I'm wondering if anyone else feels the same as me when it comes to the UROC out of bounds. Basically, if you roll your rig on a climb and it rolls over a cone, they don't give you a cone penalty and then allow you to try it again, they just DQ you for being out of bounds. It is the same if the obstacle throws you off-line...you're DQ'd for out of bounds if you cross a cone too far, even though you were not intentionally tryng to go around a gate.

There are two points I have:
1. It really takes away from the show if a rig rolls, ends up on its wheels (by luck, or better, by human power), and is not allowed to hit the obstacle again. What better success story to see someone denied, get back up and then succeed. That's good for our sport. If they try again and fail, it's still great as crowds love to see persistance even when things aren't going the way the driver and spotter would like.

2. The out of bounds rule was put in place to keep teams from "going around" a set of gates on purpose. Sometimes you are on an attempt and are forced off-line. Instead of DQ'ing you immediatly, they COULD just give you a cone penalty, tell you that you must go back and attempt the gate again (the cone you hit would still be the boundary, but you could hit it again as it is dead). If you do it and are successful, you just get the cone penalty and any backs/stops/cones you took while geting back to where you needed to be legal...and if you choose not to go back and do it again, THEN give you the DQ.

Doing something like this would eliminate any grey-areas and make for a better event...BUT:

In UROC, there is a huge field of competitors...DQ'ing people right off DOES make the day go faster...


Can anyone add to this or argue this as I would like to make a suggestion to UROC as well as the other events to better define the Out of Bounds rules. Before I do, I want to see if there are other things that I have not considered.

I agree, I think it sucked in Cedar City. On obstical 7 I seen the judge DQ a bunch of guys because as they sat there burning the tires both rears would just slightly go out of bounds. A lot of competitors and spectators were giving that judge a hard time. I agree this rule sucks.

I'm going to bring this up at the drivers meeting. It dosn't make since if we can drive out of bounds loop around and come back to hit a obstacle at a better angle as long as we go through all gates.......then I saw on number 7 many take a bad bounce or a roll and get DQed. I thought out of bounds has always been if you went around a gate and not through it. It didn't seem right in cedar on number 7.

Originally posted by pure-adrenaline
I'm going to bring this up at the drivers meeting.

If you wait until then, it may be too late for that event. If you are going to make a recomendation, you need to do it in writing, nicely, making a suggestion (not a criticism) and making it clear exactly what you are suggesting...and on top of that, doing it in time for the organiser to make sure the change is correct for them so they can institute it properly...anything done last minute usually fails.

I know what you guys are saying about #7...that is just one obstacle where I saw this problem and saw the need for a change.

Another thing I've been thinking about is the situation where you roll over the boundary tape. You don't have control of where you are rolling to...and that is different than you driving through the boundary tape. The only thing is that this can add a "gray area" and allow the driver to say that they were trying to save a roll when they crossed the tape and that should be treated the same as a roll...If I can't come up with a good suggestion for this, I won't even bring it up. Any bright ideas? Do you think this is even worth looking into?

I don't know about the "saved roll" grey area either- can of worms and there are a few that would be "saving rolls" going into the tape pretty consistently. Then there's crowd safety, if the course size is technically "opened up" in this manner- the crowd has to be kept that much further back for their own good.

I do agree that the crowd loves to see rolls that are recovered and the course completed. I'm a wuss on that, just can't lay into the throttle when I'm turtled.

Maybe when the course demons.... umm designers, are laying out a "course 7" they can tape off a bigger area and have more room for the teams???

I suspect leaving the course will get more controlled/limited. It was clear to me after a few controversies at CC that their intent is to give only a small area within the banners to buzz a turning brake rather than have a vehicle be able to hit the next zipcode (concern for spectators). I think the clamping of the rules is coming from that direction.

Ken, what did you think about them calling people out of bounds when they rolled across the cones yet stayed inside the tape?

for some changes in this but I'm not sure I've got the solution either.


As I understand it, the tape is for the crowd and the cones are for us, room in between is "margin". Currently, once a third tire breaks the plane of the cone you've left the course and it's 40 points- at least that's how they are playing it and it is fair and consistent. And let's face it, leaving the course is never intended by any team with the rules as they are (Unless doing so might save a nasty roll, like some of the guys at # 3 at the SC). I guess one option is laying out the course as the money pit was in Farmington UROC, all kinds of acreage to correct the roll and come back as done a few times by Shaffer, Brown, McNeil etc.

As a major "sponsor" (labor and $$$) of my own team, Once I rolled & broke that plane I'd rather shut it down and save the engine rather than be "encouraged" to run it while I'm on the cage.

