Just pondering wear the sport is going in terms of ultra light weight rigs. There are several under 2000 lb rigs currently in development and others are having thoughts of designs near 1000 lbs total weight. This concept would be basically a 4wd quad with sammy axles, 20" rims and custom tires.

Should the sport of competive rock crawling have a minimum vehicle weight like Nascar does? If so what do you think it should be?

Should I start getting out the 1" tubing for my next roll cage?

I don't think a weight limit needs to be set yet, someday maybe, under 2000lbs and keeping the car type vehicle, no ATV's will be some chore, Good luck!!!!!!!

Rich

Originally posted by Big Rich
I don't think a weight limit needs to be set yet, someday maybe, under 2000lbs and keeping the car type vehicle, no ATV's will be some chore, Good luck!!!!!!!

Rich

Would you allow a big axled quad to compete? Is there a rule about seat design and position? Or is it simply no ATV's and it's upto the judge?

Should there be minimum cage sizes? Looking at some rigs they are getting as small as a Honda Odyessy inside.

The question is: Why would you build something that small? It seems like that is just totally getting away from what rock crawling is really about; Driving a TRUCK over hard obstacles.
My vote is for a size limit definatly.

no size limit, just make the course demand a certain type vehicle. If it's too small or short it will be a detriment as well as if it's too large and heavy.
in my opinion what rockcrawling is really about is building something that will get over the rocks with at least 4 tires, a seat, and a motor.

The lighter the better, within reason. Some people make some gay shit that's dangerous.:)

i think it will get to a point where the ultra lightweight wont be an advantage because you wouldnt have any weight on the tires,thus no traction

As a Samurai driver, I can attest to how nice it is to have as little weight as possible. Much less effort to get it to climb vertically! My Samurai, being a Hardtop model with some heavy bumpers and other accessories, is heavier than most at about 2600lbs. It's not uncommon for a trail Zuk to weigh less than 2000lbs, and it does make a difference. Larger, heavier vehicles just feel so ponderous and struggle for traction much more. No wonder you big guys break axles so much. I still have stock axles with 34-inch-tall Swampers and I'm able to carefully finess my way through the rocks and not break anything. Brute force is not required. :D

Why doesn't someone put Sammy axles in a Honda Pilot chassis? :D

Originally posted by Chris Geiger
designs near 1000 lbs total weight. This concept would be basically a 4wd quad with sammy axles, 20" rims and custom tires.

Give a strong spotter a 1000lb rig with a jockey for a driver and that thing will be damn near unstoppable if he's allowed to pull on the strap. Shit if the spotter can pull 40% of the vehicle weight he's almost like a winch :D

Originally posted by zukiman
No wonder you big guys break axles so much. I still have stock axles with 34-inch-tall Swampers and I'm able to carefully finess my way through the rocks and not break anything. Brute force is not required. :D


a stock Sammy doesn't have enough Brute Force to break anything!! :flipoff2:


:usa:

Originally posted by fcfred
no size limit, just make the course demand a certain type vehicle. If it's too small or short it will be a detriment as well as if it's too large and heavy.

Exactly, the point of diminishing returns will be met & my prediction is that it'll be still above 1,500 lbs. To get much smaller, you'd have to sacrifice wheelbase & track width to the point of being unstable.

TEX

Originally posted by Chris Geiger


Would you allow a big axled quad to compete? Is there a rule about seat design and position? Or is it simply no ATV's and it's upto the judge?

Should there be minimum cage sizes? Looking at some rigs they are getting as small as a Honda Odyessy inside.


No big axle atv's, I know that with the single seat buggys, it getting close to looking like that, but NO. We'll keep the intigrity by reguiring automotive type controls and seat configurations.
Some day we may have to have a min. weight.

Rich

I don't think a rule is needed. Physics will determine the best weight, you can only go so low

I know with mud racing, some groups have minimum weights for certain classes. Years ago, before that was instituted, this guy made an ultra-light machine with a 30 rear & IFS Nissan stuff up front. Used a rear-mounted alluminum 215 V8 on nitrous & ATV paddle tires. It worked well on fresh tracks, but when stuff was rutted up, he couldn't control it. Another guy tried to bring that machine out of retirement a few years ago (with a group that doesn't weigh stuff) & it was a total flop. Nowadays, it just doesn't pay to go ultra-light in mud 'cause you can't make a stiff enough or long enough chassis to control the machine with 1,000+ HP. Don't get me wrong, portly machines are definitely out. But, you can only go so light until it starts to work against you.

BTW, monster trucks are required to weigh 10,000 lbs primarily because the guys who had trucks down to 8k or so were constantly breaking & hosing up the show by needing to be hauled out of the infield.

TEX

Originally posted by Big Rich
No big axle atv's, I know that with the single seat buggys, it getting close to looking like that, but NO. We'll keep the intigrity by reguiring automotive type controls and seat configurations.
Some day we may have to have a min. weight.

I think the cage requirement is a big point to contend with, for the guys who would otherwise build something ATVish. UROC has a cage tube size requirement, but not an overall cage size requirement--I think that's a good thing. I believe they're also requiring a minimum six point cage--if you have a six point cage and it's made from 1.5" 0.120 tube, then that pretty well dictates that you're not going to get much under 1500 pounds (IMHO) anyway.

As for keeping automotive type controls, why? Why not allow hydro drive, active suspensions, skidsteer, etc.? F1 pretty much allowed whatever you wanted to run for a while, till the cars evolved to where they are now--now they're relatively standardized for safety reasons. 4x4's standardize safety with the cage--we're not going fast enough to have multi-crawler pileups in the obstacle three big rock (:p) so why not allow people to really push the envelope technologically, and see what comes of it?

Originally posted by Brad
i think it will get to a point where the ultra lightweight wont be an advantage because you wouldnt have any weight on the tires,thus no traction

That is exactly how I feel, you need some weight just to stay planted well.

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper

As for keeping automotive type controls, why? Why not allow hydro drive, active suspensions, skidsteer, etc.? F1 pretty much allowed whatever you wanted to run for a while, till the cars evolved to where they are now--now they're relatively standardized for safety reasons. 4x4's standardize safety with the cage--we're not going fast enough to have multi-crawler pileups in the obstacle three big rock (:p) so why not allow people to really push the envelope technologically, and see what comes of it?

I guess I should have expanded my response, First I mean't steering wheel not handlebars, secondly the unlimited/open class would be allowed exceptions to almost any and all restrictions(with prior notice).

Rich

Look at this, and then look at a 4 wheeler (ATV) and tell me the difference...

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=689867



I think the point is - just what IS the difference? I see the main one being a roll cage, but where else are they different? The only other way to tell the difference is motor size...



I have been saying for years that these rock challenge comps will come to the point of using an ATV or similar chassis, maybe a 20+/- hp Honda lawncare motor, some kind of auto tranny, crawler gears, small lightweight sammi or stock CJ axles, and some kind of ultr lightweight tire/wheel combo.


Here's me on my 94 Polaris Sportsman 4x4 ATV.

http://www.tennessee4x4.com/toyota/images/davidm005.jpg


It has a 400cc motor, variable drive transmission, LOW RANGE, 4x4, fully locked front & rear (I broke a front CV in the pic :p ), and 25" tires STOCK.

As far as I can see - put some sammi axles under it, coilover on a 4 corners, hudro steering using the handlebars, add a full cage, and some 33" tires and compete with it...

And why not? What would be the difference from the first picture I posted above?


Point being - the line between "ATV" and "truck" is being SERIOUSLY blurred....

BTW - the ATV i posted a picture of weighs in at close to 600 lbs. wet - so that should give an idea that there is a limit to how light you can go...



And Big Rich - why not use handlebar steering instead of a wheel? It would take a different setup and "Feel" for driving - but I see no reason not to allow it :confused:

Originally posted by DRM
Look at this, and then look at a 4 wheeler (ATV) and tell me the difference...

I think the point is - just what IS the difference? I see the main one being a roll cage, but where else are they different? The only other way to tell the difference is motor size...

Point being - the line between "ATV" and "truck" is being SERIOUSLY blurred....

Yes, it is. I (only half jokingly) noted on the trail last weekend, that my truck is just a really big ATV (a couple on ATV's pointed it out first) any more.

I personally see the main difference as being that a rockcrawler has a cage and seatbelt(s)--an ATV, has neither.

Like I noted, I think by simply keeping the cage requirement, maybe standardizing on what UROC is requiring, will keep the sport relatively safe, and by simple default of that there's very little way of shrinking that cage smaller than the driver, rigs won't go much below 1500 pounds.

Will we start seeing smaller drivers to accomodate the shrinking rigs? I think it'd be hilarious if all the big guys had to spot, 'cause the competitive rock rigs had shrunk so small that we all have to hire 5'3"-and-under, 110-pound-and-under drivers... watch it go the way of the Kentucky Derby. Since most of the competitors own their own rigs, and prefer to build them to drive them, I don't think we'll see stuff shrunk that small.

