Okay, I've heard some cool rumors, but i want to hear facts. What's this about a minimum weight limit, and two classes for next year?? also, any word on gate width or max. tire sizes yet?? I know they handed out some rulebooks at the award ceremony, but I was busy at the Bender camp. Someone get some copies posted, and let us know what's up for next year!

In the new rule book it states a 3,400lb MINIMUM weight.... They now claim that was a mis-print :rolleyes: after some people blew a gasket after reading it.....

The other rule that will greatly affect us is that they want to charge a two point penalty for the spotter using a strap.

It seems that these two rules were targeted squarely at us, but hey, I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

And yes, there are two different classes in the new rule book. Both have a 40" tire limit.

Originally posted by Lance
And yes, there are two different classes in the new rule book. Both have a 40" tire limit.

Dont forget to mention that only ONE class has the weight limit....

Originally posted by Rocksie


Dont forget to mention that only ONE class has the weight limit....

Correct. The stock class does NOT have a weight MINIMUM.....

So, if the weight was a misprint, then what's the correct weight??

I would guess 2400 lbs. that sounds fair enough...

Those are some BS rules. I guess they want to see more rollovers and such:rolleyes:.

BTW Good Job Lance!!:D

Originally posted by BadAZYj
Those are some BS rules. I guess they want to see more rollovers and such:rolleyes:.

BTW Good Job Lance!!:D

Prety much yes....If the 3400lb's would have stuck that means that they were making you have heavier rigs and less spotter help....HELLLLOOOOO McFly?

Originally posted by Lance
In the new rule book it states a 3,400lb MINIMUM weight.... They now claim that was a mis-print :rolleyes: after some people blew a gasket after reading it.....

The other rule that will greatly affect us is that they want to charge a two point penalty for the spotter using a strap.

It seems that these two rules were targeted squarely at us, but hey, I could be wrong. :rolleyes:

The Spidertracks rig also weighs under 2400 lbs

So what's next, will there be a max spotter weight?

It was funny to hear the announcer calling Lance "FAT B" I guess they could not say FAT BASTARD!

Originally posted by Chris Geiger

So what's next, will there be a max spotter weight?

Probably along with steroid testing and chit of that nature...

:mad: Almost sounds like poorock , on the spotter strap rule . Thats half the excitment watching watching a spotter prevent a rollover..

I think the spotter strap rule is not totally out of line, I've seen some dangerous stuff happen from people not knowing when to let go of the strap.

Originally posted by NE-RokToy
I think the spotter strap rule is not totally out of line, I've seen some dangerous stuff happen from people not knowing when to let go of the strap.

Hey, if your spotter dont know when to let go and gets tossed, then you need a new spotter anyway. :flipoff2:

Lance, Ive been watching the bullshit rule changes for a couple of years (most of them geared toward accomodating a couple deep pocket guys) but yes, this time its quite obviously an attempt to level the field, which Mike and yourself are running well above. Fuck that. It wont be long before everyone is driving identical rigs in the name of "fairness" :rolleyes: Shit, half the battle is won before the rig ever rolls off the trailer.

Bottom line is, you guys kicked ass all year. So to some, you must have an unfair mechanical advantage and the win has nothing to do with mad driver/spotter skills. I hate politics :mad:

Originally posted by Ramstein


Hey, if your spotter dont know when to let go and gets tossed, then you need a new spotter anyway. :flipoff2:

Lance, Ive been watching the bullshit rule changes for a couple of years (most of them geared toward accomodating a couple deep pocket guys) but yes, this time its quite obviously an attempt to level the field, which Mike and yourself are running well above. Fuck that. It wont be long before everyone is driving identical rigs in the name of "fairness" :rolleyes: Shit, half the battle is won before the rig ever rolls off the trailer.

Bottom line is, you guys kicked ass all year. So to some, you must have an unfair mechanical advantage and the win has nothing to do with mad driver/spotter skills. I hate politics :mad:

VERY well said, Rammy. I really hope enough competitors protest the rule(s) and get them reversed. With the caliber of obstacles that RCAA does, there is no possible way you can get rid of a spotter strap without major rollover carnage (unsafe). The powers that be need to quit succuming to a few whiners and keep the rules the way they are. This isn't about saftey. If you think it is, you're blind. Besides, risk of personal injury is a part of any sport/motorsport.

Another new rule is a min 8000 lb winch. I saw a few of these 3500 lb verisions poping up to save weight. This one is on Shannon's new caddy...

In the end it won't matter unless nobody shows up to compete and the sponsors walk away, and that won't happen.

In a lot of other motor sports, which are more established, they are much stricter on differences in the vehicles. Many more classes and a lot fewer allowable modifications. This is supposed to make it fair for the little guys not to get out spent by the big money guys. It is also supposed to be for the safety of the competitors and participants.

I'm not trying to be an ass, just saying be prepared to hear them use those two points to make the rules. (Even if they are for the benefit of the big money guys and the sponsors getting their ass kicked by The Fat Bastard in a Zuk.)

Originally posted by Lance


VERY well said, Rammy. I really hope enough competitors protest the rule(s) and get them reversed. With the caliber of obstacles that RCAA does, there is no possible way you can get rid of a spotter strap without major rollover carnage (unsafe). The powers that be need to quit succuming to a few whiners and keep the rules the way they are. This isn't about saftey. If you think it is, you're blind. Besides, risk of personal injury is a part of any sport/motorsport.


Me and your driver were talkin bout this at the summit event..... :rolleyes: rules are gonna change but not for the reasons they are changing them........... i totally agree with you.......... hmmmmm maybe they should out law atlass, since you guys dont run one,, :D i mean you got to keep the playin field fair right..... cough cough bullshit

Here's my chance to input some info on the rules.

First remember these were not final rules, and I believe you will see changes.

The modified stock rules will change, we are looking at classification limitations more inline with what we have been doing at CalROCS. No 40" tires in this class, please read from www.calrocs.com

Now on the bigger class, Sorry can't help there :D at least not with what RCAA plans to do. CalROCS on the other hand will not put in a weight limit or point for using a spotter.:D Bigg guys need to eat to.

Rich

Umm Rich, What the hell did you just say??? :flipoff2:

#3400 is TOTAL bullshit. The spotter strap thing is too. #3400 would mean that a huge portion of the rigs would be outlawed. And it isn't a number that is going to creat less expensive vehicles. Sure if the limit was #1500 you would get Johnny dope wad building all titanium rig, but how about something reasonable. Like #2400. With a lighter rig you wouldn't need a front 60 to be competitive. Gee that doesn't sound familiar. :rolleyes: Let's ban the low buck guys. While it's hard to say what the politics were behind this, it leaves me wondering. Sorry it was you guys with lightish rigs with good spotters this time. I know how you feel. literaly.

On another note, The stock mod rule of 1/2" of fender trimming and 40" tires????????? WTF????? 1/2" ? Taller and heavier that's the way to build a rig:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Steve N
Umm Rich, What the hell did you just say??? :flipoff2:
On another note, The stock mod rule of 1/2" of fender trimming and 40" tires????????? WTF????? 1/2" ? Taller and heavier that's the way to build a rig:rolleyes:

This is exactly what I talking about:flipoff2:

Rich

funny thing about the weight limit being an issue this year .
this isnt the first year shaffer ran that rig in arca. isnt this the second or third year he has run that rig ?
the only reason weight is an issue now is because shaffer is dominating !
if a 3800 lb rig won the series this year weight wouldnt even be a thought .

i say in the pro class there should be no weight limit . just because someone might be able to go out and pay for a carbonfiber , titanium blah blah dont mean he will win .
it takes more then just a light rig to win .

i also feel you cant just throw money at rockcrawling and win .

it takes a special combination to dominate like mike & lance did this season ..
:beer: :beer:

3400# rule should not stick. If it does I'll shit and I'll also know one person who must have done a lot of cry babying :crybaby:

That spotter rule is TOTAL BS. They want the drivers to be on the edge, but no safety net for a minor error :rolleyes: Yes it's possible for a well placed spotter to stop many a rollover with a strap, but as far as aiding forward progress (the only reason I could see penalizing for spotter use), one peson can only do so much no matter how light the rig is.

Where's this chit on-line, I'd like to read about the second class they are adding. Should I just check out what Cal ROCS has and assume it's going to apply???

Isn't it about time that the COMPETITORS, instead of bitching and moaning about rules, courses, payouts, etc., get off their collective ass and form their own association. Form delegations within the association to create rules, vehicle requirements, course layouts, and payout schedules. This would put promoters right back where they should be in the program--AS PROMOTERS.

Competitors are the ones who should be making the rules they ultimately have to live by. And if you don't like the rules, you can complain to your delegate, or better yet... become a delegate yourself and DO something to make things better.

The way these comps have all worked in the past is so backwards when compared to other types of motorsports. The promoter should be the person PROMOTING the event, ie. getting people to come see it. That's where they should be making their money. SPONSORS should be putting their money into teams, not into the hands of promoters. COMPETITORS should be organized and loyal to their association so as to have control over what type of events they will participate in (called sanctioning).

The trouble is that it takes a lot of work, organization and dedication to make this happen. And, unfortunately, most folks would rather just gripe about what's wrong than try to fix it, probably me included.

Think about it anyway. Their is strength in numbers, nothing new. Organized groups loyal to a purpose weild much more power than any lone individual.

Later,

'tswaylo

Originally posted by 'tswaylo
Isn't it about time that the COMPETITORS, instead of bitching and moaning about rules, courses, payouts, etc., get off their collective ass and form their own association. Form delegations within the association to create rules, vehicle requirements, course layouts, and payout schedules. This would put promoters right back where they should be in the program--AS PROMOTERS.

Competitors are the ones who should be making the rules they ultimately have to live by. And if you don't like the rules, you can complain to your delegate, or better yet... become a delegate yourself and DO something to make things better.

