On Road Body Sanctioning Questions
12-16-2004, 08:41 PM
#1
On Road Body Sanctioning Questions
Can anyone form ROAR answer to the post that Dale Epp made ?
Here it is...
I guess I'd better weigh in, considering I'm the instigator. Wow. Where do I begin.
First, let me thank you guys who have had complimentary remarks. This occupation tends to be rather tedious and sometimes lonely, working alone as I make dust. Its nice to know that there are those out there that like what I'm doing.
This whole body realism/body legalization issue has been dogging me since day one. When I started PROTOform in 1992 I couldn't get ROAR to even look at any of my bodies, let alone approve them. I had to threaten then Pres John Thawley with a "restraint of trade" lawsuit just to get an answer as to whether my bodies were eligable. A couple of years later my NASCAR bodies were systematically being rejected by NORRCA. At the same time, oval bodies from Georgia (that had all the detail and realism of a bar of soap) were legalized instantly. The NORRCA body officials doing the scrutinizing were guys that had never been to a stock car race. At the time, I was travelling to the race shops in NC to photograph and measure the real cars in an attempt to get these little bodies right. There have obviously been many changes in these two organizations but its still an increasingly complicated issue. As PROTOform grew (with the help of Proline) and the RC racing scene evolved with the trend toward 4wd sedan racing, we now are faced with new issues and a half dozen RC sanctioning bodies around the world.
ROAR will now legalize just about anything. It started to go downhill back in about 1996. They legalized a HB Diablo GTP - no such thing. It got worse in 2002 with the Parma Speed 8 (and the direct backpour Trinity Speed 9) As manufacturers we are supposed to submit photos to ROAR to authenticate the rc version. The Parma body looks like no Bentley Speed 8 race car I've ever seen. And, why was'nt Parma "protected" by ROAR when an obviously backpoured (Trinity version) body was submitted?
Back in about 1997 Andy's Bodies did the first Stratus body. Whether it was luck or genious, there was no doubt that the body was good. If you will recall, it was by no means realistic. The front fenders had sharp peaks leading to the a-pillars (now normal on most sedan bodies) and I questioned ROAR at the time
about this apparent deviation from realism. No responce or answers. It was pretty apparent the the funky fender tops and Dodge's "cab forward" design was a winner. I resisted doing a Stratus for over 2 years but it was pretty apparent that BMW's and Modeo's were never going to be competitive with a "cab forward" design body. Every other race-body company in the world did a Stratus body. Finally, I got sick of losing (races and sales) and did a Stratus body in June 1999. Our distributors were requesting it non-stop. That car was based on the real Stratus that raced in the still-born North American Touring Car Series. After a few years of 10-Stratus A-mains at every race in the world it was definitly time for a change, at least to make thing more interesting. Problem was, there was no other 4dr "cab-forward" cars being made (let alone being raced) in the real world. Dodge brought out a nicer looking car in 2002 and I followed suit with the PROTOform 2.0 version. ROAR approved it as did a few other sanctioning bodies. It seemed at the time to be a natural progression away from an outdated looking 1996 body style.
In late 2002 I could see that the day would come where "realism" would eventually take a backseat to "performance". So at that time I sent up a VERY detailed proposal to ROAR in hopes that the trend could be curtailed and the essence of sedan racing preserved. It was a pretty serious effort on my part, with diagrams and explanations etc. It outlined a simple but effective way of scrutinizing the bodies when submitted for ROAR approval. The only tools needed were 12 inch level and a tape measure. In addition the existing height/width rule, there was a MAXIMUM LIMIT for trunk length, roof crown, lower windshield width, windshield length etc and a MINIMUM LIMIT for hood length, side window height, roof width, rear body overhang, rear window width etc.
For 12th scale there was a cockpit width/height MINIMUM and side spill-plate MAXIMUM.