BigRich, I think the handlebars vs. steering wheel debate is a moot point... require a six-point, minimum 1.5"x0.120 cage, and who cares what kind of controls it has. Drive it like a Bobcat--just have a forest of levers. As long as the driver's safe, I think stuff like that is cool, but too gimmicky to actually be competitive. But I'd love to see somebody build it anyway, if for no reason other than as an R&D exercise. Let the college engineering programs get involved, and who knows what they'll turn out? :)

I think there should be basic smallness requirements. They should include (IMO) stuff like a steering WHEEL, maybe a 50" wheelbase, regular car seat. Other than that, I think anything goes.

I really dont wanna see 4 wheelers on the rocks. Just takes the fun out of it to me for some reason. Kinda like if they started allowing bionic enhancements in sports or some shit.

Who knows though, I was opposed to the one seat buggies at first and now my brother and I wanna build one:D

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper
I personally see the main difference as being that a rockcrawler has a cage and seatbelt(s)--an ATV, has neither.


So do like I said - add a seatbelt/harness, cage (ala Honda Pilot) and is it still an ATV? ;)

Blurrrrrrrr :p

Originally posted by TyTy
I think there should be basic smallness requirements. They should include (IMO) stuff like a steering WHEEL,

Fine - slap a "wheel" on there... Still the same 1/8" turn from lock to lock ;) :D:D:D

Originally posted by TyTy
I think there should be basic smallness requirements. They should include (IMO) stuff like a steering WHEEL, maybe a 50" wheelbase, regular car seat. Other than that, I think anything goes.


I don't have any way of weighing the rigs at my mud races, but I DO require a minimum of 75" wheelbase.

TEX

well i shot for the 1k weight and didn't make it. i just can't see anyway to do it now that i have built the chassie and axles. i used zook axles and t case a datsun b210 tranny and a 750 cc air cooled yamaha motor. it will weigh in at 1400+#s and it may blow thwe hell out of the zuk axles on 37 bfgs. but it has a full cage made from .120 wall 1 5/8'' tube and a inline two seat configuration. also a 104'' wheelbase. but i weigh 220 and my buddie that will drive weighs 155 so i figure i could drag it about anywhere on the course that i needed to. mike

Originally posted by DRM
So do like I said - add a seatbelt/harness, cage (ala Honda Pilot) and is it still an ATV? ;)
Blurrrrrrrr :p

A Honda Pilot (we're talking the gokart looking ones, not the new cute ute, right?) is still an ATV... sorta... but I think it's kosher to run in some rockcrawling events, provided it's got the appropriate safety equipment. Yes, the line is very blurry. I think, as long as it's got four wheels, seatbelt(s), and a cage, it should be OK to run in a crawl.

My kneejerk reaction was the "street legal" end of things, but TTC has pretty well proved that legality is pretty loose... I can put a license plate on a gokart in Colorado.

Honestly, with the tire size that you can reasonably support on a Honda Pilot or Oddessey (do they still make those?), I think something like that would get its lunch eaten in competition by a mild Suzuki buggy, but I'd love to see what people can actually do.

What about the mini-monster trucks?


http://www.patriot-racing.com/Patriot-Racing/MiniMonsters/specs/index.html
ALL THIS IN A RIG
THAT IS ONLY:
8ft. LONG,
6ft. WIDE
and 5ft. TALL!

Mild Steel frame


Engine:
1600cc Honda, 4 cylinder, OHC,4 valve,fuel injection
Rev limit: 6700 rpm
Oil pan baffles,


Transmission:
Honda,4 speed automatic


Suspension:
Dual-rate coil springs /
adjustable nitrogen shocks


Brakes:
4 wheel disk
Steering:4 wheel,independent,
variable-rate hydraulic


Tires:
M/T Baja Claws 35"x15"x15"


Wheels:
Competition steel
15in.x 14in.


Length:
95 inches


Width:
72 inches


Height:
60 inches


Dry weight:
1,900 lbs.

heh.. should be a 2 seat REQUIREMENT! Meaning... that spotter has to be able to ride WITH the driver.

the 2 Seats could be inline/side by side. doesn't matter. But all you guys driving the single seaters in competition.. your just driving an oversized ATV. Its no longer a truck, if you say otherwise I think your full of shit. ;)

Originally posted by fatkid
The lighter the better, within reason. Some people make some gay shit that's dangerous.:)

Yepp...some folks are cutting corners with tubing thickness to save weight and it is not worth it...I personally feel that there should be tubing strength limitations so that the integrity rig is in tacked!!!

Originally posted by jdjanda
What about the mini-monster trucks?



Someone actually asked me about running one at my mud races in the street class - provided they could somehow license it. I said "no" :D

TEX

Originally posted by Rocksie


Yepp...some folks are cutting corners with tubing thickness to save weight and it is not worth it...I personally feel that there should be tubing strength limitations so that the integrity rig is in tacked!!!

If you think about it though, a really light vehicle could probably be just as safe with thinner cage material. Let's say you have a 2,000lb rig & a 5,000lb rig, both with 1.5" .120 tubing. Which would be more likely to suffer cage damage in a roll? Surely the heavier truck, right?

TEX

As someone whos watching all this from 50yrds away and waiting for the sport to grow a bit and have some rules to cover these issues ill state my opinion on a rule..

1) Must use production motorvehicle drive train components or parts derived/ comprising of similer components or likeness of must be used. This may include specifically identified components that can be added/included with pitition #xyz....

I see this turing into more of a uniform sanctioned like dirt/oval racing where they specify and modify the rules to a very specific degree to improve the classes and allow for competition with in the class. (ie all auto. manufactures production drivetrains and including xyz branded components or similer.... etc brand abc NOT allowd in class 123)

2) Anyone driving a zuke knows an 80" wb is just to short to be overly usfull on extreem stuff....

3) Track width will be derived based on #2 for a "usable" width...

4) I think the roll cage limits WILL determin all of this, will create a minimum weight based on strength and this will drive the limits on drive train components. IE a quad engine trans wont hold up under a 1500# rig w/ 37" tires.. (will it?)

definitly interesting to follow these discussions and the competition as it evolves...

-yag

Originally posted by twaldher
you guys driving the single seaters in competition.. your just driving an oversized ATV. Its no longer a truck, if you say otherwise I think your full of shit. ;)

How about this for a single-seater? I'd hesitate to call it an ATV :D

http://gumbo4x4.com/MNT114.JPG

But, in fairness I do get your point. However, if you're going to require them to be "trucklike" the seating would have to be side by side. An inline 2-seater would still bear WAY more resemblance to an "ATV" than a side-by-sider.

TEX

Originally posted by TEX


If you think about it though, a really light vehicle could probably be just as safe with thinner cage material. Let's say you have a 2,000lb rig & a 5,000lb rig, both with 1.5" .120 tubing. Which would be more likely to suffer cage damage in a roll? Surely the heavier truck, right?

TEX

Well that is a good thought. However why would one allow the chance! I would suggest that there be a different limmit for different weight riggs but that would never fly...

I am not too worried about minimum wheelbase and track width - the course will take care of that.

Weight worries me a little bit and I think there should be minimum weight: Why -

$$$$ - competitive rockcrawling is getting out of reach already. It would not be out of the question to start using lots of exotic metals to build the rigs. Look at MTB's or desert racers.

I think you can build a competitive rig now for $20K. Lots less if you are creative. But if you start using Ti for all of the tubing, including axle tubes etc, the rigs are going to be $100K.

It depends where you want the sport to go. The pattern in almost all motorsports is lighter and more $$$ - thats what wins, ergo thats where the sponsor $$$ are.

Just my $0.02

Jim

Originally posted by Rocksie


I would suggest that there be a different limmit for different weight riggs but that would never fly...

Yeah, that would allow for safety concerns to be addressed, but the guys who already have portly rigs wouldn't like the idea of being saddled with heavier cages than the rest by way of an actual RULE. And I wouldn't blame 'em for feeling that way. Plus, anything you can do to make the rules more confusing/complicated, w/o any real benefit to the sport is a definite no-no IMO.

TEX

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper


Will we start seeing smaller drivers to accomodate the shrinking rigs? I think it'd be hilarious if all the big guys had to spot, 'cause the competitive rock rigs had shrunk so small that we all have to hire 5'3"-and-under, 110-pound-and-under drivers... watch it go the way of the Kentucky Derby. Since most of the competitors own their own rigs, and prefer to build them to drive them, I don't think we'll see stuff shrunk that small.



no, but you better bet youll see a lot more wives/gf drivers, as they get more time behind the wheel and experience. for a while, the air force was doing experiments with woman fighter pilots and found that they were (in general... maybe not YOUR woman, but in general).. more dexterous, faster reaction time. cooler under pressure, etc etc.

Originally posted by TLCObsession
It depends where you want the sport to go. The pattern in almost all motorsports is lighter and more $$$ - thats what wins, ergo thats where the sponsor $$$ are.
Jim

And the Sponsors are the $$$ in the ear of the folks that run the show...Most sponsors want the common jo to be able the look at the rig and say hay look there he/she's got such'n such lift and that rig rocks...Even thought the rigs may get pretty crazy looking and super light....There is always the stock modified class which does have surtain limitations in it. However there are other classes involved here. The Pro-midified and Super-modified(cant think of the right word for the last one right now) These two classes are getting more expesive sure, but to have the several classes keeps the limitations fair (per) each class as well as keeping the sponors happy. To say that there should be a limit to the with and the weight for ALL rigs/class would be suffication to the sport! I say limitations sure, but for safety reasons only and limitations that meet the needs for each class!