The way these comps have all worked in the past is so backwards when compared to other types of motorsports. The promoter should be the person PROMOTING the event, ie. getting people to come see it. That's where they should be making their money. SPONSORS should be putting their money into teams, not into the hands of promoters. COMPETITORS should be organized and loyal to their association so as to have control over what type of events they will participate in (called sanctioning).

The trouble is that it takes a lot of work, organization and dedication to make this happen. And, unfortunately, most folks would rather just gripe about what's wrong than try to fix it, probably me included.

Think about it anyway. Their is strength in numbers, nothing new. Organized groups loyal to a purpose weild much more power than any lone individual.

Later,

'tswaylo


Excuse me, but I thought Nascar, NHRA, SCCA, etc. are businesses in a sport as promoters, I didn't realize they we're a driver's group?

Anyway, I agree that we need a drivers assoication/group to HELP establish rules, etc. (esp. to help get drivers insurance),
but the promoter, sanctioning bodies will still be the ultimate decission maker in their events.

Rich

Bigdude, please read our ( www.calrocs.com )rules for the Modified stock Class, I believe they will be real close to the final ones used by the RCAA sanctioning body. Which CalROCS is a Major member of said sanctioning body.

Originally posted by 'tswaylo
Isn't it about time that the COMPETITORS, instead of bitching and moaning about rules, courses, payouts, etc., get off their collective ass and form their own association. Form delegations within the association to create rules, vehicle requirements, course layouts, and payout schedules. This would put promoters right back where they should be in the program--AS PROMOTERS.


I believe Rich has already put this in perspective, but let me talk to you as someone who's been in competition 4wd motorsports for 15 years. We've tried it both ways. And I've come to the conclusion that to allow the competitors any more than a "suggestion box" is asking for trouble. You think that given the chance, the drivers of heavy rigs wouldn't vote to outlaw the lighter ones? HA! They'd make life HELL for the dominant drivers. Been there, done that, got outlawed & came back changed the next year to kick everyone's ass all over again. The sanctioning body is the final say in the rules & that's how it should stay, even if that sanctioning body is just ONE guy.

The way these comps have all worked in the past is so backwards when compared to other types of motorsports. The promoter should be the person PROMOTING the event, ie. getting people to come see it. That's where they should be making their money. SPONSORS should be putting their money into teams, not into the hands of promoters.

You're really talking out of your ass here. You have NO clue what kind of expense goes into making one of these events happen. With no sponsors, the break-even point for a promoter could be as many as 10,000 spectators. And gee, what happens when it rains & nobody shows up to watch? How many times do you think a promoter can lose $60,000 & still afford to put on events? Sponsoring rigs is great. But, the notion that the drivers "deserve" all of the sponsor $, or even MOST of it is absurd.

That all being said, I think some of these new rules are kinda goofy. 3,400lbs for the "open" class is awful portly. I think an NMRO Class VI rig only has to weigh 2,600 WITH DRIVER, and then only if it's a blown big-block. NA or small-blocks can weigh less. And these are rigs that ALL run D60 or larger rearends & most have 150" wheelbase. And allowing 40" tires in the "stock" class? WTF?


TEX

Edit: PS, I don't see the issue with the strap penalty. How exactly is that any different that penalizing for pulling winch line or stacking rocks? The vehicle is being aided by an outside force & I see no problem with that being a penalty. I don't know enough about the scoring to say if the WAY it's penalized is too severe, but it seems obvious that SOME penalty would be reasonable.

Originally posted by TEX
Edit: PS, I don't see the issue with the strap penalty.

I've never heard of a penalty for stacking rocks :confused: Who has this??? If you don't see a difference between a spotter strap and a winch then you must have a spotter who can pull 9500 lbs before stall :rolleyes:


There is no issue with the strap penalty if you want more risk for rollovers and damage. If you want people to complete more courses then penalizing a strap is bad, IMO. Ask the drivers how they feel about having someone on a strap, I have never heard anyone complain about it.

damn i would think that the open class or unlimited class should be just that. run what u brung. i don't want to see 20 of the same design 2 seater tube buggys hit a course. hell i want varity. i don't even think there should be a tire limit. i think they need to place the cones and see whats best. it has worked well in the past, and been great to watch. and some may think i am just being a prick because i built up a 1400# buggy to compete with. but that would be untrue, hell i can use the buggy around the house to get loaded and jump the ramp we have out back. hell i may fill the tires with bb's and try that out.
mike and lance kicked ass last year because they were a better team than the rest. it's plain and simple. hell they earned it and now they are catching hell from the tittie babys because they say it's not fair. fawk'em as jsa would say, grap the fork. mike

Originally posted by bigdude


I've never heard of a penalty for stacking rocks :confused: Who has this???

Nobody, just a "for instance".If you don't see a difference between a spotter strap and a winch then you must have a spotter who can pull 9500 lbs before stall :rolleyes:

Of course there's a difference. But correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the penalty for pulling winch line MUCH HIGHER? Wouldn't this be the same thing, but to a lesser degree (and therefore also penalized, but also to a lesser degree)???


There is no issue with the strap penalty if you want more risk for rollovers and damage. If you want people to complete more courses then penalizing a strap is bad, IMO. Ask the drivers how they feel about having someone on a strap, I have never heard anyone complain about it.

Of course they want it. It helps them. So does rear-steer and there's a penalty for that too. You said it yourself, it aids them in completing the course. To me, that sounds like a penalty.

TEX

An outsiders view:

Flame away, but what I'd like to see is the complete elimination of spotters and the strap. Allow a passenger so that you have someone to run up and hook up the winch cable. Make the competition a real test of driving skill and engineering.

Originally posted by TEX


Wouldn't this be the same thing, but to a lesser degree (and therefore also penalized, but also to a lesser degree)???

Of course they want it. It helps them. So does rear-steer and there's a penalty for that too. You said it yourself, it aids them in completing the course. To me, that sounds like a penalty.



Good points but I still don't like it.

There really is only so much that a spotter can do to change direction/momentum/progress for a 3000# vehicle, everyone uses a spotter and can have that same advantage so why penalize it. Not penalizing it promotes teamwork and busting ass so that someone with a good spotter/team can benefit the most. It makes for good competition IMO. If only some people could afford or engineer a spotter (such as the case with rear steer) then I can see a penalty.

Everyone has the opportunity to take their favorite spotter to the gym and beef him up. Everyone has the opportunity to take the local beefcake out and teach him some wheeling. Either way it turns out that the team who works the hardest gets the advantage from it, that's the way it should be in competition. Penalizing something that every team has equal opportunity to utilize at no cost to them is ludicrous IMO. Penalizing a spotter strap just let's those teams who don't work hard try to level the playing field.

Originally posted by Big Rich



Bigdude, please read our ( www.calrocs.com )rules for the Modified stock Class, I believe they will be real close to the final ones used by the RCAA sanctioning body. Which CalROCS is a Major member of said sanctioning body.

Rich - Question about the Mod Stock rules. The body requirements seem pretty tight. Do they mean that 1) A stock windshield must be attached during the competition? 2) Are tube front fenders illegal in this division, or running without fenders at all?

Originally posted by bigdude
Penalizing something that every team has equal opportunity to utilize at no cost to them is ludicrous IMO.

Well, you make good points. And as an outsider, I'm left with nothing to further advance my argument, so no more from me on this one :)

TEX

You've got to Remember- RRCA has good intentions, sometimes when change happens it can be for the better overall even though it hurts locally- not saying this is the case but keep an open mind.

There is no doubt in my mind that team Clifford and his driver (Sounds better, doesn't it Lance?) will be in the top of the field no matter what the rules are. it takes a lot of things to make a team consistently succesful and these guys are getting it nailed down.

A weight limit is not a bad idea- just where do you draw it? from a business perspective you need competitors who can afford to compete, sponsors who see a benefit in becoming involved and spectators who can relate- and maybe one day become a competitor. Sponsors sell product to the masses that build middle of the road rigs- not 4wd indy cars.

Our sport was heading towards indy technology rigs made of "Unobtanium" and "Youcan'tafforditalloy". Most of this was in the quest of light weight. As one guy said- neat to see the experimentation, glad it's not out of my wallet.

Lots of consistent top 10 rigs are 3500-4000+ lbs- Jordan, Paule and Robbins come to mind. Two of those still have SUA leafs and portions of original frame in their chassis. Guys that are on the bubble of the weight limits, wherever they are drawn, can add weight to lower parts of their ride to get a significant COG advantage. Many of the superlights are proving too fragile anyway and I suspect teams will welcome the reliability/lower cost factor built into a weight threshold.

As far as straps go I'm not real experienced in competing with them. Seems like they do give an element of safety on the wild stuff, maybe the trick and or intent is to take it down a notch so there is less rolling/ carnage opportunity. Do you really want the deciding factor on multiple rolls to be whether Fat B has sand on his Soft compound shoes or his sweaty grip slips on the strap? Who can afford to compete if the best guys are suffering major carnage on a regular basis? It's supposed to be extreme rockcrawling not extreme roll caging and field fabrication. I'd rather see no straps at all and obstacles that 1/3 of the field can make (That's complete- not 1/3 with a perfect score) without them. This makes it more about driving and vehicle set-up, with substantially less risk to the spotter.

They really should limit the tire size on the mod stock class like the other santioning bodies do- 35ish"?

Just my .02, we'll see how the dust settles

:D

Penalizing something that every team has equal opportunity to utilize at no cost to them is ludicrous IMO.

Since everyone has an equal opportunity to use it, outlawing spotters other than for pulling a winch cable or directions would retain the level playing field, and make safety a priority
hey it's a win win situation...

while they're doing the weight limitation perhaps they should go back to Rock Crawling and mandate rev limiters set at about 2000 RPM.... yeah right

Originally posted by Big Rich



Excuse me, but I thought Nascar, NHRA, SCCA, etc. are businesses in a sport as promoters, I didn't realize they we're a driver's group?

Anyway, I agree that we need a drivers assoication/group to HELP establish rules, etc. (esp. to help get drivers insurance),
but the promoter, sanctioning bodies will still be the ultimate decission maker in their events.