As a competitor who does his best to be in the hunt, It helps me if other teams 40 the obstacle because they are unable to run the course as intended- not to sound like I wish misfortune on anyone but racing is racing:D

I do agree that the crowd goes wild when someone rolls and comes back for glory but from a competitor stand point I don't think you should score the team as well as someone who made it without the roll but tagged one cone in the process- two different levels of completing the obstacle.

On last thought- loosening the penalty/points risk of a roll could bring more of it, costing teams more, greater risk to injury for all and a lot more videos sold. My .02:D

Here's how I saw things in CC. You had two laid out courses, that had cones to travel through, with cones at the bottom, and cones at the top:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/uploads/uroc.gif

Some competitors attempted the "UROC line" at the bottom of the climb, and their rigs would end up hitting the right top "UROC" cone (which is shared with the "Unlimted Line" as the driver's side cone).

The rules state that at least 50% of the rig must remain on the proper side of the cone. I don't think that it is fair that if a rig drifts all the way over into the Unlimited line (more than 50%) they shouldn't be DQ'd. They didn't start on the Unlimited line at the base, so they shouldn't be able to finish on the Unlimited line.

Now rolling over is a different story. If you roll over a cone, and you haven't rolled 50% into the other course, I don't see a problem. Especially if you have already cleared that cone. I guess it can be a grey area. As long as they enforce the rules the same everytime, I'm ok with it. I saw a guy or two drift into the Unlimited line (more than 50%) and they didn't get DQ'd. I guess I'm just bitter on the obstacle since we timed out 1 foot from the finish line. :D:D:D

I thought thy were calling the third tire rather than estimating where the center of the car was??

There was controversy on that climb- I think if you couldn't do the tough line you had to go all the way to the beginning of the easier line rather than drift- something like that:confused:

What I was seeing was two rigs that rolled to the "LEFT", touched the lower left cone on the way through, landed inside of the boundary line, then were DQ'd for going more than 50% outside of the cone.
http://www.redbullrockcrawlers.com/ROLL.jpg

Also, I agree with you both that you needed to do either one line or the other THE WHOLE WAY...but why not let someone who fails at a line either try it again or go back and do the ENTIRE other line...taking all of the penalties they incure while doing so?

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
What I was seeing was two rigs that rolled to the "LEFT", touched the lower left cone on the way through, landed inside of the boundary line, then were DQ'd for going more than 50% outside of the cone.
http://www.redbullrockcrawlers.com/ROLL.jpg

Also, I agree with you both that you needed to do either one line or the other THE WHOLE WAY...but why not let someone who fails at a line either try it again or go back and do the ENTIRE other line...taking all of the penalties they incure while doing so?

I agree, Dustin. Here's what I was talking about:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/uploads/uroc2.gif

While I think the above picture should NOT be allowed, I think your illustration SHOULD be allowed. As long as they were still in the course and didn't roll over any banners/tape.

Originally posted by pure-adrenaline
It dosn't make since if we can drive out of bounds loop around and come back to hit a obstacle at a better angle as long as we go through all gates


Do the rules still read this way? I have had problems with one judge with UROC, he is anal when it comes to being out of bounds so it could have been him. Did anyone get a marshall involved?

Lance,
I think your example is exactly why they are getting anal about ALL out of bounds calls when it comes to cones. I totally agree with you that what you've illustrated is way out of line and should be illegal...but what about this scenario...A driver is on a climb and is forced, for any reason, to take the line you've just illustrated. My opinion is that the judge should tell the team that they must choose between being DQ'd - OR - go back and complete the gate properly. This means they can go back to the section where they screwed up and take it again, along with any points they have already gotten. If they were on a UROC line and choose to go back and take the Unlimited line, they MUST go all of the way back to the beginning of the Unlimited line or accept the DQ. The same would go if they were on an Unlimited line and wanted to go back and take the UROC line. I'm thinking that this would eliminate all grey areas and judgement calls...which is usually what starts all of the controversy in the first place.

if you look at Dustins pic.......if you roll you really haven't went out of bounds, because if you can get it back on its wheels you are still going to go for the same cones. Out of bounds to me reads you tried to avoid a certain pair of cones. I think w/ Dustins pic you should be docked a cone point if you hit it and thats it. really it's no different than when we go out in the trees do a loop and come back. Lances picture should be out of bounds becase you bypassed the intended cones. there shouldn't really be a grey area there. it should be real easy to judge that way

To leave the course and do a loop somewhere you need to ask, get an ok and slice between two cones in a relativley controlled fashion and come back thru the same cones.

So maybe if you said, " I might roll, and it might go over there and if I roll between the two cones, stop before I land on the tape (I saw guys landing on the tape) right it without touching the tape and come back in driving between the two cones its the same. In that situation, if you hit one of those cones, 10 points would be closer to the same thing as if you were intentionally leaving the course and grazed a cone.