Originally posted by ChrisPy
no, but you better bet youll see a lot more wives/gf drivers, as they get more time behind the wheel and experience. for a while, the air force was doing experiments with woman fighter pilots and found that they were (in general... maybe not YOUR woman, but in general).. more dexterous, faster reaction time. cooler under pressure, etc etc.

Hey Im gonna run with this one...Help me talk my ol'man into retiring his rig to me....LOL!!!

hmm... theres another way. Of course.. youhave classes. But.. once you get to the point where you have enough extreme rigs in the extreme classes, break out a new class, super extreme or whatever. Of course... don't tell them that once they are required to be in that class... there are these 10-12' 90 degree cliffs they have to drop off of that have gates at the top and bottom about 1' apart, of course, winching would have to be a 50-100 point penalty. that outta slow the guys with $$$ down a bit. :flipoff2:

Having never been to a competition I'm not real sure how things work or how the courses are laid out, but I know that most of the wheeling that I have ever done there is a good bit of distance between obstacles. So, could you lay the coarse out where there where some places that time between obstacles counted, and make it a rule that the spotter could not hang on the outside of the rig. So the single seat guys spotter would have to hike/run the distance where the heavier rig w/two seats the spotter could ride.

Originally posted by zukipuke
create a minimum weight based on strength and this will drive the limits on drive train components. IE a quad engine trans wont hold up under a 1500# rig w/ 37" tires.. (will it?)



My Polaris is weights around 600 lbs, is rated to tow 500 lbs in low range, as well as a 200 lb operator...
I see 1300 lbs right there, and I can guarantee a quad engine buggy can be built to come in under 1300 lbs ;)

Originally posted by Rocksie


Well that is a good thought. However why would one allow the chance! I would suggest that there be a different limmit for different weight riggs but that would never fly...

No "chance" to it - the proper tube thickness needed for a cage on a rig of a given weight can easily be calculated using existing math formulas...

Originally posted by jeepmaxx
So the single seat guys spotter would have to hike/run the distance where the heavier rig w/two seats the spotter could ride.

This just sounds like a bitter two seater owner....Who cares about the single seater guys? They are not in the stock class so?

Originally posted by Rocksie
Well that is a good thought. However why would one allow the chance! I would suggest that there be a different limmit for different weight riggs but that would never fly...

The bigger sanctioning bodies (SCORE, CORR, BITD, HDRA) already do exactly that. If you have a rig at 3k pounds with a closed cockpit (real roof) you can run xyz size cage--if it's open cockpit, you upsize one step. 3500 pounds closed cockpit, is the same size as 3k open cockpit, 3500 pounds open cockpit, is up another step. 4k pounds closed cockpit, same as 3500 open, 4k open, up another step in tube size. Makes a lot of sense to me--having been in a violent reverse endo in a 4k pound truck with a 1.5" cage, I wouldn't want to ride along for that same roll in a 5-6k pound truck with the same cage.

A little birdie told me there will be a minimum weight in one of the prominent rock crawling orgs next year. But you didn't hear it from me.... ;)

Originally posted by Rocksie


This just sounds like a bitter two seater owner....Who cares about the single seater guys? They are not in the stock class so?

No, not bitter. Like I said, I've never been to a comp before and have no idea how the classes are set up. I just thought that It might be a way to even things out a bit.

Originally posted by Rocksie
Hey Im gonna run with this one...Help me talk my ol'man into retiring his rig to me....LOL!!!

My wife's already said that if I want her to, she'll enter the Mantis in TTC next year, and if she didn't have to work, she'd take it to some of the WRCC's.

Originally posted by jeepmaxx
No, not bitter. Like I said, I've never been to a comp before and have no idea how the classes are set up. I just thought that It might be a way to even things out a bit.
;)

Originally posted by Lance
A little birdie told me there will be a minimum weight in one of the prominent rock crawling orgs next year. But you didn't hear it from me.... ;)

HUH....Aren't you suposed to be like stretching out oe something? Or eating a LOT of prime rib for that matter!!! LOL

Originally posted by Lance
A little birdie told me there will be a minimum weight in one of the prominent rock crawling orgs next year.

Yeah, but when are they going to apply minimum weight standards to the VEHICLES? :flipoff2:


TEX

Originally posted by gunracer1
well i shot for the 1k weight and didn't make it. i just can't see anyway to do it now that i have built the chassie and axles. i used zook axles and t case a datsun b210 tranny and a 750 cc air cooled yamaha motor. it will weigh in at 1400+#s and it may blow thwe hell out of the zuk axles on 37 bfgs. but it has a full cage made from .120 wall 1 5/8'' tube and a inline two seat configuration. also a 104'' wheelbase. but i weigh 220 and my buddie that will drive weighs 155 so i figure i could drag it about anywhere on the course that i needed to. mike


You didn't use aluminum for the tubing. You didn't use aluminum axles, You didn't use fabric and kevlar or carbon fiber. I am sure you can do it, it's all a matter of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So with no weight requirment I could run something like this.
http://www.geocities.com/xj_59101/RockC_1.txt

Our newer baja cars run around 400 lbs -minus driver and I'm 110lbs. I would put 4 wheel drive on it and run larger tires and maybe a 20hp engine. That would add a few pounds. The IFS could be traded out for and articulating axle and it's already spooled.

Originally posted by Weasel
So with no weight requirment I could run something like this.
Our newer baja cars run around 400 lbs -minus driver and I'm 110lbs. I would put 4 wheel drive on it and run larger tires and maybe a 20hp engine. That would add a few pounds. The IFS could be traded out for and articulating axle and it's already spooled.

The IFS? I see IRS too. :)

I'd say, run it. I think it'll have enough trouble in big rocks, to where it wouldn't be competitive, and it'd have serious issues with trying to climb a 2-foot vertical ledge, but if you wanna run it, I'd say go for it. If you can make it work in an RCC, more power to ya.

But I think 4 wheel drive will add a couple hundred pounds to it, larger tires, another couple hundred, straight axle rear (guessing it's IRS 'cause it's transaxled?) and a transfer case, another couple hundred, and you're up to ~1200 pounds.

BigRich may argue this one with me, but if it was my call, I'd say that you've got a cage and a 4x4, so go ahead and run it. Being that it's not on a production frame, you'd be running Unlimited class, but if you're OK with running Unlimited on 18" tires (??), I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to.

Ahh...ok so I didn't think it through all that much. :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

IRS is what I meant and I was just going with the ATV idea. I wouldn't need a t-case I could just run a greater chain redution. 2 foot ledge? Should be a problem with 4 wheel drive. The car is around seven long. Tires...not sure how big you would have to run.

There would be some issues but I think it could be done. Anyone want to fund me? ;)

And those are 21" tires! :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

He could step up to some 27" or larger ATV tires, I agree about the chain drive transfer case.

And think of the new line options you have just opened up with something that small and light... All of a sudden the standard competition gates are wide enough to fit TWO of those things side by side ;)

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper
Being that it's not on a production frame,

Just how do you define "production"? ;)


Would a "production" ATV frame qualify? :p

As far as the IFS I could probably leave it as just that and run a actruculating alxe in the rear. As long as it's locked wheel travel doesn't matter all the much. I don't think it would have a problem in big rock due to the fact his thing is smaller the most of the rocks. I mean it doesn't have to crawl up everything, not like any does anyways, but could launch up stuff. :D

this may be a weird questions but how could a sanctioning body test a rollcage to verify that it is a certain thickness? is there a way they do this in other organizations?do you have to arrive with a small hole drilled in the main hoop?
I think a major concern would be safety and having a few lightweight rigs that were made by cutting corners could kill the sport quick.

Originally posted by fcfred
this may be a weird questions but how could a sanctioning body test a rollcage to verify that it is a certain thickness? is there a way they do this in other organizations?do you have to arrive with a small hole drilled in the main hoop?

SCORE and BITD both require an inspection hole in the main hoop, with the judges having the option (if they feel that something fishy is going on) of drilling another one.

Originally posted by DRM
Just how do you define "production"?
Would a "production" ATV frame qualify?

I see your point... I intended "production" to mean "production automotive". UROC has so many loopholes in their rulebook, I could build a full tube chassis Legends class rig, right around their rulebook... but it's not in the spirit of the rules. The rule writers need to consult a professional racecar builder on "getting around the rules"... hand me a rulebook and a notepad, and I'll make notes on what I'd do to get around every rule I possibly can, and/or how to reword stuff to where I can't get around it.

Weasel, you're gonna have a hell of a time trying to climb a two foot ledge with a 21" tire... pure vertical is tough enough, but if I was feeling truly sadistic as a course designer, I'd put in a couple "impossible" obstacles, maybe as extra credit, that would eat the short/narrow buggies alive. I like the chaindrive transfer, but I still think you'll end up over a thousand pounds. Even at 1500ish, though, a burly spotter can still throw the thing around.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DRM
[B]Look at this, and then look at a 4 wheeler (ATV) and tell me the difference...