As usual, there was no responce from ROAR. I was very disappointed. As I had feared, the "funny cars" showed up in 2004. After a 6 week fight to get our Mazda 6 body on the IFMAR Worlds approved list, I got to see first hand some pretty wacked-out bodies at that race. The Yokomo Stratus that zero styling cues from the real car. The roof is 6 inches wide at the front tapering to a svelte 4.5 inches at the rear. The Ride Accord (used by Hara to finish second) has a 3 (yes three!) inch long trunk lid and a flat shelf extending out from the window sill that rivals John Forces Mustang funny car's shape. And yes, they were all IFMAR approved. ( the real Accord has a 17 inch trunk lid = 1.7 in. to scale)
The much vaunted Parma Alfa is no tribute to realism either. It's roof has a raised crown and is radically narrowed at the rear, so it's far from realistic as well.
It's not my intention to bash other manufacturers bodies or bore you with trivia. What I'm trying to say is that its pretty tough to try to weave your way through this maze as a manufacturer. I'm very competitive by nature, and hate to lose as much as the next guy. I want to improve my brand, but how do I do it when the rules are so blurred and the official sactioning bodies "don't officiate"? The BRCA guys want one thing, the rest of the world wants another. To tell me to "back up" and produce uncompetive bodies is as ridiculous as me telling Rick Howart that his motors are too fast, and for the sake of the less proficient drivers he should make them slower. For the benefit of the class, naturally.
Bottom Line: we will never come to a full agreement. This is why we need the sactioning bodies to do their jobs. They need to hear from YOU. They're sick of hearing from me. Of all the organizations out there, the BRCA is by far the best. They have a passion for what they are doing that is sadly missing in most organizations. They still make some pretty inconsistent decisions in regard to race-bodies, but that aside, they are flat out the best. Just too bad I can't afford to cater exclusively to such a small market. (UK)
The other reason we will never come to full agreement - the whole topic is so subjective by nature. Some people actually like the look of PROTOform bodies, and some think they suck. Some people like the "new look" BMWs in the showrooms, I think they suck! There's probably people that actually think Ride Bodies look realistic. Some people think I'm the Dr. Evil of rc bodies yet others think I'm some kinda genius. (judging from some RC Tech comments)
NASCAR went to common templates not only to bring parity to the 3 brands of cars racing, but also to stop the daily bickering once and for all. If ROAR (and others) accepted some kind of "measurement criteria" using minimums & maximums for key body measurements, we may end up with similar looking cars that have different grill, hd lights and window outlines, but at least we would have some absolutes to work with instead of the foggy subjectivity we have now.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks for taking the time to read this rather long post
Dle Epp - PROTOform
Here it is...
I guess I'd better weigh in, considering I'm the instigator. Wow. Where do I begin.
First, let me thank you guys who have had complimentary remarks. This occupation tends to be rather tedious and sometimes lonely, working alone as I make dust. Its nice to know that there are those out there that like what I'm doing.
This whole body realism/body legalization issue has been dogging me since day one. When I started PROTOform in 1992 I couldn't get ROAR to even look at any of my bodies, let alone approve them. I had to threaten then Pres John Thawley with a "restraint of trade" lawsuit just to get an answer as to whether my bodies were eligable. A couple of years later my NASCAR bodies were systematically being rejected by NORRCA. At the same time, oval bodies from Georgia (that had all the detail and realism of a bar of soap) were legalized instantly. The NORRCA body officials doing the scrutinizing were guys that had never been to a stock car race. At the time, I was travelling to the race shops in NC to photograph and measure the real cars in an attempt to get these little bodies right. There have obviously been many changes in these two organizations but its still an increasingly complicated issue. As PROTOform grew (with the help of Proline) and the RC racing scene evolved with the trend toward 4wd sedan racing, we now are faced with new issues and a half dozen RC sanctioning bodies around the world.
ROAR will now legalize just about anything. It started to go downhill back in about 1996. They legalized a HB Diablo GTP - no such thing. It got worse in 2002 with the Parma Speed 8 (and the direct backpour Trinity Speed 9) As manufacturers we are supposed to submit photos to ROAR to authenticate the rc version. The Parma body looks like no Bentley Speed 8 race car I've ever seen. And, why was'nt Parma "protected" by ROAR when an obviously backpoured (Trinity version) body was submitted?
