ROAR new body rules
03-25-2010, 06:39 AM
#212
maybe this would have been a better body image to use for comparison since this is the nitro version of the Losi 8ight body versus the electric one shown:
to me at least, seems the main thing on the bulldog body that gives off that truck appearance in comparison to the losi nitro body is that flat bad kind of shape. if it was more angled instead of dropped off, it would be more similar to the Losi body, in my opinion.
to me at least, seems the main thing on the bulldog body that gives off that truck appearance in comparison to the losi nitro body is that flat bad kind of shape. if it was more angled instead of dropped off, it would be more similar to the Losi body, in my opinion.
03-25-2010, 07:12 AM
#213
Ok, so the rule is that buggies aren't supposed to use truck bodies? Was the intent of the rule so that people wouldn't try to use a truggy sized body on a buggy OR so that people wouldn't use properly sized bodies on buggies that may have a truck like appearance?
I am still not seeing what the Big FD is if a properly sized buggy body has a flat rear end that maybe similar to a truck like body. Why does it matter?
Goes back to if you don't like it, don't use it. Not getting why there needs to be a design committee for bodies on essentially toy cars.
I am still not seeing what the Big FD is if a properly sized buggy body has a flat rear end that maybe similar to a truck like body. Why does it matter?
Goes back to if you don't like it, don't use it. Not getting why there needs to be a design committee for bodies on essentially toy cars.
03-25-2010, 07:14 AM
#214
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (32)
Agreed....as always, Jesse is the consumate professional.
I'm always in favor of technological advancement, but there needs to be some guidelines to work within, or everyone would go off in different directions. I would be completely in favor of the "conformity box" approach. This would give the manufacturers the freedom to explore creative or technical innovations, while also providing a reasonably level playing field for the end users. This may not be where the rules are now, but there's nothing that keeps ROAR from revising them to use that approach in the future, should it be deemed more appropriate.
JDCrow, is there a pre-determined schedule for reviewing rules, and proposing / implementing revisions (yearly, quarterly, etc...), or is this something that is done on the fly as needed?
Like others have said, the rules are there, they just haven't necessarily been strictly enforced until now. If you don't agree with them, don't race at ROAR sanctioned events. I like the older style bodies, the new cab-forward bodies, and a great many of the stock bodies, so it's really no skin off my back either way.
I may not agree fully with the timing, or how the enforcement of this rule was communicated, but I'm not a ROAR member (yet), so I wouldn't have seen it in member communications. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that would prevent me from becoming a ROAR member.
I'm always in favor of technological advancement, but there needs to be some guidelines to work within, or everyone would go off in different directions. I would be completely in favor of the "conformity box" approach. This would give the manufacturers the freedom to explore creative or technical innovations, while also providing a reasonably level playing field for the end users. This may not be where the rules are now, but there's nothing that keeps ROAR from revising them to use that approach in the future, should it be deemed more appropriate.
JDCrow, is there a pre-determined schedule for reviewing rules, and proposing / implementing revisions (yearly, quarterly, etc...), or is this something that is done on the fly as needed?
Like others have said, the rules are there, they just haven't necessarily been strictly enforced until now. If you don't agree with them, don't race at ROAR sanctioned events. I like the older style bodies, the new cab-forward bodies, and a great many of the stock bodies, so it's really no skin off my back either way.
I may not agree fully with the timing, or how the enforcement of this rule was communicated, but I'm not a ROAR member (yet), so I wouldn't have seen it in member communications. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that would prevent me from becoming a ROAR member.
Currently bodies (onroad/oval are the only ones inspected) are inspected on an open submission schedule. Once Approved, they have to be commercially available 2 weeks prior to an event before their use is permitted.
03-25-2010, 08:00 AM
#215
We have been working on a "Conformity Box" set of reference points for the off-road bodies.
Currently bodies (onroad/oval are the only ones inspected) are inspected on an open submission schedule. Once Approved, they have to be commercially available 2 weeks prior to an event before their use is permitted.
Currently bodies (onroad/oval are the only ones inspected) are inspected on an open submission schedule. Once Approved, they have to be commercially available 2 weeks prior to an event before their use is permitted.
Agreed....as always, Jesse is the consumate professional.
I'm always in favor of technological advancement, but there needs to be some guidelines to work within, or everyone would go off in different directions. I would be completely in favor of the "conformity box" approach. This would give the manufacturers the freedom to explore creative or technical innovations, while also providing a reasonably level playing field for the end users. This may not be where the rules are now, but there's nothing that keeps ROAR from revising them to use that approach in the future, should it be deemed more appropriate.
JDCrow, is there a pre-determined schedule for reviewing rules, and proposing / implementing revisions (yearly, quarterly, etc...), or is this something that is done on the fly as needed?
Like others have said, the rules are there, they just haven't necessarily been strictly enforced until now. If you don't agree with them, don't race at ROAR sanctioned events. I like the older style bodies, the new cab-forward bodies, and a great many of the stock bodies, so it's really no skin off my back either way.
I may not agree fully with the timing, or how the enforcement of this rule was communicated, but I'm not a ROAR member (yet), so I wouldn't have seen it in member communications. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that would prevent me from becoming a ROAR member.