Rich

Bigdude, please read our ( www.calrocs.com )rules for the Modified stock Class, I believe they will be real close to the final ones used by the RCAA sanctioning body. Which CalROCS is a Major member of said sanctioning body.

I think this dude wants a Union, Rich :laughing:

Originally posted by G02Guy
I'd rather see no straps at all and obstacles that 1/3 of the field can make (That's complete- not 1/3 with a perfect score) without them.

We saw something like that at a Poo Rock event. The spectators (and they were few) HATED it. Sucks to watch when 2/3 of the people can't even get through something, let alone worry about points. Without spectators we don't have a sport.

Originally posted by krcruiser


Since everyone has an equal opportunity to use it, outlawing spotters other than for pulling a winch cable or directions would retain the level playing field

Right now a good spotter/driver team gives an advantage and pays to those who work hard, that's the essence of competition. Take that away and now lazy teams who might not bust their ass, or want to bust their ass physically, level out with those who do. That's ridiculous to me.

By the way.... How many here arguing the rules actually drive or spot in competitions?? Just curious where these opinions are coming from.

Originally posted by G02Guy
Our sport was heading towards indy technology rigs made of "Unobtanium" and "Youcan'tafforditalloy".

Seems to me that one potential solution would be to ban specific materials/components. I know with my mud races, we rarely have access to scales. So, rather than setting a weight minimum, I outlawed specific, light-weight (and typically high $$$) components from the lower & middle classes. This was done more in the interest in keeping cost under control. For example, were I just to slap a weight minimum of say 3,000 lbs on a class, you might have one guy who strips down his rig budget style to get there. And the next guy gets the advantage of a longer wheelbase because he dropped his pounds by running a Donovan block with lots of titanium components in the top end.

They really should limit the tire size on the mod stock class like the other santioning bodies do- 35ish"?


I also think - and this might already be a rule, but if it's not - the tires in that class need to be unmodified DOT tires. If the tires aren't made available to the general public, they don't have any business in a "stock" class. Again, I don't know that this is a problem anyway & there might already be a rule to address it. So, take that for what it's worth :D

TEX

Originally posted by bigdude
Either way it turns out that the team who works the hardest gets the advantage from it, that's the way it should be in competition.

I FULLY agree with you here!!!! But this is the age of "T-ball" sports where there has to be a feelgood aspect to everything or someones feelings might get hurt....DUMB

Originally posted by bigdude
By the way.... How many here arguing the rules actually drive or spot in competitions?? Just curious where these opinions are coming from.

Not me. Not rockcrawling anyway. I compete in mud racing & I also sanction events. But, TEX don't do rocks anymore (was kinda fun stuff though).


TEX

Originally posted by krcruiser

while they're doing the weight limitation perhaps they should go back to Rock Crawling and mandate rev limiters set at about 2000 RPM.... yeah right

You like watching paint dry? ;)

TEX

Originally posted by G02Guy
[B]You've got to Remember- RRCA has good intentions,

Yes and like the road to hell that is paved with "good intentions" It's not always whats a "good idea" and is "intended"

Guys that are on the bubble of the weight limits, wherever they are drawn, can add weight to lower parts of their ride to get a significant COG advantage. Many of the superlights are proving too fragile anyway and I suspect teams will welcome the reliability/lower cost factor built into a weight threshold.

WWWWHAAAAAT?????? :rolleyes:

The Indy Pro Rock, which i missed, is no doubt widely regarded as "special" for those who were there (I'm being kind)

From what I've seen, the crowds get as much entertainment from the guys that thrash and run ugly, whether they finish or not, than the smooth teams that smoke a course. -Realize I'm speaking about dry rock courses, not negotiating through the wet mud to reach the A gate like the Indy event.

Rocksie- where you been dude? Is it a secret about the independent suspension rides being fragile? Busted aluminum 60's? low center of gravity is bad? No slam on avalanche but how many events has the Assasin finished? do you think competitors have cubic money to spend on titanium coilover pins?

Oh yea- I drive, point, fab and occassionally finish well for those who don't know me.

Originally posted by bigdude

By the way.... How many here arguing the rules actually drive or spot in competitions?? Just curious where these opinions are coming from.

<-----The head cheerleader...LOL

Originally posted by G02Guy
the crowds get as much entertainment from the guys that thrash and run ugly, whether they finish or not, than the smooth teams that smoke a course.

Many years ago, there was an "obstacle course" competition that they ran at the 4Wheel & Off-Road Jamborees. It began as an elegant driving exercise & nobody watched. Eventually, speed was introduced into the event & folks started to take notice. In 1992, they moved it from the back field to the grandstand arena & changed the course to allow for more speed & airtime. It's now referred to as "Tough Truck" racing. Even from an outsider's point of view, I can see this rock-crawling gig marching in that same direction.


TEX

Tex

I know you have heard of hi range, that would give you some heavy momentum to make it up any obstacle. Yeah paint drying is a righteuos sport

Originally posted by krcruiser
Tex

I know you have heard of hi range, that would give you some heavy momentum to make it up any obstacle.

Yup, know all about hi range. It's kinda tough on torque converters ;)


TEX

Bigdude - you go into this every time this comes up - people other than promoters and competitors ARE able to give an opinion on these things...


That aside, it is MY OPINION that spotters hanging off of straps should NOT be allowed. You can argue that all you want - but it IS a safety issue.


As for the min. weight limit - that is a BS rule...



And when it comes to "unlimited" class - what is "unlimited" about it when they have a zillion rules on what you can and canot run? :confused:

Originally posted by bigdude


Everyone has the opportunity to take their favorite spotter to the gym and beef him up. Everyone has the opportunity to take the local beefcake out and teach him some wheeling. Either way it turns out that the team who works the hardest gets the advantage from it, that's the way it should be in competition. Penalizing something that every team has equal opportunity to utilize at no cost to them is ludicrous IMO. Penalizing a spotter strap just let's those teams who don't work hard try to level the playing field.

I think that what Tex says makes a lot of sense. You STILL have the advantage BigDude, because you can choose to use or not use the strap (even if there is a penalty). Guys with whimpy spotters don't really have that choice. It is not like they are outlawing using the strap, just penalizing it. I think that Shaffer and Clifford will be fine because they never seem to have a problem with strategy. Shouldn't the guy who made a clean run through a course though receive less penalty points than the guy who made it up with a spotter tugging on a strap the whole time?

Take that for what it is worth, I have never competed, just watched.

i still dont see why everyone is crying about the weight issue and the cost . i am guessing that shaffer's rig cost no more than anyone else's rig to build in fact i would guess he spent far less than alot of the competition .

i'll say it one more time the only reason weight is an issue is because a light weight rig dominated the series .

people that have vision to inovate within a rules system will always be balked at by the ones that take second place .

sad thing is some will accredit lance and mikes win on the rig . this is just not true . you could put another driver and spotter together and they would do crappy mike is a great driver and lance is also a very good driver that happens to be like a land anchor :flipoff2:

Originally posted by DRM


That aside, it is MY OPINION that spotters hanging off of straps should NOT be allowed. You can argue that all you want - but it IS a safety issue.



Put your ass in the seat and compete with a "normal" width rig then talk about safety issues. Go to a comp and watch the rigs, count how many roll overs were/are stopped by spotters on the end of a strap.

Have'em or not. Its a double edged sword. With them, the obstacles are way out there, and people make them. Without them, they are way out there and people roll. That or the rigs are gonna get WAY wider

i'll say it one more time the only reason weight is an issue is because a light weight rig dominated the series .


You know....I don't think the rule is so much directed at them....It's the Weight....If it were a fare weight that didn't clear out half of the class and ithe weight requirments were also in the other class this would clearly by a rule set for safety....But the way they went about it CLEARLY singles out the lighter rigs! And this is CLEARLY a way to take care of them dominating the series!

IMO regardless of what limitations are set to attempt to shake these boys from the top 10 will not work! They will come back with whatever rig and dominate....

Out of curiosity-- what does Mike's rig weigh? Is he running a 44 front end?

With regard to the "equal opportunity" -maybe it's not so equal. finding a talented spotter who can and wants to burn up their vacation time is no easy task. Finding one who is stout and strong in addition to all the other talents you are looking for significantly narrows the field. Those who have the qualifications are sometimes looking for more compensation in a sport that is already a money loser for the masses and with the driver/owner shouldering the majority of the expenses- so it can, once more, come down to money. If anything it's going that way more now, minimizing the benefits of having a large athlete gives drivers a larger pool to "shop" from.

Just something more to think about:D

Originally posted by rkcrawl


Rich - Question about the Mod Stock rules. The body requirements seem pretty tight. Do they mean that 1) A stock windshield must be attached during the competition? 2) Are tube front fenders illegal in this division, or running without fenders at all?


I'll answer as I know the rules.

A windshield isn't attached if removable as on a Jeep. It is if on a Toyota truck.

Tube fenders are illegal, no fenders are illegal, no inner fenders are illegal.

I actually think Rich's rules make the most sense. With them you have a vehicle that the guy in the crowd can relate to a stock vehicle. Not like a buggy that has no bassis on something he/she or a buddy has. This keeps sponsors interested. Most of the 4wd. sponsors I have spoken with are looking more to this class as it relates to they're customers.

Is this min. weight rule with or without the driver and spotter in the vehicle.
and is it before or after the event?

I am talking out of my ass here, I don't know what Rcaa is thinking, but this is my guess.

RCAA wants to get rid of the straps not for safety and not to accommodate a bunch of whiners but because Lance and Mike don't put on a good show. The promoters want to see hammer down make it or roll it wheeling, cause that appeals to the masses of monster truck type fans. I personally like to watch competitors like those guys work together and take advantage of the rules to score the most points, but if you listen to the crowd most of them don't want to see the careful meticulous attaching of the straps or the stacking rocks before attempting the course. RCAA wants to structure the rules so they get to see hammer down wheeling. Basically they want Chris Durham to win. And really if the sport is going to be a big money, televised type deal, that is what they need. I would rather see the rules stay exactly the same, but I don't think they will no matter how much Lance and Mike whine. Aren't you guys rich now too?