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=689867



I think the point is - just what IS the difference? I see the main one being a roll cage, but where else are they different? The only other way to tell the difference is motor size...



http://www.tennessee4x4.com/toyota/images/davidm005.jpg


The there are noticable differences......Being all the parts that are on it come from a Toyota Pickup, so besides body width the thing is like a long wheel base toyota, it sits at 111" and toyota width. Just all that is not vital for safety or to make it run is left out...

That is why it's in the UNLIMITED class

there are wider framed rigs out there with more advantage than the buggy shown has (i.e. rear steer, hydralic suspension)....

I think limiting rules should be possible weight limit, min width and wheelbases and automobile based parts

i look at it this way, unlimited means just that, run what you brung. i want to see the baddest climbing machine ever devised. i think a roll bar requirerment, and frame requirement should be in effect[as in 1.5 od .120 wall min]. and make it magnetic so it will keep the big bucks out. and let them have at it. i built my rig to fit around the current rules, and can't compete at some places because i don't have a factory stamped vin. so i thought about grafting on a samurai firewall and chunck of frame. just narrow the shit out of it.
i mean keep unlimited open to get all the best ideas out there. just rig up rules for the lesser catagorys. just my 2 cents mike

In the SAE (buggy above) we have to have three holes drilled somewhere in the main hoops. This prevent a couple of things. To thin of sidewall, running NOS for engine boost in the hoops, etc.

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper


Weasel, you're gonna have a hell of a time trying to climb a two foot ledge with a 21" tire... pure vertical is tough enough, but if I was feeling truly sadistic as a course designer, I'd put in a couple "impossible" obstacles, maybe as extra credit, that would eat the short/narrow buggies alive. I like the chaindrive transfer, but I still think you'll end up over a thousand pounds. Even at 1500ish, though, a burly spotter can still throw the thing around.

Yeah it would be tough...that's why I would go with a bigger ATV tire. I still don't see 1500lbs. It's basicly an ATV drivetrain reworked. We don't use a tranny but a CTV, even if we did use a tranny (custom built) It would be under 50lbs. Front suspension wouldn't be much. Basicly the rear moded to fit the front with a driveshaft so maybe 100 lbs. Rear axle setup would be the same weight as what it's got now. Our current car also has the middle section humped up so GC wouldn't be a problem on ledges.

With a 27" or even a 31" tire I pretty sure I could ram a 2' ledge and go right over if I couldn't drive over it.

Originally posted by Scott@Rockstomper

As for keeping automotive type controls, why? Why not allow hydro drive, active suspensions, skidsteer, etc.?
4x4's standardize safety with the cage--we're not going fast enough to have multi-crawler pileups in the obstacle three big rock (:p) so why not allow people to really push the envelope technologically, and see what comes of it?

We here in Finland don't have minimum weight cause our cars are pretty big (has to have room for driver and Co-driver, no single seet buggys) and so far no one is trying to make ultra light machine. I just checked Eurotrial 2002 rules and there just reds no Quads or ATV. You can red the Eurotrial 2002 rules if you want at www.eurotrial.no pages. Click the english flag if you don't understand Norway :D

About hydro drive...it's not allowed in Finland or rest of Scandinavia just because the safety and environment resons. How would you feel getting few gallons of very very hot and pressurised oil on your skin in desert in midle of nowhere? Or some "green dude" spyes driving on the rocks and sees gallons of oil spillin around nature after little hose split?

My opinion is that hydro drive is for forest machines and front loaders etc :p

Steering brakes and four wheel steering and hydraulic/active suspension are good to be free. And they also should be allowed to use without getting penalty points.

Jare

Originally posted by DRM
Look at this, and then look at a 4 wheeler (ATV) and tell me the difference...

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=689867


ATV looks way much better to me than that "one seater what ever it is thing". If I had "thing" looking like that I sure wouldn't say that: "Today I drove my car over huge boulder".

'cause that sure ain't no car anymore, that is "a thing" :p

Originally posted by Jare


ATV looks way much better to me than that "one seater what ever it is thing". If I had "thing" looking like that I sure wouldn't say that: "Today I drove my car over huge boulder".

'cause that sure ain't no car anymore, that is "a thing" :p

It's a Toyota can't you tell ?!?!

It's a Buggy not a thing...When you see a fully tubed desert race truck do you call it a "thing", no?, prabably because it looks like a truck right? but if you take off the sheet metal it's the same "thing". If I took the time to sheet metal the whole buggy with Toyota panels you'd prabaly recognize it as a narrow truck. It's someone trying to create an advancement on the current trend.....it may not be pretty in some eyes but to each his own and remember, form follows function.

I can't really comment on where the weight limit should be but everyone will agree that a given rig will perform much better given a little less weight. In the case of a 4x4 weight on a 4x4 is disadvantagous because it causes weight transfer. Any weight transfer away from equal weight on all four wheels is going to cause a decrease in traction and ultimately will cause a rollover or loop/endo as the case maybe. This is the main advantage of an ATV even though they are much smaller than a Samari the rider can shift his/her weight to maintain more equal weight on the tires which results in greater performance. Even on ATV's weight is disadvantagous. Anyone whom has climbed on board any of the "new" heavy, high 4x4 ATV's knows how unstable they are compared to a 2wd Honda 250R or Suzuki Quadracer 250R. This is mainly because they are have a heavier high center of gravity and your body is now not able to keep the tires equally loaded even with gross shifts in body position. On any rutted off camber trail (I don't care if its up or down)--I'll take a light weight 2wd two stroke over a 4wd quad anyday. Any why are most all the "newer" 4wd quads IFS in back now--don't they know that solid axles rule!

Jason :)

Originally posted by ToyFamily


it may not be pretty in some eyes but to each his own and remember, form follows function.

I think it's BEAUTIFUL:D:skull: :D

Looks good to me, pull off the front fenders and it would even better!

it gives me wood.....

its a credit to the guys who built it...light, strong, low geared and perfect for what they were after, with no body to dent, i really dig the ski rope, but i think mesh around the driver compartment...or some more tubing would be cool where his arms are, but maybe that wouldnt work for him to climb in and out, his arms and upper body look to exposed.........

although some good points about hydraulics, you never know when a line can get caught or rub through on another bracket, and the oil and stuff would certainly give the greens something to moan about........

every track is different and different rigs work on different terrains

in Norway that buggy may not go to well, but obviously in the tracks its used on it does well.........

This one gives me wood too...errrr...huh...you knwo what Im talking about....;)

If you are gonna use an ATV look at the Artic Cat the motor transmission and transfer case are all located in the rear.
All that needs to be done is add some length to it and a cage. Use some small rice and cane tractor tires and it should be very light.

Originally posted by Rocksie
This one gives me wood too...errrr...huh...you knwo what Im talking about....;)

lift it a little....ditch teh sammi bonnet and give it some herbs :flipoff2:

Originally posted by Chris Geiger
Looks good to me, pull off the front fenders and it would even better!

I took the fenders off yesterday (they were pretty smashed) to put new ones on later and it does look pretty mean :D

I built it and I'm the driver (thanks for the kind words above)
As per the more tubing in the cockpit area, there is now another rail 4" under the existing side rail. I do see the worry but I'm 150lbs and 5'10 and if there were anymore tubing I would have to stretch before I tried to get in and I also want to be able to get out easily if I'm rolled in an awkward position or in danger for any reason...I have thought about netting both sides.... I have layed it on its side 7 times including a 6ft fall from one flop and I was perfectly safe each time...the thing that I have found is that it rearly touches the side rail in a roll , it's so narrow it only rubs the top (way away from me) I do wear a full faced helmet when I try obsticles, because there isn't really anywhere for me to go to avoid a rock if it did decide to come in.

A two seat buggy is now on the drawing board :D

For those that want "sky's the limit"

Why not a 4 chain driven bicyle wheeled thing with a seat, weed-wacker motor, and a beer can for a gas tank - driven by a 65lb 9 year old ??

Will there need to be a limit to how far the driver / spotter is allowed to carry their rig??

Can I just strap 4 wheels, a seat, and a model airplane engin on my donkey?

There seems to be no rule about having to keep all the tires, or even any of the tires, on the ground at the same time - can I design a rig that's really a mini helicopter with 4 wheels?

Am I just being silly, or thinking outside the box?

Personally - I'd just like to see 2 things: complete and comprehensive safet requirements from restraints to netting to cage size to ign cutoffs, and no spotters - if ya can't drive it...yer done. Or AT LEAST no contact between spotter and rig.....wasn;t spotting standing outside giving directions once ??

HEY! the lack of spotter making contact with the rig should lead to an increase in rolls, so at least the spectators will be happy!!!!

YA HOOO!!!!

:)

In all seriousness:

is an F1 car still a 'car'? It only has one seat, no roof, no doors, no fenders, ans wings!!!! My only point is that there is a line where the vehicle would NOT be a car anymore, they draw it, and live with where they draw it. So they must do in rock crawling. As a new sport, they're still trying to figure out where that line is.

I think there are some real dividing issues as to where to draw the line:

1) Should it be mandatory to have 2 seats? I've been talking about this a long time with Bill, about how the single seaters, to me, have a large advantage - but should it HAVE to have 2 seats, to keep the vehicle looking like a truck?

2) Should it HAVE to have body panels?

3) Should it have to be based on a production frame?