I'm always in favor of technological advancement, but there needs to be some guidelines to work within, or everyone would go off in different directions. I would be completely in favor of the "conformity box" approach. This would give the manufacturers the freedom to explore creative or technical innovations, while also providing a reasonably level playing field for the end users. This may not be where the rules are now, but there's nothing that keeps ROAR from revising them to use that approach in the future, should it be deemed more appropriate.
JDCrow, is there a pre-determined schedule for reviewing rules, and proposing / implementing revisions (yearly, quarterly, etc...), or is this something that is done on the fly as needed?
Like others have said, the rules are there, they just haven't necessarily been strictly enforced until now. If you don't agree with them, don't race at ROAR sanctioned events. I like the older style bodies, the new cab-forward bodies, and a great many of the stock bodies, so it's really no skin off my back either way.
I may not agree fully with the timing, or how the enforcement of this rule was communicated, but I'm not a ROAR member (yet), so I wouldn't have seen it in member communications. Regardless, I still haven't seen anything that would prevent me from becoming a ROAR member.
Let's all take a breath, give this some time to flush out, and see what the "conformity box" approach reads like in the rules. No sense beating this dead horse any longer...
03-25-2010, 08:57 AM
#216
Tech Adept
There are two many races on the calendar for me to trip over the ONE race ROAR want to be an ass about. This dumb close minded rule only affects Nationals. All of the BIGGER races dont trip on this kind of BS. Unfortunately most of us will still need a ROAR membership to run at some tracks. This is not a rule that honor their commitments. They only started to "enforce" the rule that was probably written in 1969 because they simply dont like the bodies, despite how many members like them. They do not care about the wants of the many they only care about the few. They can come on here and BS us all they want but they know the truth but cant come up with a lie that will kiil this.
03-25-2010, 08:58 AM
#217
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA, North America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe
Posts: 4,034
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
Nothing against Cab Forward Designs in buggy class.
Truck Like Bodies have always been deemed not for use in buggy class.
Bulldog buggy body definately is more truck inspired or look than buggy.
ROAR has always left much to the artist/mfg to work with. And on many occasions encouraged them directly to protect the integrity of the class look.
On many occassions they have all been involved in development of specs. Be it motor design, wheel and tire designs, and most recently in the full specs for Short Course Trucks.
On occassion some chose to ignore and go out on their own path. Then try to make ROAR and the other participants be the bad guys for not letting their new idea play.
Truck Like Bodies have always been deemed not for use in buggy class.
Bulldog buggy body definately is more truck inspired or look than buggy.
ROAR has always left much to the artist/mfg to work with. And on many occasions encouraged them directly to protect the integrity of the class look.
On many occassions they have all been involved in development of specs. Be it motor design, wheel and tire designs, and most recently in the full specs for Short Course Trucks.
On occassion some chose to ignore and go out on their own path. Then try to make ROAR and the other participants be the bad guys for not letting their new idea play.
(And if non-truck bodies weren't against the rules, there is no telling what I might run... 
)That being said... I personally admit that I dislike the new "sperm" truggy bodies... all of them... but primarily because the side view puts the window opening halfway down the door panel! It just doesn't look like a truck. I played with some graphics editing software, and filled in part of the windows... they don't look so bad then. I actually DO like the way they did the top of the cab down to the "bed" for cooling... that's a great idea.
03-25-2010, 09:06 AM
#218
Tech Elite
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA, North America, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe
Posts: 4,034
Trader Rating: 1 (100%+)
BTW I'm also guilty of violating the SPIRIT of the rules (but as a joke, not for performance) while complying with the LETTER of the rules. 
Obviously this is NOT what a "Truggy" should look like:
Obviously this is NOT what a "Truggy" should look like:
03-25-2010, 01:08 PM
#221
Tech Adept
Just a simple question, does anyone when the list of approved bodies come out
03-25-2010, 01:52 PM
#223
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (13)
Why not just release a list of specs similar to the GBS specs used by touring car bodies? It's simple- if the base of your windshield is between X and Y millimeters from the rear of the front shocktower, the cab is at least X millimeters wide, and the entire cab is a minimum of X millimeters long, it's legal as buggy body. There are similar specs in 1/10th scale offroad (look at page 54 for the 1/10 truck dimensions), so I think that there should also be something similar for 1/8th scale.
03-25-2010, 07:17 PM
#224
Why not just release a list of specs similar to the GBS specs used by touring car bodies? It's simple- if the base of your windshield is between X and Y millimeters from the rear of the front shocktower, the cab is at least X millimeters wide, and the entire cab is a minimum of X millimeters long, it's legal as buggy body. There are similar specs in 1/10th scale offroad (look at page 54 for the 1/10 truck dimensions), so I think that there should also be something similar for 1/8th scale.
03-25-2010, 07:31 PM
#225
Tech Addict
Just curious. I know it sounds kinda silly. But has it been brought up that a cab forward body on a buggy can possibly aid in rollovers(self righting), and that's a possible reason for making then illegal. I know it sounds stupid and is very unlikely, but just considering all aspects.