Seems to me like there are two different levels of maintaining control of your vehicle and driving it as intended- well maybe the Brown boys intend to roll, you can never be sure:D

See you guys soon!

your saying my rolls aren't controlled? We have done it so much I think it has come real natural and very controlled......HA! HA!

:flipoff2:

We work together with UROC on rules, but sometimes we leave small differences to see what works better. Here is our rule on gate bypass:

5. Gate Bypass
a. Forty (40) Gate Bypass Points will be issued whenever a vehicle bypasses a gate.
b. Definition: If three or more vehicle tires travel outside of a gate, the gate has been bypassed.
c. Gates that have been hit are still available for gate bypass points.
d. If two tires are outside of a gate and either of the inside tires hit the gate, the gate is considered bypassed.
e. If a vehicle rolls, gate bypass points are not issued.

Seems to be working for us, no complaints thus far.

Originally posted by TrailKeeper
e. If a vehicle rolls, gate bypass points are not issued.

Seems to be working for us, no complaints thus far.

Not bitching here but I saw more than one rolled vehicle within the boundary tape that was called OB because they rolled across the cone...that is why I am bringing it up. I was hoping it was a mistake by the official, but I wasn't sure how UROC interpreted their own rules. More importantly, I wanted to see if there was a general concensus about this type of rule in the first place. You see, I was not affected at all by this rule as I was never called out of bounds...it is just an area where I thought I saw a need for improvement. There have been similar incidents at CalRocs but Roggy caught them immediatly and over-ruled the call. The same probably would have happened at UROC, but most drivers don't want to wait for a marshall and they just go on.

As for the no complaints thing...I have to tell you that there are complaints about every event but it always happens behind the event's backs...basically, few people step forward with suggestions directly to the events. Right now, the only place where competitors talk is either "one on one" over the phone, at the bar after the first day of competition, or right here on Pirate4x4. 90% of those complaints are probably "opinions" and don't have much validity, but seeing as 99% of those complaints never reach the event promoters, the promoters simply believe everything is perfect...not that things are bad, because they are not, but the teams have more eyes and ears than the promoters and the rules affect ONLY the competitors, so they have a better feel for what is working and what is not.
This is an area where a competitor's association would benefit EVERYONE...this cannot be an entity put together by an organiser because you then bring politics into the equation. Is this sport ready for that? Is someone going to step to the plate to set something up like this? Is it really going to make a difference in the sport? That all depends on how Professional the competitors want this sport to be. The more they are required to be involved, the less time they have in their already busy lives...If this sport wants to move forward at a better pace with smoother results, this will help tremendously...If not, it will continue to be a sport driven only by the will of the promoters to host events and the drive of the teams to build bigger, better machines and push them to the limit...keep in mind, these two things don't compliment each other without better communication.

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
the rules affect ONLY the competitors, so they have a better feel for what is working and what is not.
This is an area where a competitor's association would benefit EVERYONE...this cannot be an entity put together by an organiser because you then bring politics into the equation.

Was with you right up until this point. I find it humorous that there's so much bitching & moaning behind the scenes that only makes it to the promoter 2nd or 3rd hand (and believe me, we DO hear this stuff eventually), when instead it would make so much more sense for someone with a legitimate complaint to take it up directly with the promoter. But, then if they did that & the promoter actually addressed the "problem", then they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. And some folks just aren't happy if they can't bitch.

Now, here's where I think you & I part ways. I am NOT in favor of giving any sort of control over to any kind of "driver association". And you'll find most really serious sanctioning bodies would agree with me there. Having entered this sport first as a spectator nearly 25 years ago, moving up to part-time competitor, member of various drivers' associations, serious competitor, and finally promoter, I've seen the damage that can happen when you let the "inmates run the assylum". THIS is when politics come into play. I've seen folks singled out for elimination from a class, even though the parts that became illegal didn't really make the rig more competitive. I've seen popular drivers build a totally illegal vehicle, only to have his pals vote it into a class where it did not belong. Etc, etc. What's more is you can have meeting every month & the guys who piss & moan at events will never bother to show up, or perhaps they show up ONCE - the day you vote on new rule changes.

Taking complete control for my rules was the best move I've made IMO. I've made some unpopular decisions, but they've created a fairer environment for everyone involved. Now, I do think that some sort of formal process for rules SUGGESTIONS is a great idea. Maybe the drivers & promoters can get together once or twice a season to discuss how things may or may not change for the following season. But, I think the promoters (or more specifically, the Sanctioning Bodies) need to have the final say.