:flipoff2:

BTW congrats.

Originally posted by oldjeep
An outsiders view:

Flame away, but what I'd like to see is the complete elimination of spotters and the strap. Allow a passenger so that you have someone to run up and hook up the winch cable. Make the competition a real test of driving skill and engineering.

Clearly you've never been to an RCAA competition.

Ok, I'm going to try and make a few points here:

* RCAA, has all allowed the use of a spotter strap over the years.

* ProROCK does not allow straps.

* RCAA obstacles are about 50 times more difficult than ProROCK obstacles.

If RCAA decides to go through with the 2 point pentaly rule for using a spotter strap, here is what I believe will most definitely happen:

* The obsacles will not get easier. There is no doubt in my mind about this.

* Team "A" will attempt insane obstacle. Will get to difficult spot, and elect to use strap to avoid massive rollover. Complete obstacle with 2 point penalty.

* Team "B" will attempt to run same insane obstacle without strap to avoid 2 point penalty that Team "A" recieved. Team "B" of course ends up rolling down 30 foot cliff, and destroying $70,000 rig, and possibly getting bodily injury.

Now can someone tell me how the hell that is safer than the spotter using a strap? Yes, the team elected to "go for it" without the strap, but someone tell me how this is supposed to be safer. I have read a few people say that loosing the strap would be safer, but when in all reality, IT WILL BE MORE DANGEROUS. There has never been ANY serious injuries resulting from a spotter using a strap that I know of. The strap allows you to keep your distance from the vehicle. RCAA has new rules regarding strap length (25' long from the front of the vehicle, 10' long on the sides) which I agree with. But if you have been to one of these events, you have most likely seen first hand what a good spotter can do, and how they can help a vehicle avoid disaster. If you haven't been to one of these competitions, you really should, so you can form an educated opinion about it.
JMO.

Originally posted by G02Guy
Out of curiosity-- what does Mike's rig weigh? Is he running a 44 front end?


We ain't sayin' till they set the weight rule in stone. :p It's not as light as most people think.....

Originally posted by Lance


We ain't sayin' till they set the weight rule in stone. :p It's not as light as most people think.....

They are underestimating the sneekyness...MUWAHAHAHAHA!:flipoff2:

Originally posted by Lance


We ain't sayin' till they set the weight rule in stone. :p It's not as light as most people think.....


lol..... agreed........ mike told me the weight.......... lips are sealed! really curious to see what weight they (rcaa) come up with

The current strap proposal- with the two point penalty- is going to encourage exactly the scenario Lance laid out, There will always be the team that's in the hunt, or at least thinks they are, that will "go" for it and the result will be carnage, and maybe even injuries amongst driver/spotter, staff or spectators.

Seems like you would have to remove them alltogether or leave it as is. Sounds like you could not leave them altogether without making the course less steep or off camber

While the casual spectator may thinks it's kewl it's bad for the sport, teams and promotors -(insurance premiums amongst other things).

I'm going to have a lot to learn about straps before the SC and will likely get spanked because of my lack of experience with them.:eek:

Originally posted by TEX




You're really talking out of your ass here. You have NO clue what kind of expense goes into making one of these events happen.



Just FYI, I DO know what kind of expenses go into making these events happen. I spent 3 and a half years as a full time employee of everyone's favorite scapegoat, Bob Hazel. I was there when the very first national rockcrawling championship was held in Las Cruces and was involved in every SITR event from then until November of 2001. Flame away.

The points of my post were this:

1. The precedence in the promoter/sponsor relationship as it applies to off road events has been set in such a way that the sponsors pay promoters to have their names on events, period.
In many other motorsports, there are sponsors of the event, but there are also sponsors of teams. Team sponsors hope to gain recognition by putting their money into teams who consistently put on a good show and draw the attention of fans/spectators. As it is in our sport/hobby/comps, teams have difficulty gaining sponsorship because so much of the money goes into buying the name on the event. To me, that is backwards.

2. For all the complaining I hear, and have heard over the course of my employment at SITR, I assume that the competitors and the promoters either aren't communicating well, or the promoters don't have the same agenda as the competitors do in regards to how the events should run. If indeed competitors feel like they are being forced to play by rules they don't agree with, then either a) don't play or b) involve yourselves in the rule making. Since it's unlikely that the person promoting the event is going to listen and respond to the complaints competitors may have in a way that suits the competitors, I was suggesting that an association of drivers be formed to define the rules by which they wish to play. If members will be loyal to their association, then they garner some power to influence the direction of the comps. It also takes the responsibility for rules, courses, vehicle requirements, etc. off the shoulders of the promoter and places it squarely where it belongs, which is on the delegates of the association of the peeps doing the competing. Granted, it may be a hornet's nest, but it may also give competitors a better understanding of the difficulty involved in creating the perfect event, and give them a bit more respect for the job the current promoters do.

3. Simply griping about problems and placing blame on others is NOT productive and will never bring about solutions that work for the majority of people. Nothing wrong with disagreeing, just be ready to be part of the solution.

:D

'tswaylo

Out of curiosity-- what does Mike's rig weigh? Is he running a 44 front end?

Mike's drivetrain info is in this post by Lance ... Lance also tells the weight, though he could very well be exagerating for the sake of the competition that could be reading ;)

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76896

- jack

Originally posted by G02Guy

I'm going to have a lot to learn about straps before the SC and will likely get spanked because of my lack of experience with them.:eek:

I'm sure you'll catch on quickly. :p

Now quit posting on the BB, and get me your ftp account info! :flipoff2:

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


.......1. The precedence in the promoter/sponsor relationship as it applies to off road events has been set in such a way that the sponsors pay promoters to have their names on events, period.
In many other motorsports, there are sponsors of the event, but there are also sponsors of teams. Team sponsors hope to gain recognition by putting their money into teams who consistently put on a good show and draw the attention of fans/spectators. As it is in our sport/hobby/comps, teams have difficulty gaining sponsorship because so much of the money goes into buying the name on the event. To me, that is backwards.......

:D

'tswaylo

Huh? What about the WINSTON Cup Series, the BUSCH Series. I live in Cincinnati where we are getting ready to tear down CINERGY field in order to use the Great American Insurance Ballpark. It seems every other major type of sporting event has sponsors for the series, for the event, for the facility, for the half-time show, etc.

You want the events to tell sponsors "No, I'm not interested in your sponsorship money, but let me give you the number of one of our competitors......" I don't see that happening.

Yes, teams needs sponsors, but so do the events - and sponsors for events equals more money for purses that the competitors can win.

Originally posted by TrailKeeper

Yes, teams needs sponsors, but so do the events - and sponsors for events equals more money for purses that the competitors can win.

Chad,

Do you think that the division of sponsor money between teams and promotors as it stands right now, is equitable? Also, I've read it right in the ERoCC program, that you guys are doing things a different way, not the way some other unscrupulous promoters have done things. In the hands of some promoters, very little of that sponsor money makes it to the hands of the winners. I don't disagree that events need sponsors, but I feel the way it's been done up till now has mostly benefitted the promotors--not the sponsors or the competitors.

Mark

I have never competed in any event, and have only been to one in Vantage WA. I don't know who the sanctioning body was, but I believe I saw Jason Bunch there. Anyways, you guys all make very good points and as an outsider, I could'nt pick one side or the other. IMO, there should be multiple classes (maybe there already is). You don't see Winston West competing against Winston Cup or street cars racing against Pro-Stock. Split it up. Have a two classes for buggies (weight break @2500#?) a class for compact and a class for fullsize with appropiate restrictions(factory frame, 75% of factory sheetmetal ...)Street legal and non. Just a few quick ideas. it will be more complicated, but i think it will begin to level the playing field. It has been done in almost all other kinds of motorsports very successfully, and IMO, helped them grow to a much larger sport. Just my.02 for what its worth.

Okay you all have a point that with the present way RCAA courses are presently designed that the strap penalty is B.S.

On the other hand maybe RCAA is planning on designing their courses differently next year to lessen the need for a strap as Go2Guy has suggested. I know Lance has said he doesn’t think the courses will be designed differently, but has anybody actually asked RCAA this question?

Also, I doubt that 40” tires are going to be much advantage as I am sure that RCAA is going to design courses such that the 37” MTR can handle the obstacles, that is unless Goodyear introduces the long-rumored 39” MTR. At present RCAA courses with the vertical climbs favor the radials and not bias Swampers. Anyway, what is Goodyear going to do about BFG spanking their ass so bad this year? Is RCAA going to demand that everyone run Goodyear like Winston Cup does. Remember the Hoosier vs Goodyear battle a few years back.

From a spectator point of view, I would prefer to see fewer long vertical climbs and actually more rock crawling as the sport is not called vertical climbing. By just decreasing the number of long vertical climbs would minimize rollovers. How do competitors feel about this?

I too kind of like a reasonable minimum weight, whatever that is. The weight Lance didn’t quote ;) seems like to is pretty close to the range of a reasonable minimum. Just curious, does anybody know the weight of the Currie rig?

We saw something like that at a Poo Rock event. The spectators (and they were few) HATED it. Sucks to watch when 2/3 of the people can't even get through something, let alone worry about points. Without spectators we don't have a sport.

and

By the way.... How many here arguing the rules actually drive or spot in competitions?? Just curious where these opinions are coming from.

No offense, and not trying to pick on anyone specifically, but as an 'outsider' I see this every time this round of posts comes up about the direction of rock crawling as a sport. Many people tend to try to argue both sides of the fence. To wit, on one hand saying that what matters is what pleases the spectators, and on the other, saying that anyone who doesn't drive or promote (which would make them essentially a spectator, right?) shouldn't have a say in what is going on, or don't know what they are talking about.