Back in about 1997 Andy's Bodies did the first Stratus body. Whether it was luck or genious, there was no doubt that the body was good. If you will recall, it was by no means realistic. The front fenders had sharp peaks leading to the a-pillars (now normal on most sedan bodies) and I questioned ROAR at the time
about this apparent deviation from realism. No responce or answers. It was pretty apparent the the funky fender tops and Dodge's "cab forward" design was a winner. I resisted doing a Stratus for over 2 years but it was pretty apparent that BMW's and Modeo's were never going to be competitive with a "cab forward" design body. Every other race-body company in the world did a Stratus body. Finally, I got sick of losing (races and sales) and did a Stratus body in June 1999. Our distributors were requesting it non-stop. That car was based on the real Stratus that raced in the still-born North American Touring Car Series. After a few years of 10-Stratus A-mains at every race in the world it was definitly time for a change, at least to make thing more interesting. Problem was, there was no other 4dr "cab-forward" cars being made (let alone being raced) in the real world. Dodge brought out a nicer looking car in 2002 and I followed suit with the PROTOform 2.0 version. ROAR approved it as did a few other sanctioning bodies. It seemed at the time to be a natural progression away from an outdated looking 1996 body style.
In late 2002 I could see that the day would come where "realism" would eventually take a backseat to "performance". So at that time I sent up a VERY detailed proposal to ROAR in hopes that the trend could be curtailed and the essence of sedan racing preserved. It was a pretty serious effort on my part, with diagrams and explanations etc. It outlined a simple but effective way of scrutinizing the bodies when submitted for ROAR approval. The only tools needed were 12 inch level and a tape measure. In addition the existing height/width rule, there was a MAXIMUM LIMIT for trunk length, roof crown, lower windshield width, windshield length etc and a MINIMUM LIMIT for hood length, side window height, roof width, rear body overhang, rear window width etc.
For 12th scale there was a cockpit width/height MINIMUM and side spill-plate MAXIMUM.
As usual, there was no responce from ROAR. I was very disappointed. As I had feared, the "funny cars" showed up in 2004. After a 6 week fight to get our Mazda 6 body on the IFMAR Worlds approved list, I got to see first hand some pretty wacked-out bodies at that race. The Yokomo Stratus that zero styling cues from the real car. The roof is 6 inches wide at the front tapering to a svelte 4.5 inches at the rear. The Ride Accord (used by Hara to finish second) has a 3 (yes three!) inch long trunk lid and a flat shelf extending out from the window sill that rivals John Forces Mustang funny car's shape. And yes, they were all IFMAR approved. ( the real Accord has a 17 inch trunk lid = 1.7 in. to scale)
The much vaunted Parma Alfa is no tribute to realism either. It's roof has a raised crown and is radically narrowed at the rear, so it's far from realistic as well.
It's not my intention to bash other manufacturers bodies or bore you with trivia. What I'm trying to say is that its pretty tough to try to weave your way through this maze as a manufacturer. I'm very competitive by nature, and hate to lose as much as the next guy. I want to improve my brand, but how do I do it when the rules are so blurred and the official sactioning bodies "don't officiate"? The BRCA guys want one thing, the rest of the world wants another. To tell me to "back up" and produce uncompetive bodies is as ridiculous as me telling Rick Howart that his motors are too fast, and for the sake of the less proficient drivers he should make them slower. For the benefit of the class, naturally.
Bottom Line: we will never come to a full agreement. This is why we need the sactioning bodies to do their jobs. They need to hear from YOU. They're sick of hearing from me. Of all the organizations out there, the BRCA is by far the best. They have a passion for what they are doing that is sadly missing in most organizations. They still make some pretty inconsistent decisions in regard to race-bodies, but that aside, they are flat out the best. Just too bad I can't afford to cater exclusively to such a small market. (UK)
The other reason we will never come to full agreement - the whole topic is so subjective by nature. Some people actually like the look of PROTOform bodies, and some think they suck. Some people like the "new look" BMWs in the showrooms, I think they suck! There's probably people that actually think Ride Bodies look realistic. Some people think I'm the Dr. Evil of rc bodies yet others think I'm some kinda genius. (judging from some RC Tech comments)
NASCAR went to common templates not only to bring parity to the 3 brands of cars racing, but also to stop the daily bickering once and for all. If ROAR (and others) accepted some kind of "measurement criteria" using minimums & maximums for key body measurements, we may end up with similar looking cars that have different grill, hd lights and window outlines, but at least we would have some absolutes to work with instead of the foggy subjectivity we have now.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks for taking the time to read this rather long post
Dle Epp - PROTOform
12-16-2004, 08:46 PM
#2
The part that could help the situation and what ROAR's reply is
In late 2002 I could see that the day would come where "realism" would eventually take a backseat to "performance". So at that time I sent up a VERY detailed proposal to ROAR in hopes that the trend could be curtailed and the essence of sedan racing preserved. It was a pretty serious effort on my part, with diagrams and explanations etc. It outlined a simple but effective way of scrutinizing the bodies when submitted for ROAR approval. The only tools needed were 12 inch level and a tape measure. In addition the existing height/width rule, there was a MAXIMUM LIMIT for trunk length, roof crown, lower windshield width, windshield length etc and a MINIMUM LIMIT for hood length, side window height, roof width, rear body overhang, rear window width etc.
