes.

TURBOFEST
11-29-2012, 08:13 PM
Jimmy I was looking for the link and I can't seem to find it on RCC. Do you know what it is?

There is no link John. The vote is happening in the rules committee section which only Rules committee member can see. I'm just gauging local opinions one way or the other in order to vote accordingly. I could just vote whatever I think is best, but I figured I'd see what my local public thinks first.

I can link you to the thread that promted this entire debate....

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/rules/414564-bc-brian-build-body-bodiless.html

http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/rules/414304-petition-unified-body-bodiless-measurements.html

TURBOFEST
11-29-2012, 08:14 PM
I was looking at this the other night. There is a thread in the chit chat on rcc. But you are not supposed to argue one side or the other in that specific thread. There is a link in the first post to the og thread. But I think that thread is closed. however, I vote to not make any changes.

Thanks RIK...noted

brazwewn
11-29-2012, 08:47 PM
What I do not like is having to modify anything I already own, just because someone got their panties in a bunch. So, as long as the dimension did not grow for bodiless I would be ok.

With that said, if I had to vote it would be to leave it as-is. To me putting a tiny MRC body on a 2.2 class is goofy. I also like the idea of having a body handicap for the sprotsman class.

2.3.6 - Bodied vehicles must be 3 minimum height on sides. No less than 12.5
total length and full original width, and no less than 5 in center.


Wes

TURBOFEST
11-29-2012, 09:02 PM
What I do not like is having to modify anything I already own, just because someone got their panties in a bunch. So, as long as the dimension did not grow for bodiless I would be ok.

With that said, if I had to vote it would be to leave it as-is. To me putting a tiny MRC body on a 2.2 class is goofy. I also like the idea of having a body handicap for the sprotsman class.

2.3.6 - Bodied vehicles must be 3” minimum height on sides. No less than 12.5”
total length and full original width, and no less than 5” in center.


Wes

This change will NOT effect the sportsman class rules. We made that clear before any of this got rolling cause that was a major concern of people. This only pertains to pro.

I agree Wes, I didnt want bodiless to change, and if it does get voted to unify the two, the bodiless dimension will not get any bigger, however, they could get smaller in order to be the same as most available body height. The bodiless height could change to 3". I am strongly against this personally because all currently legal bodiless chassis would then be at a disadvantage to the ones that would come out with a smaller height, making them more streamlined, lighter and arguably stronger.

JSLICK
11-29-2012, 09:29 PM
I would say keep it the same as it is. There are always those that look for the gray areas. They are the ones that take the fun out of everything. I thought that unifying things might make it eaiser but it looks like it would be more of a pain.

TURBOFEST
11-29-2012, 09:45 PM
I would say keep it the same as it is. There are always those that look for the gray areas. They are the ones that take the fun out of everything. I thought that unifying things might make it eaiser but it looks like it would be more of a pain.

Agreed, however it looks as though things are going to change. Its funny, the majority vote in that mess of a public poll that was made on rcc was for the unification, however, so far on this site and gsrcrc not a single person has been in favor of it.

PLaying devils advocate...the unification would open up some opportunities for vendors to create some new parts which could spark more vendor support of crawling (which is desperately needed). Adversely, they could see it as "there those rock crawlers go again...changing all their rules" and move even farther away from us.

My gut says no, but I am honestly up in the air on this. I am one of the last who have yet to vote.

JSLICK
11-29-2012, 10:28 PM
PLaying devils advocate...the unification would open up some opportunities for vendors to create some new parts which could spark more vendor support of crawling (which is desperately needed). Adversely, they could see it as "there those rock crawlers go again...changing all their rules" and move even farther away from us.

Oppertunities for vendors are ok but having to buy another rig or changing an existing rig just to fit in seems silly to me, when there was nothing wrong in the first place. If you want to run a body good for you, some people like the looks of them, others like the bodyless look.

TURBOFEST
11-30-2012, 01:11 AM
Oppertunities for vendors are ok but having to buy another rig or changing an existing rig just to fit in seems silly to me, when there was nothing wrong in the first place. If you want to run a body good for you, some people like the looks of them, others like the bodyless look.

again....i agree with ya.

brazwewn
11-30-2012, 02:22 AM
Too many people do not consider the consequences of their actions. If you ***** and moan about something not always going your way, people will get pissed and take off. At some point you just need to deal with what you got and suck it the F up.

Wes

bob1961
11-30-2012, 03:57 AM
i know when i built my tigress tuber it had to be at least 3" wide, so i made 3 1/16" wide to be safe under the body less rule....now when i think of a body lexan comes to mind and without going to look at rules, i think they are to be 5" or wider....how are they thinking bout combineding the two ???....i know i don't want a 5" tubed "body less" rig........bob

....