ROAR banning New Truggy bodies!
11-04-2009, 02:00 PM
#91
Wow can you say beating a dead horse.
Dawn-thank you for being gracious enough to re state the facts again.
By 2011, we may be arguing over photon boosters so call me then.
Also, The racers are represented by the manufacturers that produce the products that we buy! Do you honestly think that they are going to not be in the "consumers" best interest. Geesh.
Most club level racing adheres loosely so go ahead and run VTR's and whatever else just be prepared at a national event to not be able to.
Just because you can buy nitrous doesn't make it legal in Nascar....
Dawn-thank you for being gracious enough to re state the facts again.
By 2011, we may be arguing over photon boosters so call me then.
Also, The racers are represented by the manufacturers that produce the products that we buy! Do you honestly think that they are going to not be in the "consumers" best interest. Geesh.
Most club level racing adheres loosely so go ahead and run VTR's and whatever else just be prepared at a national event to not be able to.
Just because you can buy nitrous doesn't make it legal in Nascar....
11-04-2009, 02:02 PM
#92
But at least it's the racers that have the vote. Imagine not getting the opportunity to elect your President. No it's not the same thing, but it's along the same lines. If the people have the choice to vote and don't, it's their fault. But if you give them the choice, then at least they have the chance of getting what they want, good or bad, without being told what's going to happen. The biggest thing I've seen in this thread is that the people, the MEMBERS of ROAR want the choice.
11-04-2009, 02:03 PM
#93
hey guys
i think that this is not the best desission. i read an article in the an issue of racing lines called "ming the gap" in the article he talked about how truggies and buggies are becoming so close in comparison to each other and it is starting to loose the "truck" quality that so many people like this class for. so i do beleive that this is a good and bad thing as it will top the use of very mad looking truck bodies but it will allow the class to reclaim some of that "truck" style that the class brings
my 2 cent
dane
i think that this is not the best desission. i read an article in the an issue of racing lines called "ming the gap" in the article he talked about how truggies and buggies are becoming so close in comparison to each other and it is starting to loose the "truck" quality that so many people like this class for. so i do beleive that this is a good and bad thing as it will top the use of very mad looking truck bodies but it will allow the class to reclaim some of that "truck" style that the class brings
my 2 cent
dane
11-04-2009, 02:05 PM
#94
HELLO!!
ROAR IS NOT BANNING THE TRUGGY BODY MADE BY PROLINE, JCONCEPTS AND LOSI.
ROAR IS NOT BANNING ANY TRUGGY BODY.
THERE ARE NO OFF ROAD BODY RULES OR APPROVALS.
ROAR IS NOT BANNING THE TRUGGY BODY.
RC racing hobby was designed to emulate 1:1 racing. Therefore, the rules are designed for just this.
AGAIN... ROAR IS NOT BANNING ANY TRUGGY BODY.
ROAR is though, asking the body companies this next year to come up with guidelines for body rules to be followed much like what happened years ago with electric truck and recently with SCT bodies.
OK...??
ROAR IS NOT BANNING THE TRUGGY BODY MADE BY PROLINE, JCONCEPTS AND LOSI.
ROAR IS NOT BANNING ANY TRUGGY BODY.
THERE ARE NO OFF ROAD BODY RULES OR APPROVALS.
ROAR IS NOT BANNING THE TRUGGY BODY.
RC racing hobby was designed to emulate 1:1 racing. Therefore, the rules are designed for just this.
AGAIN... ROAR IS NOT BANNING ANY TRUGGY BODY.
ROAR is though, asking the body companies this next year to come up with guidelines for body rules to be followed much like what happened years ago with electric truck and recently with SCT bodies.
OK...??
11-04-2009, 02:12 PM
#95
Wow can you say beating a dead horse.
Dawn-thank you for being gracious enough to re state the facts again.
By 2011, we may be arguing over photon boosters so call me then.
Also, The racers are represented by the manufacturers that produce the products that we buy! Do you honestly think that they are going to not be in the "consumers" best interest. Geesh.
Most club level racing adheres loosely so go ahead and run VTR's and whatever else just be prepared at a national event to not be able to.
Just because you can buy nitrous doesn't make it legal in Nascar....
Dawn-thank you for being gracious enough to re state the facts again.
By 2011, we may be arguing over photon boosters so call me then.
Also, The racers are represented by the manufacturers that produce the products that we buy! Do you honestly think that they are going to not be in the "consumers" best interest. Geesh.
Most club level racing adheres loosely so go ahead and run VTR's and whatever else just be prepared at a national event to not be able to.
Just because you can buy nitrous doesn't make it legal in Nascar....
11-04-2009, 02:23 PM
#98
I think part of the disconnect here is the purpose of ROAR, the significant differences between off-road & on-road racing, and the actual effects ROAR guidelines have in reality.
From the ROAR Rulebook:
"ROAR's primary goal is to provide fair and organized competition of radio-controlled vehicles for its members by sanctioning events that will utilize this set of established rules and regulations. These rules provide the baseline for all ROAR sanctioned events in order to provide consistency and fairness." (bolds by me)
In on-road, where races are decided in 10ths of a second, the slightest difference between bodies, wheels, or other factors can have a huge impact on performance. Having established parameters on what is allowed (regardless of whether intent is 1:1 realistic looks or not) is necessary to keep the playing field consistent and fair. Even slight variation from the guidelines can give an unfair competitive advantage.
In off-road, the total impact of slight differences is less by orders of magnitude. This means that the parameters can (and should be) more elastic and open. If the aerodynamic drag coefficient of Body A is .2 better than Body B, the competitive advantage is so tiny as to be non-existent. You could probably do a lap with a brick wall-like body and still be within milliseconds of the same run with a super-duper stealth bomber body from hell. Total competitive advantage? Squat.