For 12th scale there was a cockpit width/height MINIMUM and side spill-plate MAXIMUM.
In late 2002 I could see that the day would come where "realism" would eventually take a backseat to "performance". So at that time I sent up a VERY detailed proposal to ROAR in hopes that the trend could be curtailed and the essence of sedan racing preserved. It was a pretty serious effort on my part, with diagrams and explanations etc. It outlined a simple but effective way of scrutinizing the bodies when submitted for ROAR approval. The only tools needed were 12 inch level and a tape measure. In addition the existing height/width rule, there was a MAXIMUM LIMIT for trunk length, roof crown, lower windshield width, windshield length etc and a MINIMUM LIMIT for hood length, side window height, roof width, rear body overhang, rear window width etc.
For 12th scale there was a cockpit width/height MINIMUM and side spill-plate MAXIMUM.
12-17-2004, 05:18 AM
#3
Tech Master
If ROAR is so big on realizm,why are there 8th scale buggies, 10th scale offroad in no way resembles real offroad racing, and trucks are even further off. I wish when it comes to boddies , there were less rules. We are racing, not modeling.If everybody can get one it's legal. There are so many rules out there, looking real enough should not be one.
12-17-2004, 06:01 AM
#5
Tech Master
Yea thats all I race. My point is Roar has alot of body rules for on road, none (to speak of ) for offroad . This would be my rules for boddies;availble to everyone a month prior to a race, wing that came with the car, wing max (hight, width, cord, dams) roof hight, in the case of sedans ; must be a sedan(meaning back seat not 4door). My point was, we are racing not modeling.
12-17-2004, 07:00 AM
#6
Realism...
I believe the rules for this are a little heavy as well. Basically, if certain things like Wardo mentioned and the body resembles the looks of a Sedan, it should be approved.
I don't think we should just ditch the effort of approvals, but maybe lighten up on some of the rules.
Dale's bodies IMO have been some of the best bodies on the market. Some of them have been a little eh, but most I have liked and used.
I'm not too sure that ROAR should ditch realism for performance either. It should be a happy mix of both (Which IMO Dale's bodies have met this). I also feel as though the Andy's body that he mentioned did in fact have a happy mix of both.
As far as any of the other rules for bodies (Hole cutouts, window cutouts, etc...) I think are sufficient and nothing else is required at this time. This has nothing to do with Dale's comments but felt as though it may be relevent to add.
Sean
I don't think we should just ditch the effort of approvals, but maybe lighten up on some of the rules.
Dale's bodies IMO have been some of the best bodies on the market. Some of them have been a little eh, but most I have liked and used.
I'm not too sure that ROAR should ditch realism for performance either. It should be a happy mix of both (Which IMO Dale's bodies have met this). I also feel as though the Andy's body that he mentioned did in fact have a happy mix of both.
As far as any of the other rules for bodies (Hole cutouts, window cutouts, etc...) I think are sufficient and nothing else is required at this time. This has nothing to do with Dale's comments but felt as though it may be relevent to add.
Sean
12-17-2004, 03:48 PM
#7
Dale - I've run both the soap box body (Bolink) and yours for many years. What I think they should do is the realistic like. I did help right the first touring car body rules with the Colonnel. What we were trying to do his have cars that raced in any touring cars series.We broke it down to two and four door styles. I think they should be realistic not necessarily to scale. As a santioning body ROAR does need to set the guides the manufacturers should go by.We should never let the bodies go the way the slot car bodies did- sleek and not any real car I've ever seen. The cars should be something everyone should be able to reconized.
