Just want to repost this. Its from S-grid.
#2695 of 2878 by Dawn Sanchez (dawn) on Wed Nov 4 14:15:16 2009:
Trevor - Yep. That is why ROAR backed out and is now asking for the body companies to set some guidelines to follow to avoid having to go to an approval policy like on road bodies were forced into years ago.
The racers want to set the precedent of the new Losi style body for truggy, it would appear then Losi needs to work with the group to set those guidelines
Not even 5 months passed, and the Guidelines idea is gone. And this
#2702 of 2878 by Dawn Sanchez (dawn) on Wed Nov 4 16:29:52 2009:
just to be clear... in case anybody here actually lives and breathe with anything said on RC Tech...
ROAR DID NOT BAN ANY TRUGGY BODY!!!
What is happening though is a look at the truggy class to define the direction bodies should be going in the future to avoid a body approval process. First step is asking MFG's to define what they want, which will obviously be based on their sales, and produce to ROAR diagrams of what they feel should be stated as the standard in truggy bodies.
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.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.....
and, thanks to you all for letting me vent. I'm assuming the average intelligence quotient here is at least 50 points higher than on RC Tech.