In the end, it's a business, and in the end, like all business, what the consumer votes for with his buck wins. I probably sound like a broken record on this, but I've been through it with other series, and what the promoters want is whatever brings more spectators through the gates. In this case, let's be frank, what brings the spectators through the gates is CARNAGE. Now many of us, myself included, enjoy the highly technical rock CRAWLING, but for the average Joe Blow out there it is boring to watch, so the promoters are naturally going to bring in more elements that bring in more speed and more visual spectacle. Saying that the spectator does not matter is completely ignorant of reality, which is essentially what is being said when you say only competitors and promoters determine or should determine what goes on in the events. The opinions of the people on this board who do not actually compete or promote are actually the MOST IMPORTANT, because they represent the single most important person you would try to recruit if you were doing market research into how to sell this type of stuff - an intelligent, informed member of your TARGET MARKET, the spectator.

In the case of the 2 rule changes discussed, I think someone above nailed it on the head when they said that while Lance and Shaffer should and are commended for their absolutely dominating performance in this year's ARCA, the average joe spectator would probably rather see someone who mashes the pedal and hopes for the best, then either blows up or rolls spectacularily.

More importantly, what I noticed this year was more 'dominance', not only by Lance's team, but by a few (Shupe, Gilleland) others as well, whereas in the past the success seemed to be more spread out amongst more teams. In addition, teams traditionally in the hunt (ie: Currie, Shannon, Durham) seemed to not be able to get themselves quite among the front runners this year. Is this Lance's fault? Of course not. But just like Nascar, when things get spread out, the promoters are likely to do whatever they think they can to bunch the field up again.

So bottom line is that while Lance and Shaffer should and are commended for their absolutely dominating performance in this year's ARCA, the promoters don't want dominating performances, they want to go into the last obstacle on the last day with 10 or 15 guys still having a shot at it. Are they going about getting that in the right way? I don't know, but I'm sure that's their motivation.

IMHO, the weight minimum is too high (but I have nothing against a weight minimum per say), and either you have a spotter do whatever he can on a strap, or not at all. Any team that would risk a roll for 2 points is not going to be at the head of the pack, but there are going to be guys who will risk it and roll, but from ARCA's point of view, is that a bad thing?

Originally posted by Lance


We ain't sayin' till they set the weight rule in stone. :p It's not as light as most people think.....



This goes with the point that Mike made as we were eating breakfast sunday morning. I agree with it I'll para phrase as my short term memory is kind of fawked up. he said that a reasonable weight rule would keep the ability for a regular guy to build a decent rig.

His rig is not as light as most think Lance is right. If you look at it it is made to be as light as possible within a budget. I also know what it cost it's not a very expensive rig.

You could get a rig down to a really light weight by using exotic materials. Sure a poor driver in a trick rig won't win. Any Jackass should know that. But what if Budweiser comes to lets say anyone in the TOP TEN and says here's an unlimited budget ... kill. Suddenly you are going to need a much more expensive rig to compete with that person.


I agree with what Lance said on the spotter rule to a "T"

Originally posted by ChadLloyd

1)
By the way.... How many here arguing the rules actually drive or spot in competitions?? Just curious where these opinions are coming from.


2)
saying that anyone who doesn't drive or promote (which would make them essentially a spectator, right?) shouldn't have a say in what is going on, or don't know what they are talking about.

How does statement 1 show what you talk about in statement 2 :rolleyes: I asked that question so I could understand which group felt what way. Never did I say people didn't know what they were talking about by typing a reply, must just be your guilty conscience :laughing:

Originally posted by nobody20
On the other hand maybe RCAA is planning on designing their courses differently next year to lessen the need for a strap as Go2Guy has suggested. I know Lance has said he doesn’t think the courses will be designed differently, but has anybody actually asked RCAA this question?


Here is what I know. The courses at Johnson Valley were the easiest courses of the 4 event series. The course designers and promoters had anticipated them to be a lot tougher than they were. After the event, I was talking to one of the event marshalls, and he said, and I quote, "Well I know we won't make this mistake again. Expect the courses at the first event next year to be nearly impassable!"

Originally posted by Lance


Here is what I know. The courses at Johnson Valley were the easiest courses of the 4 event series. The course designers and promoters had anticipated them to be a lot tougher than they were. After the event, I was talking to one of the event marshalls, and he said, and I quote, "Well I know we won't make this mistake again. Expect the courses at the first event next year to be nearly impassable!"

Thanks Lance. As everybody in RCAA seems to be related to one another that's probably a good source.

"But what if Budweiser comes to lets say anyone in the TOP TEN and says here's an unlimited budget ... kill."

In the late 80's I had a very competitive tube chassis mud drag car, very consistent, way up there in pts. Towards the end of my last season the bud light car was showing up in their custom enclosed hauler, Spare 600+ inch aluminum motor etc etc. I knew then it was time to retire my nitrous fed budget racer and find another motorsport. I'd hate to see those kind of budgets come into our sport.:(

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


Just FYI, I DO know what kind of expenses go into making these events happen. I spent 3 and a half years as a full time employee of everyone's favorite scapegoat, Bob Hazel. I was there when the very first national rockcrawling championship was held in Las Cruces and was involved in every SITR event from then until November of 2001. Flame away.

I stand somewhat corrected :p



The points of my post were this:

1. The precedence in the promoter/sponsor relationship as it applies to off road events has been set in such a way that the sponsors pay promoters to have their names on events, period.

WTF are you talking about? The pics I see of these events show most of the competition machines as rolling billboards. I can guarantee that "SUMMIT RACING" in 12" letters didn't get on the side of a machine as an act of kindness.


In many other motorsports, there are sponsors of the event, but there are also sponsors of teams. Team sponsors hope to gain recognition by putting their money into teams who consistently put on a good show and draw the attention of fans/spectators. As it is in our sport/hobby/comps, teams have difficulty gaining sponsorship because so much of the money goes into buying the name on the event. To me, that is backwards.

How is that backwards? The guy with the most risk on the line gets the biggest piece of the pie. That's backwards? How so? And SHOULDN'T it be more expensive to put up dozens of banners all OVER the grounds than it is to put decals on ONE machine that may or may not be competitive on that particular day? Let's just look at NASCAR, what's more valuable? An entire series named after your brand of cigarettes? Or, should MBNA pay more to put their paint scheme on the #14 car?

If I put on a mud race, should a sponsor pay more to paint up one racer that'll make 2 passes of 2.3 seconds each, or should he pay more to have a 10'X20' Banner at the finish line for the duration of the event?

I can tell you how it is in NMRO mud racing. These guys travel to MO, OH, IA, PA, OH, VT, IN, SC & NONE of them have national sponsors. One of the competitors carries with him seven - SEVEN - backup engines, all of them blown & injected 500+ cubic inch Hemi's. He has NO national sponsors. The sponsor $$ goes to the promoter who in turn provides the prize purse.

Bottm line, for most of these guys, this is still just a hobby & always will be. The competitors deserve their fair share of the take. But, to do as you suggest & give MOST of the sponsor $$ directly to the competitors & take it away from the sanctioning bodies, well pretty soon there won't BE any sanctioning bodies. Because the sanctioning bodies are most definitely a business & can't afford for it to be any other way.

TEX

Originally posted by bigdude


How does statement 1 show what you talk about in statement 2 :rolleyes: I asked that question so I could understand which group felt what way. Never did I say people didn't know what they were talking about by typing a reply, must just be your guilty conscience :laughing:

not trying to pick on you specifically, just pointing out that I often see the comments similar to 'go and enter THEN tell us how to run it' whenever this comes up.

I understand that point of view, but IMHO it misses the point that the spectator is, in the end, the decider of how these things are going to be run. In other words, in the end ARCA is not for the competitors, it's for the spectators. Telling people that they don't have valid opinons because they are not competitors or promoters is basically turning off the very people in the market that you are trying to attract to your event.

I know that is not what you said, but it can be inferred from your comments. If I incorrectly inferred something you were not implying, I apologize.

Everyone relax

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


In the hands of some promoters, very little of that sponsor money makes it to the hands of the winners.

Not everyone is like your former boss ;)

I don't disagree that events need sponsors, but I feel the way it's been done up till now has mostly benefitted the promotors--not the sponsors or the competitors.

Mark

I disagree. I think the competitors are getting a pretty good amount of action directly from the sponsors when you consider this is a BRAND NEW sport. Also, it's really up to the sponsors to decide what benefits them the most. Their name on a truck, or their name on a banner, their ownership of an event, their name attached permanently to a particular class, all of the above & then some, none of the above, or somewhere in between.

TEX

Originally posted by G02Guy
In the late 80's I had a very competitive tube chassis mud drag car, very consistent, way up there in pts. Towards the end of my last season the bud light car was showing up in their custom enclosed hauler, Spare 600+ inch aluminum motor etc etc. I knew then it was time to retire my nitrous fed budget racer and find another motorsport. I'd hate to see those kind of budgets come into our sport.:(

The Bud car is gone. But, the enclosed haulers are here to stay. Also, the blown cars & the injected cars are in a separate class now. But, the injected cars are runnin' 600"+ these days.

TEX

First off, Lance -- serious congrats to you and Mike. Winning one event is pretty cool, but your consistent performance is wildly impressive. Hat's off.

There has never been ANY serious injuries resulting from a spotter using a strap that I know of...
John Currie blew out his knee in Vernal while leaning in the strap... he almost took me with him off the cliff. :eek: I've seen some other strains and sprains, but Currie's fall was the worst.

That said, I'm with you on this, Lance -- ARCA/RCAA has allowed the strap since the beginning, and I think they should keep it... the 'wheeling and the obstacles that have resulted are derivative from use of the strap... there are obstacles that just can't be made safely without the strap.

Sure, there are risks to using a strap -- if a spotter doubles the strap around his waist and hikes out, then he's at risk. Over the years, spotters have figured this out... I think the new strap-length rules show that the RCAA has figured it out, as well.

Is the strap penalized per use, like a tool or winch, or once-per-stage? If the latter, maybe you can get the teams together to do this, in protest: start each stage by having the spotter lean on the strap, to get it out of the way, (preferably while shouting some catchy phrase -- i.e. 'strap this!)... then complete the stage as you would have before.... get the top twenty teams to do it, and RCAA will cave on the rule right quick.