4) How involved should the spotter be in controlling the vehicle?

I'm not trying to spark a debate, just pointing out that we are seeing the start of a new sport, and these issues will basically define what the sport is going to become. To me personally, we are seeing the lines drawn along NASCAR/F1 lines - some people want NASCAR's structured, (supposedly) production based, regular LOOKING vehicles, while others want F1s no hold barred ultimate technology.

The birth of the classes allows us to explore both those roads, so why not do so? Personally I'd like to see further differentiation between the classes, such that modified stock really is that and the open classes become that. I think that will happen with time. Right now you see a lot of guys who either do or could run both classes with the same machine. Now could you take a NASCAR car into a F1 race? When the classes become differentiated to the point that you could not take a vehicle from one class and run it in the other, then I think this debate will go away and everyone will be happy, more or less.

My main concern is that an ultra-light rig will cause the crew to over-drive. What I mean is, the driver will be more tempted to throttle through an obstical, because he might not be getting the traction he needs. What happens when the tires hook up? A 1500 pound rig could get some air, causing bodily harm.
A spotter holding a strap for a 1500 pound rig will want to hold it longer, thinking he can recover something that light as it begins to roll. What happens? Severed hand flying everywhere...

Basically, I think it's going to become dangerous to be around the ultra-lights. Would you climb on the bumper of an ATV to hold it down? NO! It bucks and jerks too much, responds to the terrain to violently, and can dump VERY quickly (before you have time to react).

light wait does not mean less traction. the lighter a rig is the easer it is to crawl up obstacles. As far a spotters go witch would you rather try and control a 200 lbs. calf or a 2000 lbs. bull.

Originally posted by Pazuzu
My main concern is that an ultra-light rig will cause the crew to over-drive. What I mean is, the driver will be more tempted to throttle through an obstical, because he might not be getting the traction he needs. What happens when the tires hook up? A 1500 pound rig could get some air, causing bodily harm.
A spotter holding a strap for a 1500 pound rig will want to hold it longer, thinking he can recover something that light as it begins to roll. What happens? Severed hand flying everywhere...

Basically, I think it's going to become dangerous to be around the ultra-lights. Would you climb on the bumper of an ATV to hold it down? NO! It bucks and jerks too much, responds to the terrain to violently, and can dump VERY quickly (before you have time to react).

I think there are arguments for too light or small of rigs but I think that is not one of them...that is dictated by driving style not vehicle weight or size.... On obsticle 7 at the Reno CalRocs the buggy (light weight) CRAWLED up the V crack while heavier vehicles slipped to one side or the other do to the loss of traction to one wall or the other and in the case of H8Monday (heavy rig) used copious amounts of throttle to get out. It is true that wieght aids in traction but a lighter rig requires less traction to pull itself up an obsticle than a heavier rig would.

Originally posted by Air Bag
light wait does not mean less traction. the lighter a rig is the easer it is to crawl up obstacles. As far a spotters go witch would you rather try and control a 200 lbs. calf or a 2000 lbs. bull.

Is there some kind rule that how heavy the spotter can be? So like can someone use very light car and then spotter is somekind World Strongest Man competitor? Those guys can pull rigs and boats and all sort of things. My opinion is that it's not so racing with cars if there can be spotter who can pull the car from many directions or place rocks under tyres and what ever the spotter is allowed to do. My self I prefer more that driver and co-driver both sits in the car wears at leat 4-point seatbelts and helmets for safety. Well maybe I'm just brain washed to this scandinavian style :D

same spot heavier rig....more throttle

Low weight is an advantage. Have you ever driven a lightweight buggy over rocks, using the wheel brakes for traction control? It works well, and the same will work (only better) if the front axle drives large tires.

More weight means more power required to overcome the obsticle, and more need for throttle goosed rock-racing when the extreme is encountered. With 500 hp on tap for the tough spots, the chance of overpowering the easier parts of the course increases. The chance for breaking down on the course increases with the high power and high weight (and all spectators and organizers enjoy waiting for repairs).

A pair of 9-inch axles, wheel-steer, wheel-brakes, and a 200:1 reduction drivetrain with 4-banger is not much weight wrapped inside a cage with big tires. The CG is the drivetrain, with the driver being 20% of the sprung weight (enough for body lean to make a difference). The major unsprung weight is the tires (closest to the ground). Think about the advantages? Every form of motorized competition works for least weight (unless regulated).

SCORE used to have different minimum weight limits for single and two-seaters (1/2-1600) to equal out the competition and make older suicide seat rigs competitive. The problem was the 200# advantage was not enough to really make a difference when you can build a superlightweight single seater and locate your ballast in the cage bracing carefully (rather than a navigation passenger stuck in the seat). The weight limits were too light when chrome-moly frames became "affordable". I would expect weight location placement to be a design factor for a winning rig with weight limits (thinkers with $$$$ can get around an equalizer rule).

Make the rules simple, and a minimum weight requirement for unlimited competition could be the limiting answer to a field of rock-spiders. Make sure the weight limits are not so light to limit the creative design aspect. With an unreasonably light weight limit, the design drives lightweight axles (Toy and 9") leaving the budget builder to reach deeper in the pocketbook (excluding the 14-bolt and D60 drivers).

The thread to ask builders and spectators for input is great, reflecting the young nature of the sport (and offering a look to future competitors the direction of the rules).

If you do not think lightweight is the direction of competition, how many more tube truggy's do you think will be competing next season? How many more one-ton production frame chassis rigs do you expect?

Happy Trails!

what ever the spotter is allowed to do. My self I prefer more that driver and co-driver both sits in the car wears at leat 4-point seatbelts and helmets for safety. Well maybe I'm just brain washed to this scandinavian style

nah, Jare, I totally agree with you. And it can't be brain washing, coz I've only been to one place in Scandinavia (that i can admit) and it was a brief trip to Norway where all I remember is drinking too much and an awful lot of pretty girls!

If the sport wants to give a "Typical Wheeler" with 20k laying around the opportunity to wheel they need a weight limit of like 1800 lbs It is easy to build a 2000 lbs rig. But everybody will start using titanum and aluminum.... yes it is cool but how professional do you want it to be. I think it needs to be able for somebody with 20-30k to build a competitive vehicle. THat is a lot of money but not out of reach for a everybody as compaired to an aluminum vehicle. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ will govern it all. But what wins is what will matter.

Originally posted by dangerranger33
It is easy to build a 2000 lbs rig.

i dont know of anyone that has done it yet.

TB and I just wieghed the Sammy and it comes in at a ....

2340lbs. not bad.:)

I was hoping for 2200lbs.

That's still 360 lbs less than my rig! Wow that's light!

I dig the low wieght rigs. There's a big advantage to them. Funny there's no point deduction for them, like there is with rear steer. I guess the sport is growing too fast. When my bronco project was started, it was state of the art. But before it was done, it was already obsolete.
Most forms of auto sports have weight restrictions or classes. Compitition crawlers should probably take the same approach.
One more thing about fly wieght buggys. I just can't get into the sound of a 4 banger. :usa: It's just not me.

Originally posted by Chris Geiger
That's still 360 lbs less than my rig! Wow that's light!

We've got some front end work to do yet, but by the time the 37's go on, i don't think we'll be any lighter then we are now:(


Who here has anything lighter than 2340??

Originally posted by JR
I dig the low wieght rigs. There's a big advantage to them. Funny there's no point deduction for them, like there is with rear steer. I guess the sport is growing too fast. When my bronco project was started, it was state of the art. But before it was done, it was already obsolete.
Most forms of auto sports have weight restrictions or classes. Compitition crawlers should probably take the same approach.
One more thing about fly wieght buggys. I just can't get into the sound of a 4 banger. :usa: It's just not me.

I wouldn't say that your bronco is obsolete. Now my YJ on the other hand, was obsolete when I started. But I'm not building it as a comp rig either. As far as the weight debate is concerned, it would not surprise me in the least to see Ti being used in cages before too long. That coupled with the use of all aluminum engines and maybe some other custom who-knows-what could turn out some insanely lightweight rigs. It's sorta like mountain bikes. You can go really light if you've got the money.

the weight 2000 lbs is easliy breakable, its just money. I bet you can build a carbon fiber cage. that would weigh less than 100 pounds and be more than strong enough to protect the driver from injury. Carbon fiber reinforced with titaninium. drive shafts, link arms, and yes exuast tubing. You name it. Carbon fiber material can withstand temp of 700 degrees. You can machine it, and you can make it in almost any shape you desire.

F117As are made almost entirely out of carbon fiber, Titianium and aluminum and cost like 150 mil to build. Its all about the money.

ohhh...carbon fiber. Bad idea. Or a least just a exposed shaft of fiber. It doesn't like to be banged or scraped acrossed rocks. And as soon as one fiber breaks, the rest soon follow. Now if you where to use thin wall chrom-moly with carbon fiber inserts, that would be the ticket. I don't see a reason to go to aluminum tubing as it just a PITA. You have to heat treat everything to get any strength out of it then you can weld it once it's treated very easily. Titanium?? Not sure about the drawbacks except for that a 1 foot chunk of 1.5" OD is about 80 bucks.

I didnt say they would last very long but they would be lite!
and a cage or frame doesnt have to be tube.