TEX

I typically email/call a promoter after every event to thank him and offer any ideas I might have on my own or heard from someone else- usually we are both better off after the communication. I'm not sure organization would do the drivers any better, at least at the events I participate in now.

Not to hijack but... The only improvement I have yet to see on a large scale is doing away with the need to show up the day before an event for a 10 minute tech which is not very thorough at all and a drivers meeting . some promoters will work with you and I thank them- others make it very difficult.

We are adults, signing waivers, we know what the rules are and anybody who thinks we are in violation can file a $50-$100 claim against another team. Simple and a lot less work for all the volunteers- costs the teams that much less in vacation time, meals and lodging- not to mention other sustenance.

There's plenty of motorsports, going much faster with the same or more ghetto fab where you show up an hour or two before the race and run.

Ken

Originally posted by Go2Guy
There's plenty of motorsports, going much faster with the same or more ghetto fab where you show up an hour or two before the race and run.

Ken

Mud's one of 'em. I cut tech off at 3:00 last Saturday for a 5:00 p.m. start. Usually, we cut it off an hour before.


TEX

Originally posted by TEX

I find it humorous that there's so much bitching & moaning behind the scenes that only makes it to the promoter 2nd or 3rd hand (and believe me, we DO hear this stuff eventually), when instead it would make so much more sense for someone with a legitimate complaint to take it up directly with the promoter. But, then if they did that & the promoter actually addressed the "problem", then they wouldn't have anything to bitch about. And some folks just aren't happy if they can't bitch.

TEX

This is exactly what the promoters don't have time for...if everyone bitches to them, they don't have the time...if they are hearing everything 2nd or 3rd hand, then hearing it is a waste of time as 2nd/3rd hand info is not accurate in the first place.
Second, it is unproductive to have hotheads taking their bitches to the events as the events take it personally and so does the hothead...
When I am talking about a competitor's association, I am speaking about a forum of information for these drivers to communicate about what is going on in the world of RockCrawling....I'd actually call it an alliance of competitors sharing information. I'm not saying the competitors make the rules as it is really up to each event how they wish to format things. On the other hand, how many people know how to chase a sponsor? How many people know where every event is, how much the entry fee is, how the prize $ will actually work out? How many people know there were questions about a certain rule at the last event that still haven't been settled? Finally, and most important, who is the communication link between the promoters and drivers? If you say the drivers need to go individually to the promoters with each question that they have, I will definitly have a different opinion...it would be far better to have a place where the teams can go to blow off steam, hear the opinions of the competitors which happen to be on the same level, and talk about the things they like/dislike so the organisers can hear in an organised manner, what the teams mindsets are. Tex, this sport is growing and growing fast...if a non-political system of communication is not created, EVERYONE will have to slow down.

Finally, you say that involving competitors brings up politics...the exact opposite is true. The promoters/organisers are "politically" motivated as they alter rules to fit the whims of thier sponsors (which we've already seen happening). Having competitors make the rules brings in greed and egos...and that's much worse than politics, so no, the competitor's do not need to make the rules...yet they do need a professional way to challenge rules as those rules can greatly affect people's financial lives...as a hobbyist, you can go along with just about anything...as a professional, you need to start watching where the dollars are coming from and why they are going out...If a spec tire ever came into being, I would see tens of thousands of dollars leaving my team...others would too...shouldn't there be a solid way to confront a promoter about this...I certainly wouldn't want to do it alone. Tex, Right now, if the driver's had an issue with a rule, how would they go about debating that rule with a promoter in a way that is PRODUCTIVE?

Ken, I applaud you for keeping in touch with promoters on a regular basis...I recognised the first time I met you that you are one of the few professional's I've seen. I'm sure the are others as well and with the things they way they are currently, there needs to be more. I also agree with your suggestion about tech...this would make things so much smoother for us. TEX, how do we bring this up with the promoters? If there was an organised manner, we could do this easily...but there is not.

In conclusion, I am not saying that things are bad right now...they are really going along without too much trouble. BUT, this sport is perched on the edge of success where drivers should actually begin to start making money from sponsors...for that to happen, there needs to be more organisation ON OUR PART.

Originally posted by RedBullJeep


This is exactly what the promoters don't have time for...if everyone bitches to them, they don't have the time...if they are hearing everything 2nd or 3rd hand, then hearing it is a waste of time as 2nd/3rd hand info is not accurate in the first place.

Agreed, and I rarely take any sort of action on anything heard 2nd or 3rd hand.

Second, it is unproductive to have hotheads taking their bitches to the events as the events take it personally and so does the hothead...

I don't take things personally, but I do agree hotheads are not going to get anything across at an event. I've asked anyone with a gripe to put it in writing so I can address it at a time when I HAVE time.