Of course, there's been talk of a drivers' union since season one, and that has yet to develop into a serious force...

Randii

Originally posted by TEX


I can tell you how it is in NMRO mud racing.

TEX

Tex,

In NMRO events such as mud racing, tough truck and Monster Truck racing, don't the teams receive money just for showing up?

Where does that "show-up" money come from?

Can Joe Blow off the street show up for an NMRO sanctioned event and expect to be able to collect any of that money or even be allowed to compete? If not, why do you suppose it's that way?

Not trying to get into an argument with ya, but I think you're trying to compare a well organized and established sanctioning body like NMRO with the "sanctioning bodies" of a sport/comp that's still in it's infancy.

To you, bottom line is that it's a business and it needs to make money for the promoter to stay in biz and events to go on. I don't completely disagree, but to me, at this stage of the game in rockcrawling, a unified, competitor driven, sanctioning body is more important. The reason I say that is because without some unity, the whole sport/comp/biz will never get beyond the point that mud racing was at in the 80's. Not all of the promoters and all of the circuits will survive. What's important, I think, is that what does survive and prosper be something worth being involved in.

Be a gent and don't "WTF" me in future replies. We're both adults.

Mark

...The courses at Johnson Valley were the easiest courses of the 4 event series. The course designers and promoters had anticipated them to be a lot tougher than they were. After the event, I was talking to one of the event marshalls, and he said, and I quote, "Well I know we won't make this mistake again. Expect the courses at the first event next year to be nearly impassable!"
Remember how difficult JV was when ARCA first visited? IIRC, you and Bob roached two Dana 60 front ends that trip...

JV is d-a-m-n unpredictable.

Randii

Originally posted by randii

How is this different from Nascar or the Superbowl? There's always a marque sponsor, and a host of lower dollar sponsors -- to me, rock-crawling/rock-racing seems pretty consistent. New teams are still proving themselves...

Randii

It's different because rockcrawling hasn't reached the level of the Superbowl or Nascar obviously. There are a limited number of sponsors who, at this point, stand to benefit from being involved in rockcrawling. If it ever gets to the point where Tide, Nestle, Verizon, etc., etc., feel like they can benefit from having their names on events or rigs or halftime shows or whatever, then it won't be different anymore.

And yes, new teams are still proving themselves. They should have to in order to get the attention of the sponsors. But, if the sponsors are having the bulk of their funds schmoozed out of them by promoters, what does it leave them with to back a team?

Maybe I'm all wet on this. I've just seen one side of it for so long that it seems to me there must be a better way. Maybe there isn't.

Mark

Originally posted by randii
Remember how difficult JV was when ARCA first visited? IIRC, you and Bob roached two Dana 60 front ends that trip...

JV is d-a-m-n unpredictable.

Randii

So true... so true...

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


Tex,

In NMRO events such as mud racing, tough truck and Monster Truck racing, don't the teams receive money just for showing up?

Monster trucks get paid just for showing up. Mud racers do not, nor do tough truck competitors. There is $$$ at Clear Channel events just for showing up, but for the sake of argument, we'll stick to actual competitions & not "shows" ;)


Can Joe Blow off the street show up for an NMRO sanctioned event and expect to be able to collect any of that money or even be allowed to compete? If not, why do you suppose it's that way?

NMRO "street" classes run for trophies only. But, pretty much anyone can run with proper safety equipment. You have to join their association. Not all sanctioning bodies do it this way. My sanctioning body - G.U.M.B.O. - does not have a "member fee", and even the street classes run for 100% payback of entry fees.

The prize purse at all NMRO races is $12,000 spread over 2-3 days. They pay $400 to win class III, $700 to win class IV, $900 to win class V, and $1,000 to win class VI. They pay down to 10th place.

The purse from other sanctioning bodies varies. GUMBO events vary from event to event because the purse is often based on the # of entries. My next event is an invitation-only race with exactly 80 entrants. They each paid $40 to enter & the total purse is $8,775. But, where entry is unlimited the purse is frequently higher. It topped $12k at my first 2 events this year.


Be a gent and don't "WTF" me in future replies. We're both adults.



WTF did this newbie just say to me? :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:


TEX

I'm suprised there has been such a negative responce to the strap penalty. I don't see why many of the competetors are against it. I'd think it would just become another factor in strategy. With the inclution of optional bonus lines and point given for completing an obsticle with the spotter in the vehicle at some of the competitions, why is the strap rule causing such a stink? I understand that straps are good for safety purposes, but the teams with skill should be able to take advantage of the strap rule by deciding when they need it and when they don't. The competetors have to have learned that they need to complete the course to win.

Lance et al., explain to an outsider why the strap rule is such a bad idea.

Newt- pretty simple, most of the events have been won by people having single digit penalty points. It's another variable that never existed before, many will be tempted to risk things without straps to make up points- this will lead to increased risk of carnage to equipment and people.

Typical 14 courses x 2 =28 points of variation that did not exist before.

Originally posted by newt


Lance et al., explain to an outsider why the strap rule is such a bad idea.

He already has. Did you read the entire post?

I agree with Lance there. Any spotter who is too stupid to let go of the rope deserves to die in a bloody roll down a rocky hill. :flipoff2: It's called Darwin. I don't think teams should have to make a choice between losing and being safe. ERoCC stipulates that, when using a strap, the spotter isn't allowed to wrap it around his wrist/body. They actualy enforce the rule religiously, too. It works!

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The 40" limit in an unlimited class is :rainbow: :rainbow: :rainbow: ! I can't even begin to wonder why, other than the greedy, controlling reasons already listed, they would have such a rule! I could build a rig that was taller than a 44"-shod rig but used 38's instead. It roll everywhere! In fact, I have a rig with lift to fit 38's and run 44's because I have no fenders. Im probably lower than some 38" rigs. So it's not for safety reasons. Didn't they make that rule after the Sniper was busting everyone's chops with its 44's and Rockwells? It seems like they are just trying to shoot down every winning idea!

As s spectator, I like to see the skilled, slow, technical crawling more than full-throttle assaults on hills. They're both fun though. But, most importantly, I LOVE to see a variety of rigs. I loved watching Shannon's and Shaffer's rig at ERoCC last time. Wouldn't like to compete in either of them personally, but liked watching them. I also liked watching Franky, even when he wasn't attacking Crow's Nest. Variety is the spice of life.

Anyway, I'm opposed to limiting the unlimited, and penalizing safety. Both ideas seem stupid to me.

J. J.

Originally posted by patooyee
Any spotter who is too stupid to let go of the rope deserves to die in a bloody roll down a rocky hill. :flipoff2: It's called Darwin.

It's also called "death", and in a sport that doesn't come by its liability insurance easily, that can be a problem. In fact, had RCAA decided to outlaw the straps altogether, I would have bet money that the Insurance company had a say in that. The fact that they are merely talking about a penalty means it's probably motivated by something else. Still, it may just be the first step toward banning this move.

TEX

Originally posted by 'tswaylo


Chad,

Do you think that the division of sponsor money between teams and promotors as it stands right now, is equitable? Also, I've read it right in the ERoCC program, that you guys are doing things a different way, not the way some other unscrupulous promoters have done things. In the hands of some promoters, very little of that sponsor money makes it to the hands of the winners. I don't disagree that events need sponsors, but I feel the way it's been done up till now has mostly benefitted the promotors--not the sponsors or the competitors.

Mark

Mark,

This is actually Tim. Chad goes by JeepinChad.

First of all - I can't believe someone actually read the program! Especially that page because I don't think it had a single picture on it. Thanks!

Anyhoo.....I don't know if the division of sponsor money between the promoters and the teams is equitable. That really is a question to ask a sponsor - they are the ones spending the money. We ran our events this year with no major monetary sponsor.

Since sponsors are spending the money, they decide where the money goes. Like other people have said - if you sponsor an event, you get your name in front of everyone just about guaranteed - if you sponsor a team, the results vary with how well they do. So you can't force a sponsor to spend money on a team - it is a fair market system.

Sponsors don't just give their money blindly to a promoter, they want to make sure their money goes to a quality run event so that there "brand" can be associated with that event. So the promoter better take that sponsor money and spend it wisely to put on a quality event. Also, the sponsor wants to see the top teams, so the promoter better use the sponsor money to have a decent purse to draw competitors.

In terms of purses, right now, IMHO, I think the purses are pretty good - Lance won about $30k for his series win, when we interviewed Shupe he said he won $10k-$15k, including contingency for his ARCA wins. The Supercrawl has a $52k purse, which is drawing competitors from as far away as Iceland. Granted, I don't think you can quit your job and do it full time anytime soon, but with the number of events increasing and the purses climbing, that may become reality before you know it. Like I said above, ERoCC did not have a major monetary sponsor this season, so our purse was limited to entry fees and contingencies, but that will be changing next year, and I am sure purses in other events will continue to increase as well.

Tim

Originally posted by patooyee


I agree with Lance there. Any spotter who is too stupid to let go of the rope deserves to die in a bloody roll down a rocky hill. :flipoff2: It's called Darwin. I don't think teams should have to make a choice between losing and being safe.

Aren't you contridicting yourself here? :confused: So a spotter should die a bloody death if they make the wrong decision, but ARCA should make a rule so that teams don't have to "make a choice between losing and being safe." Whether there is a penalty or not, the team is still making a choice (albiet it a different one in each scenario).

Originally posted by Dirty Harry


Aren't you contridicting yourself here? :confused: So a spotter should die a bloody death if they make the wrong decision, but ARCA should make a rule so that teams don't have to "make a choice between losing and being safe." Whether there is a penalty or not, the team is still making a choice (albiet it a different one in each scenario).

No, I'm not. Because I was just being fecetious about the whole death thing. No spotter ever has, and I hope never will, be stupid enough to hang on to the rope as the truck goes over. I think it's natural instinct to let it go. If you have ever been to an RC comp before, even spectating, you know that there are MANY roll overs avoided due to spotters tugging on ropes. And I don't know of ANY deaths from hanging onto a rope too long. So far, I've only even heard of one injury! If you weigh that one injury to the injuries that are probable in the number of rolls that don't happen because of the spotter at the end of the rope, I think the answer is clear.