As a spectator and media participant of this weeks events in Cedar City, I would say that we all need to stay tuned to future rules. Rumor has it that some changes were going to be made, I just don't know what they are.

Additionally, I drive an 80-inch wheelbase Land Rover, and I have to agree with the 'zuki guys that that short a truck is simply too short.

BUT....

Look at Lance and Mike's rig. I didn't measure it, but it's basically a 'zuki with a tube frame and some sick-ass drivetrain in it.

They seem to be able to compete in it pretty well. :eek: :eek: :eek:

So, I guess the question is what's my problem with my own 80-inch truck???

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

I say we sit back, let the folks with the $$$ dream up some trick rigs and see where this all will go.

UNDOUBTEDLY there will be plenty of trickle-down technology for the daily-driver and/or modified off-road trucks.

It's an interesting opportunity to watch a motor sport in it's relative infancy develop....

Originally posted by ItsaCJ6
F117As are made almost entirely out of carbon fiber, Titianium and aluminum and cost like 150 mil to build. Its all about the money.



while the suspension on the F117A can handle tremendous abuse, it is fairly stiff, and not well suited to rockcrawling. for all its 150million, i would be surprised if a F117A placed in the top 25 in RRCA anytime soon.

Originally posted by ChrisPy




while the suspension on the F117A can handle tremendous abuse, it is fairly stiff, and not well suited to rockcrawling. for all its 150million, i would be surprised if a F117A placed in the top 25 in RRCA anytime soon.

Yeah and its engine's powerband is too high for crawling. And all those sharp edges, while great for defeating radar, would get hung up on rocks too easily.

Originally posted by Huff


Yeah and its engine's powerband is too high for crawling. And all those sharp edges, while great for defeating radar, would get hung up on rocks too easily.

LOL.... I was using it a structural comparison, of the high tech bleeding edge of what your money ( or YOUR money can buy).
Besides the deafening roar would surely bring the green's down on us all.

I in no way thought that it would be practical, only possible. It is possible to buy an aluminum 9 inch..aluminum drive shafts etc not quite aerospace...

Originally posted by ItsaCJ6
the weight 2000 lbs is easliy breakable, its just money. I bet you can build a carbon fiber cage. that would weigh less than 100 pounds and be more than strong enough to protect the driver from injury. Carbon fiber reinforced with titaninium. drive shafts, link arms, and yes exuast tubing. You name it. Carbon fiber material can withstand temp of 700 degrees. You can machine it, and you can make it in almost any shape you desire.

F117As are made almost entirely out of carbon fiber, Titianium and aluminum and cost like 150 mil to build. Its all about the money.

OK, just step away from the crack pipe.

Originally posted by Air Bag


OK, just step away from the crack pipe.


I didn't say anybody could or would do it, only that it was possible.

Its possible to build a buggy frame out of titainium. Donald trump might ( I stress MIGHT ) be able to pay for it.

Small things are routinly made from Carbon fiber. lets say you make your, seat, steering wheel. Steering colum, shifter, oil pan, radiator, wheels, fuel cell, Intake manifold, headers and alternator housing, out of carbon fiber the way I figure it you just saved about a couple hundred pounds.

Food for thought. :smokin:

Originally posted by Brutpwr
I can't really comment on where the weight limit should be but everyone will agree that a given rig will perform much better given a little less weight. In the case of a 4x4 weight on a 4x4 is disadvantagous because it causes weight transfer. Any weight transfer away from equal weight on all four wheels is going to cause a decrease in traction and ultimately will cause a rollover or loop/endo as the case maybe. This is the main advantage of an ATV even though they are much smaller than a Samari the rider can shift his/her weight to maintain more equal weight on the tires which results in greater performance. Even on ATV's weight is disadvantagous. Anyone whom has climbed on board any of the "new" heavy, high 4x4 ATV's knows how unstable they are compared to a 2wd Honda 250R or Suzuki Quadracer 250R. This is mainly because they are have a heavier high center of gravity and your body is now not able to keep the tires equally loaded even with gross shifts in body position. On any rutted off camber trail (I don't care if its up or down)--I'll take a light weight 2wd two stroke over a 4wd quad anyday. Any why are most all the "newer" 4wd quads IFS in back now--don't they know that solid axles rule!

Jason :)

i would be one who would have to disagree.... weight does make a difference sure..... but your quad theroies are a little off...... first.... a solid axle on a qaud like my ole trusty kickass 250r the axle is attached to a swingarm with a mono coilover shock.... that translates into absolutely no flex.... kick ass on a track, pure hell in twisty rocks. now if you loose the swingarm and go solid axle with a link type suspension and 2 shocks.... ahhh much better than the independant crap. 2 your body can only do so much......... a quad in either style can not do what a well articlated/balanced buggy can do. 3 with all this shit my #1 quad would still have to be the fourtrax 250r they are sweet... but they wont work in the crap i wheel in, nor will an independant quad either...


i got it, ill just show up on a trials bike... :D it weighs nothing, and can climb the rocks very well.... guess id be in unlimited :D

So whats to stop sombody turning up on a trials type bike. A trials bike would eat anything a 4x4 can drive over. Need to be 4wd you could do that on a trials bike, differentially driven wheels you could do that too.

How about a remote controlled rig. You could stick that in your pocket and run around the course on foot. What is there to stop this???


I know Im being stupid here but surely the point of the rig being a 4wd is that it can carry some stuff over the terrain. Like at least two people side by side in the front. And a bit of shiat in the back.

IMO if the rig carnt accomodate this then you you may as well turn up to the comp in a sports car and compete the course on foot.

I carnt see any advantages of a single seat buggy over a trials bike so why let the sport go that way.

I think this sport must in some way be tied back to its roots in terms of a 4wd that carries more than 1 person and some gear (ie weight) that can drive over stuff. Cause if it carnt be then its of no use to anyone and especially of no use to me.

I want to see development in the ultra classes that relates back to real 4wds and not back to a motobike or an ATV.

Sam

Again, who here has a rig less than 2300?

I know of serveral 3k, Mike/Lance come in around 2500/2600..

There must be some light single seaters!!!:confused:

im gonna throw a number out just for kicks..... lets see what they limit the weight to.... im guessing no less than 2500

im gonna throw a number out just for kicks..... lets see what they limit the weight to.... im guessing no less than 2500


I'd say thats a good bet.

I say lighter than that, My Zuk is heavier than alot Zuks out there.

Since we're guessing, I say 2000 lbs is a good round number, but I can't see them limiting it at less than 1750 lbs...

I would like to see 2 seats either side by side or one in front of the other, and 2000 lbs min. Otherwise your really looking at a quad racer and I think that should be a different sport. There should also be a written requirement to have atleast 4 tires with drive to each tire.

1750lbs. is a good number.

Any idea how to confirm the these rumors. I'm getting ready to start bending a single seater, and i'm not going to waste any more time if they change the rules to require 2 seats.

I like the 2000 lbs limit it gives room for technology improvements yet dosen't rule out someone with 30k laying around and the vehilce won't have to be straight Titanium.



how much did that toyota buggy weigh I figure just over 2k like 2200?

Sam,

Do you think my donkey can beat your RC car??

I like your examples - and you expressed it well. I too think it has to relate back to something that *a lot* of people can relate to or think "hey...I could do that" the way NASCAR and Rally do. Jet powered land speed record cars are faster - more *extreme* if you will...but they are much more of a fringe thing.

Also - for major development, the OEMs and major sponsers have to get involved - and that will only happen if they can get something out of it - as in advertising and prodcut R&D, and that is much more likely to happen with rigs that at least *look* like something they might buy. F1 gets away with it because of engines - an f1 car looks nothing like a sedan, but BMW can still print a full colour ad in Car and Driver claiming your new car has a valve train developed in their F1 car. I don;t see the parallel in wheeling - so I think the rig needs to appear more like the product - like in NASCAR or Rally.

Hey - If I ride my 4 wheel donkey with an RC 4x4 in my pocket - can I capture 1st AND 2nd spot?

Ok, I've been gone for a couple of days and I could not even begin to respond to all that is written on this thread, but in general, I'll state.......

If you want to waste you money building a weedeater rock crawler go for it, just don't bother coming to CalROCS.

Drive train will have to be based from an automotive application.

Weight? as long as the cage meets the standards already set (unless changed from current from) Bring it.

Rich

Try and work around the intent of the rules and WASTE YOUR MONEY......

Rich - I think that is what everyone here is saying: make the rules, and people will work WITH those rules.

Half the dicusssion here is quite simply about the lack of specific rules...


Funny - for once, competitors WANT *more* rules ;)

you can only go so light, me I like being big and heavy:flipoff2:

Originally posted by DRM
Rich - I think that is what everyone here is saying: make the rules, and people will work WITH those rules.

Half the dicusssion here is quite simply about the lack of specific rules...


Funny - for once, competitors WANT *more* rules ;)


www.calrocs.com = rules

Now that RCAA and CalROCS are working together as a sanctioning body, rules and points scoring systems will evolve over the next few months, Vehicle classifications will be addressed at the regional level within the santioning body. More news to follow shortly.