When I am talking about a competitor's association, I am speaking about a forum of information for these drivers to communicate about what is going on in the world of RockCrawling....I'd actually call it an alliance of competitors sharing information. I'm not saying the competitors make the rules as it is really up to each event how they wish to format things. On the other hand, how many people know how to chase a sponsor? How many people know where every event is, how much the entry fee is, how the prize $ will actually work out? How many people know there were questions about a certain rule at the last event that still haven't been settled? Finally, and most important, who is the communication link between the promoters and drivers?

That's a little different from what I thought you meant in the original post. If you're not talking about competitors making rules, then I don't think we disagree on much, if anything.

If you say the drivers need to go individually to the promoters with each question that they have, I will definitly have a different opinion...it would be far better to have a place where the teams can go to blow off steam, hear the opinions of the competitors which happen to be on the same level, and talk about the things they like/dislike so the organisers can hear in an organised manner, what the teams mindsets are. Tex, this sport is growing and growing fast...if a non-political system of communication is not created, EVERYONE will have to slow down.

This was kind of what I was talking about with the meetings. You are correct in that such a forum doesn't exist (not really in mud either) and that it would be useful. There definitely needs to be some sort of formal process.

Finally, you say that involving competitors brings up politics...the exact opposite is true. The promoters/organisers are "politically" motivated as they alter rules to fit the whims of thier sponsors (which we've already seen happening). Having competitors make the rules brings in greed and egos...and that's much worse than politics, so no, the competitor's do not need to make the rules...

Well, now we're arguing semantics. Politics vs. greed. In mud, there isn't so much money involved (yes with the vehicles, no with the purse), so greed is less of a concern. But, the same problems exist when you let the competitors run the rules. OTOH, I have also seen sponsors dictating things that don't appeal to me either. Fortunately, I don't have that problem since I don't have any major sponsors ;)



yet they do need a professional way to challenge rules as those rules can greatly affect people's financial lives...as a hobbyist, you can go along with just about anything...as a professional, you need to start watching where the dollars are coming from and why they are going out...If a spec tire ever came into being, I would see tens of thousands of dollars leaving my team...others would too...shouldn't there be a solid way to confront a promoter about this...I certainly wouldn't want to do it alone. Tex, Right now, if the driver's had an issue with a rule, how would they go about debating that rule with a promoter in a way that is PRODUCTIVE?

Sticky issue, and one that's impacting mud (not my sanctioning body) right now. MT is attempting to thrust its tires upon the racers & most don't want 'em. But, MT puts up the purse at NMRO events. If the drivers want to collectively say "no" to a promoter, that's fine. In my current position, I'd say "fine, go race somewhere else". But, OTOH I'm not demanding anything like a spec tire. Right now, I'm the "somewhere else" everyone is looking to. So, not sure how I'd handle being on that end.

TEX, how do we bring this up with the promoters? If there was an organised manner, we could do this easily...but there is not.



Good question. Perhaps it's exactly as you suggest. Some sort of "alliance" that would collectively put their thoughts together & have some representative approach the promoter(s) with their concerns.


TEX

Originally posted by RedBullJeep
I'd actually call it an alliance of competitors

You know, upon further thought, what's to stop someone right now from starting just such an alliance? Let's say that a person (or small group) were to create just such an association. There'd be a small dues fee, a newsletter & website to keep folks informed about very issues you discussed, etc. Advertisers might even purchase space in the newsletter - enough to cover its cost & then some. :idea:


TEX

Originally posted by TEX


You know, upon further thought, what's to stop someone right now from starting just such an alliance? Let's say that a person (or small group) were to create just such an association. There'd be a small dues fee, a newsletter & website to keep folks informed about very issues you discussed, etc. Advertisers might even purchase space in the newsletter - enough to cover its cost & then some. :idea:


TEX

Tex, it just takes someone with the TIME to do this...
Secondly, with the speed of the web nowadays, who needs a newsletter? Right Lance?

Originally posted by RedBullJeep


Not bitching here but I saw more than one rolled vehicle within the boundary tape that was called OB because they rolled across the cone...that is why I am bringing it up. I was hoping it was a mistake by the official, but I wasn't sure how UROC interpreted their own rules.

I think you are getting me confused with UROC. I'm with ERoCC. We are affiliated with UROC. Anyway, as I said in my first post, our rules are very similar to UROC's, but they differ in a few places, and this is one of those places.

As for your comment about us not being aware of competitors complaints - I would have to disagree. We have our ear to the ground and we are always looking for better ways to do things. We have an open forum where our competitors can voice their complaints, and we monitor this board on a regular basis. Also, all of our competitors are members of the organization and they can vote in our general member meetings, as can our judges and other members.