Another point is that I dont think comp organizers should put trucks into a situation where the vehicle and driver stand a chance of rolling more than a few times down a hill unless the spotter gets close to going over with them. But that's another issue completely.

J. J.

personaly i would like to see the spotter elimanted. or at least required to ride at all times. yes i think chris durams style is in the best intrest of growing the sport. it is what the masses of TV viewers want to see.

Originally posted by camo
personaly i would like to see the spotter elimanted. or at least required to ride at all times. yes i think chris durams style is in the best intrest of growing the sport. it is what the masses of TV viewers want to see.

That sucks. The original appeal of the sport to me was the fact that it was something other than just standing on the pedal.

J. J.

as a newbie/rookie competitor i have a couple of pennies to throw into the pot...first off. if your in it to make money, my suggestion is go elsewhere..youll do better..u should be having fun doing what u love... as for the spotter strap. well i agree with lance to a point that penalizing strap use will make it more dangerous. Good drivers and spotters will just look at like one more challenge. my solution to the problem is outlaw the use of straps in stock class. then have a competitor comepete in that class for one season to earn his/her wings..they would have to qualify to run the harder classes. Maybe this would help reduce the risk of lance's concern. being that a team with more experience at this point would be less prone to take gambles that would rish safety and rig..just an idea
second drivers union or one united group setting the class,point system.im all for it(BIG RICH Stand up i vote for u).right now things are way to complicated....everyone seems to want to do there own thing,, thats all well and good,,it just doesnt make much sense...this will have to happen if the sport is going to grow..people need to comprimise and not act like 5 years olds
as for the weight limit ,,,who needs it, your free to copy the other guys rig..they might laugh at u..isnt that what competition is all about..(but i really dont want to build a sami):eek:

Originally posted by camo
personaly i would like to see the spotter elimanted. or at least required to ride at all times. yes i think chris durams style is in the best intrest of growing the sport. it is what the masses of TV viewers want to see.

I'd like the spotter eliminated, but that's not why. I'd like to see the competitor take a nice clean line because he was a great driver - not because someone was telling him exactly where to go an hanging on the strap.

Bigdude - nope, I don't compete - but I like to drive, and it's a whole lot more interesting when someone isn't standing in front of the jeep telling me where to go. Due to my obstinant nature, I usually will take a completly different line than the person helping suggests (within safty limits) because then I did it.

CAUTION - SISYPHUS AT WORK :D

i like both rules and i do compete i bet the avg. weight of the rigs in RCAA is 3400 lbs. i cant use a wisk broom to clean a rock as it is a 20 point penalty for a" recovery tool"so why a strap isnt considered a tool i dont understand but useing it as a 2 point deal would be ok im tired of all the minus scores at the end of the day :flipoff2: :D and they are not on MY score card hehehe

Originally posted by rkcrawl


Rich - Question about the Mod Stock rules. The body requirements seem pretty tight. Do they mean that 1) A stock windshield must be attached during the competition? 2) Are tube front fenders illegal in this division, or running without fenders at all?

Windshields must be able to be installed, you can remove them for competition.

It is tub, not tube.

Rich

First off, Lance and Mike, you guys kicked arse this year, good stuff.

Second, I personally feel the weight thing is complete BS. That is the single biggest benefit to running a zuki is the weight factor. If you have a problem with a little lightweight zuki winning, then don't build a rig with a big block and rockwells. If there going to do anything about it, like someone said earlier, ban certain types of metal from certain parts. But most importantly, if you can get that part OEM made out of that metal, DON'T ban it (ex. zuki blocks, trans, t-cases are all made out of light weight stuff).

I think the strap rules should stay how they are. Its safer and most interesting.

As for the high horsepower rock racing, Ya it will bring in more money because the average Joe will enjoy it alot more. This is also the same average Joe that finds blazing his own trails and doing all the other things that make us look bad as quality entertainment.

Originally posted by Big Rich


Windshields must be able to be installed, you can remove them for competition.

It is tub, not tube.

Rich

Nope, I meant tube fenders, not tub fenders. But Steve N replied that tube fenders (ie flat fender look, made out of tube, ala H8Mondays rig) are illegal in that class.. Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by TrailKeeper
Sponsors don't just give their money blindly to a promoter, they want to make sure their money goes to a quality run event so that there "brand" can be associated with that event.

While true in some cases, I think there are a lot of sponsors who are concerned less about the "quality" of the event as they are with the exposure of the event. If it's a POS event, but the mags are all gonna be there taking pictures & writing glowing reports, you can be sure there will be plenty of name-brand sponsors associated with the event.

And as one who's attended some of these well-funded POS events, I don't hold anything against the sponsors for their association with the event. They know the exposure is gonna be good & they continue to fund these events over & over because it makes good business sense in their eyes. But on the flip side, as one who works hard to put on quality events (that often have as many or more spectators as the POS ones), I'm frustrated by the lack of sponsor interest I get from these same sponsors (or advertisers if you want to be more blunt) who pay big $$ to put their banners up at bad events.

TEX

It's my understanding that every year rules like these come out and everyone gets in an up roar. Maybe some of these are put out like this to see reaction and keep dialog moving on the series.

Sound possible?

Rich

Originally posted by Big Rich


Windshields must be able to be installed, you can remove them for competition.

It is tub, not tube.

Rich

Tubbing vs. tubing ... I read in another post from Rich that "tubbing" is one thing and that "tubing", as in using tube to strengthen an early Jeep style "flattied" fender is OK.
Isn't that correct, Rich?

And Rich, thanks for clearing up the removable windshield rule... very sensable and in line with Pro-Rock which even imposes a functioning wiper test ...
"6- Windshield wipers must work properly. Note: Windshields may be for removed for competition after tech inspection when checking-in at the event. "

Straps for RCAA ... You bet! Straps for everybody, IMHO...

In reality, all three of the above are related ...

Fact: Nobody wants to go home from a meet with sheet metal damage. Period.

Being able to remove a Jeep's windshield, being able to flatfender the front yet avoid a flimsy sharp edge, and being allowed to use a strap in those often tip over situations all help tremendously in helping a competitor go home will much less damage and expense.
I'm glad that common sense and reality is being considered by the rule makeing [powers that be.
Coming home from a destruction derby, such as ARCA II in Farmington a couple of years ago is the best way of discouraging participants I can think of.

Originally posted by Jaffer


Tubbing vs. tubing ... I read in another post from Rich that "tubbing" is one thing and that "tubing", as in using tube to strengthen an early Jeep style "flattied" fender is OK.
Isn't that correct, Rich?

And Rich, thanks for clearing up the removable windshield rule... very sensable and in line with Pro-Rock which even imposes a functioning wiper test ...
"6- Windshield wipers must work properly. Note: Windshields may be for removed for competition after tech inspection when checking-in at the event. "


That is correct.......

Wipers working is BS, especially if you allow the cutting of most of the sheet metal.

Rich

Originally posted by Jaffer



And Rich, thanks for clearing up the removable windshield rule... very sensable and in line with Pro-Rock which even imposes a functioning wiper test ...
"6- Windshield wipers must work properly. Note: Windshields may be for removed for competition after tech inspection when checking-in at the event. "



Not picking on you Jaffer...

I personally just think this part of the rule is just dumb. So to compete in Pro-Rock or CalRocs from the east coast, I have to bolt my windshield on, trailer it from the east coast, pass tech inspection and make sure I pass the "windshield wiper test" then I can take it off and worry about it being dropped, cracked, stolen and/or generally just be in the way. This is just dumb. Why not have a heater test too? Oh and what about turn signals? Where is that tailgate? (Please not the sarcasim... ) :rolleyes:

Edit; Noted that the wiper test is Pro-Rocks only...

Originally posted by rkcrawl


Not picking on you Jaffer...

I personally just think this part of the rule is just dumb. So to compete in Pro-Rock or CalRocs from the east coast, I have to bolt my windshield on, trailer it from the east coast, pass tech inspection and make sure I pass the "windshield wiper test" then I can take it off and worry about it being dropped, cracked, stolen and/or generally just be in the way. This is just dumb. Why not have a heater test too? Oh and what about turn signals? Where is that tailgate? (Please not the sarcasim... ) :rolleyes:

Edit; Noted that the wiper test is Pro-Rocks only...


Please remember this a Modified Stock Class not a legends class, and the windslield must be able to bolt up, I no longer require that it be brought to the competition.

Rich

Originally posted by TEX


While true in some cases, I think there are a lot of sponsors who are concerned less about the "quality" of the event as they are with the exposure of the event. If it's a POS event, but the mags are all gonna be there taking pictures & writing glowing reports, you can be sure there will be plenty of name-brand sponsors associated with the event.

And as one who's attended some of these well-funded POS events, I don't hold anything against the sponsors for their association with the event. They know the exposure is gonna be good & they continue to fund these events over & over because it makes good business sense in their eyes. But on the flip side, as one who works hard to put on quality events (that often have as many or more spectators as the POS ones), I'm frustrated by the lack of sponsor interest I get from these same sponsors (or advertisers if you want to be more blunt) who pay big $$ to put their banners up at bad events.

TEX

True, sometimes even bad press is good press to some sponsors.

I still believe that the best events will attract the best sponsors. In the past some sponsors had no choice in events, so they put their name on any event they could find, and sometimes every event they could find, but with all the new series and events, that is changing fast.

I don't know a thing about mudracing, so I don't know the issues involved there, but I do know the sponsors in rockcrawling are evaluating the quality of the events they are involved in.

Just to interject here on windshields. For my mud races, some classes require them some do not. But, for those classes that DO require one, it must be on there during the competition. And the fact that you can unbolt it from a Jeep matters not. If you have to run one in a pickup, the Jeeps must run them also. But, that's just how I handled that particular rule. I also allow unboltable tops to be taken off, but you can't hack the top off something that had a permanent one. And doors can only be removed from vehicles where it's commonly done (Jeeps, FJ's, early Broncos). There's probably a zillion different ways one could do this, and who's to say which one is "right". But, my opinion is that if you let Jeeps take off their windshield (a component that is required for street legality in many places), you should probably allow the pickup guys to do the same.