DRM.....the rules are there, if read with honesty and questions asked (for interpretation) all should be statisfied:D Yeah Right:D

Rich

When i was still in chico we never got a chance to weight the buggy, Butt we are still putting our money on 2000#. If nick (toyfamily) would chime in maybe he has a weight for it now?

I say 1750 if we are allowing sigle seaters
2000 if the rules were to require two seats. Driver spotter.

I think that there should be a limit. Professional rockcrawling is really evolving fast. I think that there should be more restrictions. I honestly wouldn't care to see an ATV on sammy axles. However, lots of cool new tech from the pros is becoming more and more available for us that drive something still on a truck platform.

I still haven't been able to weight the buggy but I do think its at most 2000lbs...... And if you want to bitch about single seater buggys being unfair go build one... when iI started building mine I looked at the rules and what I thought was most effieicent within them and built to it.....that's what the Current rules called for in UNLIMITED...single seat and all....

The 2000 pound weight for a 4 wheel drive was broken in about 1960 by AMC had a v4 air cooled engine, 1/4 eliptic springs front and rear irs front and rear had a fording depth of 60" and a fueled weight of 1750 lbs.
Anyone know what it was?

Originally posted by zuknut
The 2000 pound weight for a 4 wheel drive was broken in about 1960 by AMC had a v4 air cooled engine, 1/4 eliptic springs front and rear irs front and rear had a fording depth of 60" and a fueled weight of 1750 lbs.
Anyone know what it was?

yes, surplus store has one 4sale here........

Well I guess you know what I am talking about. Afriend of mine had one about twenty years ago but sold it before we ever got it running. Always wanted another one just see how they would do.
Have you ever seen what they called a MULE?

Originally posted by ToyFamily
I still haven't been able to weight the buggy but I do think its at most 2000lbs...... And if you want to bitch about single seater buggys being unfair go build one... when iI started building mine I looked at the rules and what I thought was most effieicent within them and built to it.....that's what the Current rules called for in UNLIMITED...single seat and all....

Bingo, that's my point.

What should I build next. Looking at the written rules I could run a caged quad on zuk axles, but rich says that's not going to be allowed. So the line is not very clear as too what's going to be allowed. It's unlimited but must be automotive in nature is what I am hearing. It's not like I can afford to build something and show up with it and then have them tell me it's not going to be allowed.

It's not bitching, it's planning!

Originally posted by Chris Geiger




It's not bitching, it's planning!

tell me about it. now, not only do i have to worry about what the schedule is going to be like, now i have to worry about the design i've been working on.

I guess those unritten rules have got to be ritten some time... but I just used common sense in the fact that I was trying to build a Truck based rig for an automotive 4x4 event.... I wasn't trying to cut any corners I built to the Rules stated..... If some dumbass wants to push the ones NOT stated they'd be in tech forever...Basically if you want to wheel your quad go race in a poker run.....but if you used your imagination and turned a Mini Cooper into a killer rockcrawler... props to your imagination and ingenuity.

Originally posted by Big Rich
Ok, I've been gone for a couple of days and I could not even begin to respond to all that is written on this thread, but in general, I'll state.......

If you want to waste you money building a weedeater rock crawler go for it, just don't bother coming to CalROCS.

Try and work around the intent of the rules and WASTE YOUR MONEY......

I think I'm one step up from a weed eater, I call it a Jeep eater...:)

Originally posted by BillaVista
Also - for major development, the OEMs and major sponsers have to get involved - and that will only happen if they can get something out of it - as in advertising and prodcut R&D, and that is much more likely to happen with rigs that at least *look* like something they might buy.


Don't expect Ford, GM, or Jeep to put any MAJOR backing into it as long as the "premier" class is dominated by buggies. Ford would demand vehicles that are easily identifiable as Ford based products with engines that are based on their current engine offerings (no 351W's or 302's for example, but rather 4.6's & 5.4's).

We have the same issue with mud racing. BFG won't back us because they don't make a tire that works in our scenario. GM won't back us because everyone's running 1970's pickups and the rules require carbs instead of injection. And in the upper classes, the vehicles don't look like GM's or Fords, and since there's no cubic inch limit, guys are using blocks that are only LOOSELY based on GM & Ford products.

I think in order for them to get fully behind us, we'll eventually have to go to some sort of a "spec" class where the latest technology (combined with late-model, easily identifiable bodies) will be exploited. And in rocks, where the engine is even less of a component, it's going to be tougher yet.

TEX

Safety issures aside, I think the sport is way too young to start strapping down vehicle development by too many limits. Lets see what evolves and go from there. Especially in the top class. Weight limits in lower limited classes would be o.k. although setting up on site wheel scales would be a hassle and 3-4k expense. I think a 2 seat-side by side rule would go along way in preserving the "look' of the rigs as most people seem to expect from a 4wd vehicle and help maintain a certain amount of wieght. Tubing thickness rules should be in place and rigerously enforced for safety. This too would help maintain a min. weight.

Originally posted by TEX


Don't expect Ford, GM, or Jeep to put any MAJOR backing into it as long as the "premier" class is dominated by buggies. Ford would demand vehicles that are easily identifiable as Ford

TEX


So, to get MAJOR backing you recommend we incorporate IFS and the other innovations of the MODERN truck product supplied by manufacturers? I guess the "premere" class of every other racing sanction is also required to incorporate the "new" technology?

When a buggy walks past the MODERN truck, who gets the praise? Would it better to saddle the competitor with the cost of MODERN look alike body panels? Do you think the added cost to competitiors would be offset by the funding to organizers, or purse money?

Maybe, it's better for (most) competitors and organizers to avoid a conflict and not chase MAJOR manufacturer backing (like Ford would match the millions they give to The Nature Conservancy to off-road rockcrawling sport)?

I read early in the thread that buggys and extreme competition vehicles have no application to real world needs or marketing and sales. Look to other competition and learn it's not a true statement.
Competition innovation lends itself to (and borrows from) advancement in heavy equipment and specialized design needs: multiple axle, long travel, large wide tires, automatic lockers, hydraulic steering, etc. The exchange of technology works both ways.

Even within the rockcrawling arena application to military needs are being addressed by some extreme vehicle fabricators. In the off-road endurance racing arena the military tried to copy the light and fast attributes of competition buggies, and they ended up contracting Chenowith for (what) fast attack buggies! What we see as radical crawlers today may be transporting our military faster (and with more safety) ten years from now.

I can remember (years ago) reading a plea from rank and file military that the MULES, MUTTS and Jeeps needed to be fitted with Norseman tires, rather than the standard military lugs (love mud with straight lugs, ha). The military can learn from recreational off-roaders, even that tires make a difference (countering the military intellingence block and cost containment attitude).

The most ovbvious rockcrawling market is the aftermarket sales arena. Win in the rocks on the weekend and how many buyers are calling on Monday (CTM for example)? This is where the $$$$ are, for both manufacturer and competitor (and organizer).

You do make a point, that the growth of dollars in the sport may need a place to advertise and provide contingency recognition. The total dollars available to competitors in contingency funds usually well exceeds the purse. A full tube frame may not be the best advertising platform, but mandated side or hood/roof panel(s) can solve the problem. A single layer fire retardant driving suit (~$100) and helmet can also provide advertising space. Photos in a magazine (or the web) with a company logo displayed may be worth more than a look-alike body. The organizers should consider the needs of contingency recognition (funds for the competitors) as they develop the rules of appearance (something that may be more important than weight limits for the long term survival of paid competition events).

Happy Trails!

Originally posted by Ed A. Stevens



So, to get MAJOR backing you recommend we incorporate IFS and the other innovations of the MODERN truck product supplied by manufacturers? I guess the "premere" class of every other racing sanction is also required to incorporate the "new" technology?


Don't know if I'd go so far as to "recommend" that. BUT, take a look at where the corporate $$$ go for off-road racing. Who gets the money, the VW powered buggy, or the $250,000 IFS trucks, which aren't necessarily any quicker than many of the other classes that are out there. Same goes for NASCAR vs. CART. NASCAR is slower, but Ford & GM dump WAY more money into it.

You talk about guys like CTM. Folks like that are getting benefits today. But, I'm talking about backing from multi-billion dollar companies - and I say that unless it LOOKS like a Ford, you're not going to get much $$$ FROM Ford. Now, whether or not that's important is a whole 'nuther discussion ;)

TEX

Originally posted by TEX


..........and I say that unless it LOOKS like a Ford, you're not going to get much $$$ FROM Ford. Now, whether or not that's important is a whole 'nuther discussion ;)

TEX

think I should call the big 3 and see if they will send me a rig?:flipoff2:

Originally posted by Ed A. Stevens


So, to get MAJOR backing you recommend we incorporate IFS and the other innovations of the MODERN truck product supplied by manufacturers? I guess the "premere" class of every other racing sanction is also required to incorporate the "new" technology?


Do you think that Walker Evans went out and BOUGHT a new Blazer and S-10 to use as the platform for his rockcrawlers? The S-10 works pretty damn good and still resembles the truck that it started as and has a 4.3L under the hood. It doesn't necessarily need IFS and a 10 bolt (or whatever they have) in the rear. Walker is ahead of the curve though because he already has a relationship with the big money manufacturers...

Originally posted by Tin Bender
Again, who here has a rig less than 2300?