I would go into more detail, but I am busy preparing for our event this weekend.

As I haven't been in an Erocc competition, I have no grounds to argue your comments...still, as a professional competitor for many years, I find that most promoters/organisations don't have enough time to wade through all of the controversy/complaints/and b.s. to actually get the feel of what is and is not working. Most of what is going on in this sport IS working and it has gotten better this year as most organisers are doing more to keep in touch with their participants...
It's funny where this thread has gone...I was questioning one rule...
Don't get me wrong...I appreciate what Erocc has been doing and really would like to compete in Erocc because I have heard nothing but great things about it from Ken Blume, Ken Shupe, Chris Durham, and Jerry Blair.
Good luck with your upcoming event!

Originally posted by TrailKeeper


I'm with ERoCC.

Also, all of our competitors are members of the organization and they can vote in our general member meetings, as can our judges and other members.


Pretty cool concept:cool2:


Sounds like the much hated "union" doesn't it? :idea:
I'll bet they like democracy. What an alien idea. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by dumass


Pretty cool concept:cool2:


Sounds like the much hated "union" doesn't it? :idea:
I'll bet they like democracy. What an alien idea. :flipoff2:
That's great Dumbass...but I would rather mix opinions with competitors from ALL competitions/events. One place with the widest range of ideas because this sport is so much more than just ERoCC...More than just RCAA...More than just UROC...
Union to force things on others...NO...Alliance to build this sport from ALL angles...YES.
Pretty cool concept huh :idea:

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to hear ERoCC is working with their participants and including them in their decisions, but people touting this as something equal to what I am talking about are thinking small because let's face it...ERoCC may not be around in 3 years. The same goes with each of the other events. One lawsuit and POOF, a promoter disappears. Do you want to have all of your sport's organisational eggs in one basket? Or, would an outside "forum", that isn't tainted with the politics of event sponsors and promoters be better LONG-TERM planning?

Remember, this is just dream time here as it would take the work of a lot of people to do this...right now, that is probably too big of a dream. I'm just hoping to make some people start to think BEYOND building their next rig and competing in their next event...without this type of foresight, the sport has less potential.

Originally posted by RedBullJeep

One lawsuit and POOF, a promoter disappears.

As usual the nattering nabobs of negativity will rule the day.

That's not my idea:flipoff2:

What is "your plan"?

My fear is:
One lawsuit and POOF, recreational 4 wheeling disappears.
or
POOF, a competitor disappears in a ball of flame etc....

We need to stick together or we will surely hang seperately. Anyone recognize this quote?

Originally posted by dumass


As usual the nattering nabobs of negativity will rule the day.

That's not my idea:flipoff2:

What is "your plan"?

My fear is:
One lawsuit and POOF, recreational 4 wheeling disappears.
or
POOF, a competitor disappears in a ball of flame etc....

We need to stick together or we will surely hang seperately. Anyone recognize this quote?

Why must you infect every thread with your ramblings about this conspiracy theory of yours:confused: your starting to get old real fuckin old fast:mad:

I'll sign up ...
Been at the mercy of three organization's stock class rule changes and back peddling at the expense of mucho time and $$$ for more than a year and it hasn't ended ... UROC annouced their new "Super Stock" class.
About time to put the 'other' foot down and insist on some common ground to prepare for multi-organizational competions.

Originally posted by Jaffer
I'll sign up ...
Been at the mercy of three organization's stock class rule changes and back peddling at the expense of mucho time and $$$ for more than a year and it hasn't ended ... UROC annouced their new "Super Stock" class.
About time to put the 'other' foot down and insist on some common ground to prepare for multi-organizational competions.

What do you think we have been doing the last year and a half?

As long as each promoter or "group" has a different opinion (just like the 300 different you'll find on this board, about tires or anything else) there will be different ideas on whats best for the sport. I won't go into this any deeper, because I really don't talk to any of the other promoters besides Ranch (as they don't consult me either). Just like in any business or sport or organization, if you don't like the rules, stay out of the game...

Rich

whoa...hold on now.
Rich, I just wrote a long reply to your message quoting Jaffer but decided to delete it...it sounded like you were saying you're working hard and if someone doesn't like it, go to heII...I'm not putting words in your mouth but that's how it appeared to me. I think CalRocs has done a great job for the last two seasons. I also have great things to say about the other promoters. Still, things are not as smooth as they could be heading into the future with this sport...