TEX

Originally posted by TEX
Just to interject here on windshields.

TEX

Tex - I understand your point. Mine was more along the lines, if I can remove it, then why does it need to be there for tech inspection.

Rich - Thanks for your clarification.

Originally posted by rkcrawl


Tex - I understand your point. Mine was more along the lines, if I can remove it, then why does it need to be there for tech inspection.

Yeah, one could argue all they want that it does or does not have to be there. But, saying it has to be there for tech, but can be removed for comp, well that's just goofy. I agree. And actually, making changes AFTER tech is generally frowned upon by most serious competition sanctioning bodies.

TEX

Tex- probably not blatantly obvious to a mud guy- retaining a perfectly good windshield and frame would be foolish if it's easily removed. Aside from the COG benefits you stand a good chance of leaning into a rock face and trashing the whole thing.:eek:

Originally posted by G02Guy
Tex- probably not blatantly obvious to a mud guy- retaining a perfectly good windshield and frame would be foolish if it's easily removed. Aside from the COG benefits you stand a good chance of leaning into a rock face and trashing the whole thing.:eek:

I'm not going to argue with that. However, I do think it would be somewhat unfair to allow that & then NOT allow the pickup guys to remove theirs. In particular, think about a guy who rolls at one event and now has to straighten his body in order to replace his windshield or face disqualification while a Jeep guy can simply unbolt & be legal.

TEX

Originally posted by TrailKeeper


True, sometimes even bad press is good press to some sponsors.

Well, bad press is never good. What I'm referring to are POS events that get good press (even if the truth comes out in places like PBB).


I still believe that the best events will attract the best sponsors. In the past some sponsors had no choice in events, so they put their name on any event they could find, and sometimes every event they could find, but with all the new series and events, that is changing fast.

I agree for the most part. But, I think that as long as the crowd is kept happy, sponsors will continue to throw $$$ at POS events. Sometimes an event LOOKS good even when the competitors are treated like dirt. If the spectators don't know the difference, it's gonna be tough for a sponsor to walk away from that. But, in the end, I do see the sponsor $$$ ending up at the very best events. Things have a way of working out in the long run.

I don't know a thing about mudracing, so I don't know the issues involved there, but I do know the sponsors in rockcrawling are evaluating the quality of the events they are involved in.

Pretty much the same issues I'd imagine. The quality of entertainment, the volume of spectators, and perhaps most importantly, the presence of PRESS all play a part in whether a sponsor wants to be involved or not. And as I mentioned before, I really like to think of them as "advertisers" rather than "sponsors". Sponsor to me means someone who gives something expecting nothing in return. An advertiser on the other hand expects a return on their investment.

BTW just for reference, the best-backed POS event I attended wasn't a mud race & was put on by one of the guys who also sanctions rock crawling events. I haven't yet been to a POS mud race that had a lot of backing, though I have been to many that received good press.


TEX

Originally posted by oldjeep
I'd like the spotter eliminated, but that's not why. I'd like to see the competitor take a nice clean line because he was a great driver - not because someone was telling him exactly where to go an hanging on the strap.
CAUTION - SISYPHUS AT WORK :D

Most good drivers do this and use the spotter as backup.

J. J.

There's always arguments about rules no matter what sport it is. I don't blame the promoters/sanctioning bodies for changing rules but that doesn't mean I agree with em either.
I don't agree with the weight limit...if you can build it light and strong enough to be competitive, then do it and hope you're driving/spotting skills are as good as your rig. It's clear that Lance and Mike have done this and it would behoove the others to change in their direction instead of changing rules! Some are saying put a lower weight limit but in the end my question is this...is there really a reason to have a weight limit at all?
As for the spotter strap penalty...I don't disagree with it. Think on this level, if the obstacle is difficult enough to warrant a strap, then pretty much everyone will use a strap and they all will get the penalty...noone is really at a disadvantage here. The question I always hear from people watching competitions and competition videos is "why are those guys winching?" It's a hard one to explain and it really makes the sport look worse from a non-expert point of view. In the end, those non-experts are the ones that will be watching the event on national TV, and the end result of those TV programs will be the main force in sponsor dollars. I think that it is not right to take the strap away, but seeing as everyone has equal chance of getting the penalties, it really won't make a difference in the final standings by adding a small penalty. Someone might say that people won't use the strap at all if there is a penalty on the line...if they are dumb enough :rolleyes: to do that, they wouldn't last long in the sport anyway.
Finally, I heard they might have a penalty for stacking rocks or not allow rock-stacking at all. If this is true, it is crazy. In some locations, no big deal...in others, the guys at the end HAVE to stack as the obstacles get so torn up. I feel that if they are going to put limits on stacking, simply make the rule say you cannot stack rocks while any of the vehicles wheels are moving, or within 10 feet of a moving vehicle. That will take care of the safety issue for spotters (i've seen my fair share of risky rocks being stuck under spinning wheels) and still make it fair.
That's my take on things...

Dustin "PAN" Webster
CJ7 with wings...to bad it doesn't fly

I don't care one way or the other on the spotter strap being outlawed but I would like to see a point system put on using one, because it only fravors the larger spotters, Most of you know my spotter (my wife) she has been spotting with me since 99
we just took 12th at dooner and first in the dash for cash (NO SPOTTER STRAP USED) SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE WEIGHT TO PULL MY RIG AROUND but as you all know she is up their with the best spotters in our sport, Sponsor like carnage but not personal danger, that is the reason for SAFETY RULES.........

Originally posted by Team Purple
I don't care one way or the other on the spotter strap being outlawed but I would like to see a point system put on using one, because it only fravors the larger spotters, Most of you know my spotter (my wife) she has been spotting with me since 99
we just took 12th at dooner and first in the dash for cash (NO SPOTTER STRAP USED) SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE WEIGHT TO PULL MY RIG AROUND but as you all know she is up their with the best spotters in our sport, Sponsor like carnage but not personal danger, that is the reason for SAFETY RULES.........

For sure the best looking:D

Hey now Ron;)

Rich

also as far as the weight deal, as long as it meets a set safety standard, why should it matter.

Originally posted by Team Purple
I don't care one way or the other on the spotter strap being outlawed but I would like to see a point system put on using one, because it only fravors the larger spotters, Most of you know my spotter (my wife) she has been spotting with me since 99
we just took 12th at dooner and first in the dash for cash (NO SPOTTER STRAP USED) SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE WEIGHT TO PULL MY RIG AROUND but as you all know she is up their with the best spotters in our sport, Sponsor like carnage but not personal danger, that is the reason for SAFETY RULES.........

You went through that dash for cash so fast it was all she could do to run out of the way! Congrats on such a clean run too!

Originally posted by Team Purple
also as far as the weight deal, as long as it meets a set safety standard, why should it matter.

Personally I think the weight limit is a good thing for the sport. Big money is starting to come into the sport and with it people are starting to build some really ultra light rigs. The weight limit is one way to keep the rigs looking sorta like trucks and not over sized quads.

As it is now you can still build a competive rig for $15k to $20k with a little work. If you had say $400K to build a rig and no weight limit you could build a rig out of some exocitic steel and carbon fiber and I am sure it's possible to get it under 1,000 lbs. With custom tires and wheels. But then what do was have? Sure it's got 4 wheels but it might more resemble a quad or Honda Pilot. Personally I think that's a different sport.

One example is Nascar. They would build those cars much lighter if they were allowed to but they have a lower weight limit and a few other rules that keeps them looking like cars. Yes there are lighter cars, but that's a different sport - sprint cars.

And now with that said. It's time to let the cat out of the bag. This weekend at the supercrawl there will be a new rig competing for the first time. I had a chance to see this thing in practice and it was truly amazing. Total weight was only 2,100 lbs thanks to VW power. Low to the ground, yet lots of ground clearance thanks to a set of unique 35 spline axles.

About the the "lighter is better" deal. I have a little gas powerd remote control car (4x4) car that does not climb as good as my bronco on the same rocks. It runs out of traction but wieghs less than 10 lbs. What's up?

Originally posted by JR
About the the "lighter is better" deal. I have a little gas powerd remote control car (4x4) car that does not climb as good as my bronco on the same rocks. It runs out of traction but wieghs less than 10 lbs. What's up?

Give that RC car the same Gearing, width, wheel base, and ground clearance as your rig and it will kick your ass on the rocks. FYI some events allready have a ban remote controlled rigs.

I am not saying that weight is the only thing, that night we ran outerlimits we had a Samurai running with us that was lighter than any rig out there that night but it did not have the tire size, gearing or wheel base to keep up with us and we were stacking rocks for him all night.

Ok, I'll buy that.

I still think there is something about tire size/ contact pressure vs. vehicle weight.

BTW Chris I did some surgury on the tires. Much better.

Originally posted by Big Rich



Please remember this a Modified Stock Class not a legends class, and the windslield must be able to bolt up, I no longer require that it be brought to the competition.

Rich

Hmm, the entire windshield frame on the Scout II is removable, can I pull it for comp?

COMPETITORS UNION

Driver, spotter would you like to NEGOTIATE or be told "how it's going to be" by the event sponsors? Protesting rule changes is not a substitute for having meaningful participation in the decisions which cost you money or possibly your life. No offense to the people who built this sport, Bob, Ranch, but this is America not the Soviet Union or Iraq and allowing the folks who make you money to help with the rulemaking process is only fair. If anyone is interested I'll create a new thread and let's get the ball rolling before next season. When I raised this subject with Bob Hazel in Las Cruces he was open and an "input" committee was his idea. A good start but not really enough. Now that the money is beginning to appear it's high time that those at risk had an opportunity to have input. Pick the top ten teams if you like, anything is better than nothing. Just let me know where to send the money to get my license and membership card like every other motorsport.