I know of serveral 3k, Mike/Lance come in around 2500/2600..

There must be some light single seaters!!!:confused:

It was here say but, Tim Hardy's red samy was a tad under 1900. but then again he has muffler tube for bumpers and such:rolleyes: oh and only 35's(small Boggers)

this is ToyFamily

resemblance needed??? what do you think the desert race trucks look like when you take the skins off.....a buggy

Originally posted by Snowball
this is ToyFamily

resemblance needed??? what do you think the desert race trucks look like when you take the skins off.....a buggy

But, why don't they look like that in race trim? Answer $$$$$$$$$

The Taurus isn't a tube-frame, RWD, single-seat car either, but to run in NASCAR, it at least has to LOOK like a Taurus & run a Ford engine - and that's why Ford backs them.


TEX

Originally posted by Dirty Harry


Do you think that Walker Evans went out and BOUGHT a new Blazer and S-10 to use as the platform for his rockcrawlers? The S-10 works pretty damn good and still resembles the truck that it started as and has a 4.3L under the hood. It doesn't necessarily need IFS and a 10 bolt (or whatever they have) in the rear. Walker is ahead of the curve though because he already has a relationship with the big money manufacturers...

Your point is well taken, these lessons have been discussed before.

Walker Evans racing built the truck, and little is from the production version. He may have bought the pieces: from race fabrication fiberglass, to the drivetrain (call his shop and ask)? His shop is well known for innovation (from Kuster's original coil-over prototypes, to the trailing link front end on the S10) and they may have built most of the pieces in-house. I would hope he gained funds for the Chevy look (because he could have fitted any manufacturers look-alike body).

Years ago, Robby Gorden showed up (winning) at SCORE/HDRA events in a 69 Ford F250 with all the trick pieces under the sheetmetal. While nothing was 69 Ford (maybe the built 427 & C6) it did help lead to Ford involvement sponsorship in off-road racing (for Robby and a number of other fast buggy drivers). The trucks body work changed, the chassis improved, and little came from any production vehicle (although the 69 started with a factory frame). The Rough Riders (and Chevy Thunder, and Hall's and Walker's Chrysler-Jeep connections, and PPI-Toyota) upped the ante on the dollars it took to build a competitive Class 8 truck, and quickly beat the Class 1 Unlimiteds. The actual infusion of big factory sponsor dollars were dominated by a very few participants, most were sponsored by dealerships. The contingency funds that became available, however, were spread around to help all teams and competitors. The increased cost concerns to win Class 8 or Class 1 forced design limits (travel and mount limits) on the factory based Class 8 trucks, and the development of the mixed look-alike Trophy Truck buggy class for true unlimiteds.

The fields of unlimited competitors became very thin when the major team dollars dried up, and the private racers (the despised obsolete buggys) maintained the thirty-entry fields of competitors (and the growth of the sport). The sport now has Truggys and hybreds of buggys in the unlimited class, a spec class or two, and production based rigs in limited classes with the old buggy classes. Factory involvement is minimal: why sponsor a rig that is guaranteed to come in somewhere less than 1st place (where is that competitive Chevy Thunder Trailblazer, the Kia, etc.)?

I am not here to discourage anyone from seeking and securing a manufacturer's sponsorship funding. Some people believe this is the only reason for continued IMSA racing. Make a spec class if a sponsor is willing to fund the effort. My message is that if you limit the "premere" class to truck look-alikes, and the buggy look-alike's keep out performing them on the course, don't expect continued funding for losers.

The health of the sport is gained by participation, by competitors and sponsors. If you hang everything on one sponsor (or a few) you leave much to lose when they back out. Providing rules that encourage many sponsors, contingency payback for multiple product users, will benefit a greater percentage of competitors.

Happy Trails!

WTF is this thread going?:confused: Fawlk it and just wheel, I think the$$$$ is going to people's heads. I have spotted in both NWRCA rock crawls and I had a blast, some of you may think NWRCA is:rainbow:, but I did it to have fun... Now where is my frick'n cookie!!

I see no grey area;The rules are stated....



Modified Stock

Axles
All Axles of a OEM design. No overall axle width, including tires and wheels may exceed 80"(outside of tire to outside of tire). Wheel base of the vehicle must be within 2.5" of OEM. (no gray area allowed)

Body
Full recognizable bodies i.e. Jeep, Toyota, Ford, Chevrolet, I.H. etc., are required. Some trimming of body allowed by %, such as fenders and corner panels, but not to included (rear) inner fender wells and no tubbing of fender wells. All flooring and firewalls must be fully intact. Only doors are allowed to be removed for competition, all other body parts must be present. All normally DOT required turn signals, head lamps and tail lamps must be operational.

Bumpers
Bumpers must connect right and left frame rail front and rear.
Brakes
The brake pedal on the floor must operate all brakes except emergency brake. Brakes must consist of two disc brakes and/or two drum brakes, four disc and or four drum brakes. Complete brake system must be in good working order with adequate friction material. Master and slave cylinders must be in good shape without leaks and lines ran in a safe manner. Adequate braking resistance at the pedal is required.

Frame
Frames must be of OEM, or aftermarket ORM design. Reinforcements approve. Mainframe material of a magnetic steel. No tube or partial tube frames allowed.

Power Steering
All stock forms of power steering are allowed. No full hydraulic systems or ram assist systems are allowed. All steering components must be in good working order, with no fluid leaks.

Suspensions
Stock configuration suspension designs required (leaf from factory, leaf for competition, IFS from factory, IFS for competition, coil/leaf comb from factory, coil leaf for competition, etc.). No coil over shocks suspensions allowed. No double shackle systems allowed. Shackle reversal approved. (no limitation on suspension attachment point measurements, but overall wheelbase MUST remain within 2.5 inches of stock…no gray area)

Tires
Maximum tire size is 35"or 315/75/16, based on manufactures sidewall stamping. All D.O.T. approved tires by sidewall designation are approved.

Pro-Modified Classification

Brakes
The brake pedal/pedals on the floor must operate all brakes except emergency brakes. Competitors may use secondary brakes for the operation of individual brakes on the vehicle. Brakes must consist of two disc brakes and/or two drum brakes, four disc or four drum brakes. Pinion brake set-ups are acceptable on Rockwell axle assemblies. Emergency brakes (if installed) must be in good working order. Complete brake systems must be in good working order without leaks and lines ran in a safe manner. Adequate braking resistance at the pedal is required.

Body
A hood must cover the entire top of the engine extending forward of firewall/cowling to include radiator coverage. The Tub/cab must be in good shape without excessive rust what would warrant concern for safety. Engine firewall/cowling is required for safety and must separate the engine/trans from the passenger compartment. Minimum body width at widest point must be at least 48".

Frame
Boxed or semi boxed mainframe material made of magnetic steel or mainframe tubing of a magnetic material and no less than 1.5" in outside diameter are approved.

Seating
All vehicles must have two (2) seats, mounted side by side.

Steering
Full hydraulic or ram assist steering systems are approved. Rear steering is not approved. All steering components must be good working order and lines ran in a safe manner with on leaks.

Suspension
Reactive suspensions approved, no forced articulation. Suspension pivot points and connection points must be free of cracks and in good physical condition as determined by a CalROCS official.

Tires
Maximum tire size is 40", size based on side manufactures sidewall stamping. All tires must be D.O.T. approved by sidewall designation approved.

Open/Unlimited Classification

Brakes
All brakes must be good working order. Emergency brake (if installed) must be in good working order.

Body
A hood must cover the entire top of the engine. Engine firewall/cowling is required for safety and must separate the passenger compartment from the engine compartment.

Frame
Boxed or semi-boxed mainframe material made of a magnetic steel or mainframe tubing material no less than 1.5" in outside diameter magnetic steel are required.

Seating
A single seat is approved, if a spotter is to ride, a second seat must be available.

Tires
All tires must be D.O.T. approved by sidewall designation.

Disclaimer If you are unsure of a modification or classification limitation, you must contact Rich Klein at 530-622-0370 or Bob Roggy at 530-626-9451 for clarification.
If you are disqualified from a classification for an illegal modification, you forfeit your entry fees or may choose to move up in class if there is room available.

what the hell do they mean that it must be a two seater, side by side then it says single seaters are ok. mike

Originally posted by gunracer1
what the hell do they mean that it must be a two seater, side by side then it says single seaters are ok. mike

Ok Let me edit it for you

Originally posted by Ed A. Stevens
The health of the sport is gained by participation, by competitors and sponsors. If you hang everything on one sponsor (or a few) you leave much to lose when they back out.




Very true.

Providing rules that encourage many sponsors, contingency payback for multiple product users, will benefit a greater percentage of competitors.

Happy Trails!

That's kind of what I'm getting at here. Needs to be some way to keep the sponsors involved. Take NHRA - the top class doesn't look anything like a "car". But, Pro Stock does, and Pro Stock gets just as much TV exposure as Top Fuel. And I think you need something like that to attract the MAJOR sponsorship for the series (rather than looking at sponsorship of individual rides).

And I guess that's another question that's getting even further from the subject - Where SHOULD corporate $ go, toward development of individual machines, or to the sanctioning body that provides the prizes?

TEX