Jaffer,
I too would like to see the same vehicle requirements for EVERY event so you could build and tune your vehicle for an entire season instead of cross-building and re-tuning for each event.
Seeing the stock-mod and super-mod differences between classes, I know there's not a ton of difference, but the ones there, added to the small changes and exceptions during the season, definitly make it harder and more expensive to plan.
People can throw it at us that it is the same in other sports with so much difference between organisers, but hey, this sport hasn't been defined yet...does it have to be that way in rockcrawling? My answer is that we can make it anything we want it to be.

Originally posted by Big Rich


... I really don't talk to any of the other promoters besides Ranch . Just like in any business or sport or organization, if you don't like the rules, stay out of the game...

Rich

Nice attitude, Rich. :mad:
It appears you really do like to throw your weight around.
Apparently, it will take a bigger man than you to approach the other organizers and do something constructive to alleviate these problems.
I'd like to see you, Ranch, and the others get a good dose from an outfit like a "Rock Crawling Alliance of Drivers" (RCAD*).
The whole lot of you could really use some decent rule consensus and writing skills.

*Sounds like "Arcade", which is very appropriate. :flipoff2:

Sorry I guess it just getting late...:D

I did not mean for it to sound like go to hell, but there comes a point when, after talking to the competitors (most of the CalROCS ones) compiling as much input as possible, starting alot of this from the ground up with no real path to follow, trying to do what "I" believe will be good for the sport, and then feel like you get hammered on various fronts.

We have spent many hours trying to get it right, but just like the suspension everyone built from scratch for their first time, it takes some tweeking of what you've done for the feel to become right.

In all honesty, nearly all the input we get back is on a positive note, but there are always the same issuses with the same people, I guess I'm just becoming a "fustrated little biotch" :D

So I'll say I sorry if I offended anyone by any of the commemts I made.

It's so much easier discussing these things in person, were intent can be expressed.

Rich

Jaffer, what you have to remember is that these "other organizations" are the competition to Rich. Like every promoter, he's fighting for his existence. Sure, you want the sport to grow, and you do things for other promoters to help. But, there comes a point where it becomes self-destructive. It's a fine line.

And you have NO idea how much hassle it is to get everyone to agree on what should or shouldn't be done to make the rules "consistent" from one sanctioning body to the next. Shoot, after 3 decades we still can't come to any agreements in mud. If anything, the longer the sport exists, the farther apart various groups grow. One group in MO never did allow 44" tires in their Super Stock class. They've since added nitrous & now call it Pro Stock, but STILL don't allow 44's. Why? Because the class predates 44" tires, so they're sticking to the 40" limit they set back in the 70's. The guys in Kansas are still doing almost nothing but bog events while the guys in Indiana are almost exclusively drag events. In between, you see a little of everything.

In my sanctioning body, guys get mad because I don't have a 38.5" class like they do out in the Western part of the state. Well, the reason for that is that 38.5's dominate the 44" class now, and if I allowed them in the 38.0" class two things would happen - 1, the same guys would win both classes, and 2, EVERYONE would be built pretty much the same on 38.5's. That extra 1/2" of stamped height would severely blur the lines between the two classes. That's my opinion, and even the guys around here who WANT to run 38.5's in the lower class can see my point there. But, not everyone agrees with me on that.

Then, you have stuff like new equipment hosing the rules. Everything is finally set after a few years of tinkering with the rules & WHAM, MT comes out with a 46" tire, and Interco is soon to release a 49. So, I now find myself with the same dilemma that Missouri Mud had when the 44's came out. Do I change the 44.5" class to allow the bigger rubber, or make the guys who buy these tires run another class? And you can bet the competitors are going to be of little help on this. Those who want to run the new tires obviously are going to want the rules changed to allow it. And some groups WILL change. Some won't.

And as much as you'd like the rules to be the same everywhere you go, even you competitors will not be able to agree on what those rules should be. You're going to campaign for dovetailing or something similar while someone else is going to want something else. Dustin's idea is this "federation" to avoid that. But, it won't solve the problem of varying opinions. You can all be collectively informed, but you're not going to collectively agree on how to approach "issues". There will always be dissenting opinions.


TEX

Thanks Tex, that more of the way I should have posted, by I hate being long winded on the computer. I don't seem to be able to express Myself well when I type (again impatient).

I pm'ed Jaffer with what I hope was a little insight (if I explained myself well enough)

I was not intending any commemt to be taken personally.