I think it's a good thing that ROAR is working with manufacturers to come up with some basic guidelines for body parameters... but I honestly don't think that it will make much difference on the track. Narrowly defining that they have to have a 1:1 scale look is shortsighted and illogical... and is trying to impose on-road realities onto off-road where those realities have little or no impact at all. As long as ROAR keeps this in mind I think it should be fine.
From the ROAR Rulebook:
"ROAR's primary goal is to provide fair and organized competition of radio-controlled vehicles for its members by sanctioning events that will utilize this set of established rules and regulations. These rules provide the baseline for all ROAR sanctioned events in order to provide consistency and fairness." (bolds by me)
In on-road, where races are decided in 10ths of a second, the slightest difference between bodies, wheels, or other factors can have a huge impact on performance. Having established parameters on what is allowed (regardless of whether intent is 1:1 realistic looks or not) is necessary to keep the playing field consistent and fair. Even slight variation from the guidelines can give an unfair competitive advantage.
In off-road, the total impact of slight differences is less by orders of magnitude. This means that the parameters can (and should be) more elastic and open. If the aerodynamic drag coefficient of Body A is .2 better than Body B, the competitive advantage is so tiny as to be non-existent. You could probably do a lap with a brick wall-like body and still be within milliseconds of the same run with a super-duper stealth bomber body from hell. Total competitive advantage? Squat.
I think it's a good thing that ROAR is working with manufacturers to come up with some basic guidelines for body parameters... but I honestly don't think that it will make much difference on the track. Narrowly defining that they have to have a 1:1 scale look is shortsighted and illogical... and is trying to impose on-road realities onto off-road where those realities have little or no impact at all. As long as ROAR keeps this in mind I think it should be fine.
11-04-2009, 02:37 PM
#99
Tire issue. If you want to ban certian tires, why do we ban altering the carcus of the tire. Meaning, no cut tires can be run in buggy or truggy.
On the bodies, i guess we have to take Dawn's word on the rules. I have issue with companies that are trying to improve racing being told they have to add to the body to cover the shock tower when it serves no safety purpose. I still think big rule changes should be approved by the racers. If only 100 vote, that is the fault of the racers, and not ROAR. Its not that costly to send a letter to all roar members letting them know about new rules that need to be approved by having them log into their account on ROAR site and vote. each account get 1 vote. Its not that hard to setup. Then again, ROAR cant even send members reminders that their account is expiring.
On the bodies, i guess we have to take Dawn's word on the rules. I have issue with companies that are trying to improve racing being told they have to add to the body to cover the shock tower when it serves no safety purpose. I still think big rule changes should be approved by the racers. If only 100 vote, that is the fault of the racers, and not ROAR. Its not that costly to send a letter to all roar members letting them know about new rules that need to be approved by having them log into their account on ROAR site and vote. each account get 1 vote. Its not that hard to setup. Then again, ROAR cant even send members reminders that their account is expiring.
11-04-2009, 02:37 PM
#100
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...bst_truggy.jpg[IMG]
That is a real, full size truggy. The body that You like Dawn looks nothing like that
My source, a proline employee is not mad about a clearly defined rule. He is upset about a new rule, that makes the VTR tire illegal. I will agree with the V3 buggy tire being illegal.
The big problem, ROAR has onroad racers making rules for offroad racing. You want to improve ROAR? Make it so Offroad racers make the rules for offroad, and onroad racers for onroad. I will be upfront and say, i should never make an onroad rule, because i dislike onroad. But having people like Rich Taylor, someone who absolutely hates Offroad racing, he should have no say in rules for offroad. Dont give me the crap about signing up for election, as i do not have the time.[/QUOTE/]
That is a real, full size truggy. The body that You like Dawn looks nothing like that
My source, a proline employee is not mad about a clearly defined rule. He is upset about a new rule, that makes the VTR tire illegal. I will agree with the V3 buggy tire being illegal.
The big problem, ROAR has onroad racers making rules for offroad racing. You want to improve ROAR? Make it so Offroad racers make the rules for offroad, and onroad racers for onroad. I will be upfront and say, i should never make an onroad rule, because i dislike onroad. But having people like Rich Taylor, someone who absolutely hates Offroad racing, he should have no say in rules for offroad. Dont give me the crap about signing up for election, as i do not have the time.[/QUOTE/]
11-04-2009, 03:00 PM
#103
Dawn on Sgrid
And, to be clear, yes, I have stated and I stand by the comment that I personally think the bodies are ugly and hate seeing the class go into something like a 'tadpole' or another term I affectionately have for it.... and the ROAR Excom voted to insert wording into the rule book for 2010 "cover shock towers". But, we also retracted that feeling those words were not going to solve the overall problem of these bodies being something unrecognizable in a vehicle... so, we decided to let the racers make the choice by which bodies they purchase.
And, to be clear, yes, I have stated and I stand by the comment that I personally think the bodies are ugly and hate seeing the class go into something like a 'tadpole' or another term I affectionately have for it.... and the ROAR Excom voted to insert wording into the rule book for 2010 "cover shock towers". But, we also retracted that feeling those words were not going to solve the overall problem of these bodies being something unrecognizable in a vehicle... so, we decided to let the racers make the choice by which bodies they purchase.
11-04-2009, 03:13 PM
#105
I wouldnt do it for a fuel issue. I already get 9 out of the reedy. My problem is to much power. I would rather have less power for less wheelspin. My trigger finger hasnt found that sweet spot yet.