I run the smallest of the Rock Crawling events out there right now, but I think I doing the sport good by trying to bring the sport to those that don't or can't travel, but still would like to try. We get out to areas that no one else is interested in going to, until we prove that it might be popular. We'd rather have the first timer than all the sports super stars. Every event we do, we put our butts on the line, they are not the SURE thing type of event that the other promoters have developed. The sure type of events are the ones that always go to the same location because it's proven or have there own area that over time they can develope into what works. I don't have that luxury, besides I like to drive so much and meet all the people I can. I'm not complaining, just trying to explain;)

This year has been crasy, just look at the schedule, we promoters that put on shows in the western part of the country could not even work our schedules so that if could benefit evertone from competitors to promoters. If we can't work out something simple like schedules, imagine what it's like if and when anyone talks about rules :eek:

Rich

Originally posted by Big Rich
I run the smallest of the Rock Crawling events out there right now, but I think I doing the sport good by trying to bring the sport to those that don't or can't travel, but still would like to try. We get out to areas that no one else is interested in going to, until we prove that it might be popular. We'd rather have the first timer than all the sports super stars. Every event we do, we put our butts on the line

Yup, same here. Despite good advertising, a drastically reduced budget, and perfect weather, I cleared about $450 on my last event. Without the help of volunteers helping to spread the word & helping in other ways, I would have lost money. The other point here is the idea of bringing something different to the sport - be it rules, locations, different competitors, or whatever. This uniqueness is something the smaller groups MUST have in order to survive. And this very fact makes it impossible to get the rules consolidation that the competitors desire so.


TEX

I think everyone should understand what Rich and Tex are saying but even 'baby steps' can be taken to try and address what Dustin and I have been refering to ...
... the basic things like aligning stock class suspension types, wheel base variation allowances, frame rail mods, wheel/axel widths, body alterations, and yes, even tire diameter.
These are the things that are so hard and expensive to alter once a build plan is laid out and the basic issues that put builder/competitors into a tail spin.
For instance ...
Pro-ROCKS started the season with a 'Like suspension for frame rule' then dropped it just as RCAA included coil-overs. Now UROC is back to the 'Like suspension' concept.
It's been totally freaking crazy!

Originally posted by Jaffer
but even 'baby steps' can be taken to try and address what Dustin and I have been refering to ...
... the basic things like aligning stock class suspension types, wheel base variation allowances, frame rail mods, wheel/axel widths, body alterations, and yes, even tire diameter.


And here again, maybe the competitors coming to some sort of agreement & then lobbying for their thoughts would help. But, I think what you're going to find is that in order for this to help, the concensus is most likely going to go toward the bottom end of the spectrum. You're going to have to agree upon the STRICTEST version of the rules, 'cause the guys on the smallest rubber with the simplest suspension, and uncut bodies aren't going to go for any rule changes that'll put them at even more of a disadvantage.


TEX

Legitimate concerns on many/all sides. Concensus amongst the drivers will be difficult/challenging but not impossible.

I can't see any driver / team being against dovetailing, they can trash or tweak what they have then when they do decide to fix they can choose to be less cosmetically vulnerable. I'd say the same goes for skins behind the seats. This offers no competitive advantage other than reduceing maint costs of keeping a rig looking nice.

I personally think the WB thing can be +/- several inches or not even controlled at all- loosening it just means more production rigs can be modified to be competitive- you really don't want to limit the event to any oem vehicle with a 93-105" wb do you? (I know- Cody Wagoner breaks this rule)

As for susp- same applies- coils and links are proven to have distinct advantages- Hell, even Durham's new ride is getting coils on one axle. Do you really want to make this a TJ class? At least this way the guys who don't have them can aspire to upgrade as time and money allow. Perhaps you could omit coilovers for costs sake but allow coils and links

Just my .02- I think the intent is to draw people in, give them hope that they can work with what they already own (and likely have a lot of sweat equity and cash invested in) and be in the hunt. You don't want people believing they have to build a tj from scratch on the edge of all the rules. I suspect sponsors will look favorably on this too. Every rule should be looked at

Safety?
cost to teams?
welcoming or keeping people out?
more rigs competitive or limiting what will be competitive?


all this said, I'm glad to be in the other class- less headache in meeting the rules.
Good luck with everyone's efforts, it is a worthy cause.

Originally posted by Go2Guy

all this said, I'm glad to be in the other class- less headache in meeting the rules.
Good luck with everyone's efforts, it is a worthy cause.

In mud, it's the guys in the middle that have the headaches. Everyone has pretty much come to a concensus on the top couple of classes & the bottom one or two. It's the stuff in the middle that's all over the map, mainly because NMRO hosed it all up in the mid 90's by eliminating Pro Stock from their "National" events. What wound up happening was that the Pro Stock guys either got bumped up to Modified, or fudged into Super Stock, depending on who was doing tech on any particular day. And in the end, they wound up loosening up the Super Stock rules - in some ways more so than Pro Stock had been before. And it's the guys who build SPECIFICALLY for the NMRO events that wind up as an in-betweener everywhere else they go.

TEX