Dale I run only your bodies and have for the last several years. I will not run anyone else bodies. Your detail bodies look good and they hold up well when they get hit. If there is anything I can do just let me know-Just point me in the right direction.
Dale I run only your bodies and have for the last several years. I will not run anyone else bodies. Your detail bodies look good and they hold up well when they get hit. If there is anything I can do just let me know-Just point me in the right direction.
12-18-2004, 03:56 AM
#8
Going back in some of the other things Dale was talking about. Back in the dark ages- when I first started to race R/C the popular body was the Schkee (missed spelled). I never saw a real one until one day back at Road Atlanta in the early 80"s I was walking thru the pits and saw one.I ever remember it racing( if you could call it that).I came in near the back of the pack in it's race backfiring. The other popular car body was the TOJ. This was the body to have for many more years than the car ever raced.
By the way these were both first 1/12th bodies and then 1/10th bodies.
ROAR should go by the current bodies used in the real racing community. After they stop racing that body style - lets say one or two years then it's no long any good to race in organized races. In SCCA I believe they did do that to keep things current. I could be wrong. But keeping things current and having the general public being able to reconize the cars we race is a benifit.Look at what happened to On-road racing when IMSA went down the tubes. Our racing suffered because nobody knew what IMSA was because it was no longer on TV. If no one can see it no one will want to race it.
Also when Touring first came out it was mostly four door cars-now it's gone the other way (two).Again it's what you see on TV that the public will want to race.So Make the bodies current and close to realistic as possible.
The Bull Frog is Bill Fraden region 4 director
By the way these were both first 1/12th bodies and then 1/10th bodies.
ROAR should go by the current bodies used in the real racing community. After they stop racing that body style - lets say one or two years then it's no long any good to race in organized races. In SCCA I believe they did do that to keep things current. I could be wrong. But keeping things current and having the general public being able to reconize the cars we race is a benifit.Look at what happened to On-road racing when IMSA went down the tubes. Our racing suffered because nobody knew what IMSA was because it was no longer on TV. If no one can see it no one will want to race it.
Also when Touring first came out it was mostly four door cars-now it's gone the other way (two).Again it's what you see on TV that the public will want to race.So Make the bodies current and close to realistic as possible.
The Bull Frog is Bill Fraden region 4 director
12-20-2004, 12:15 PM
#9
http://rctech.net/forum/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1
I think you ROAR guys should read this thread...5 pages but theres a lot of good points. Currently ROAR rules are costing body manufactuers lots of money by requiring them to be modeled after a real car. Well now they don't look even close to the real car BUT are still costing companies lots of money for licensing. Mandatory measurement requirments would help keep the spirit of "sedan" racing a bit better than having them modeled after cars they A) look nothing alike and B) don't even race.
I'll run whatever ROAR rules tell me to run but I don't think I shouldn't be helping make ROAR better. Theres a lot of good points I find hard for ROAR to completely ignore on that thread
-Dan
I think you ROAR guys should read this thread...5 pages but theres a lot of good points. Currently ROAR rules are costing body manufactuers lots of money by requiring them to be modeled after a real car. Well now they don't look even close to the real car BUT are still costing companies lots of money for licensing. Mandatory measurement requirments would help keep the spirit of "sedan" racing a bit better than having them modeled after cars they A) look nothing alike and B) don't even race.
I'll run whatever ROAR rules tell me to run but I don't think I shouldn't be helping make ROAR better. Theres a lot of good points I find hard for ROAR to completely ignore on that thread
-Dan
01-09-2005, 09:53 AM
#11
Originally posted by WARDO
If ROAR is so big on realizm,why are there 8th scale buggies, 10th scale offroad in no way resembles real offroad racing, and trucks are even further off. I wish when it comes to boddies , there were less rules. We are racing, not modeling.If everybody can get one it's legal. There are so many rules out there, looking real enough should not be one.
If ROAR is so big on realizm,why are there 8th scale buggies, 10th scale offroad in no way resembles real offroad racing, and trucks are even further off. I wish when it comes to boddies , there were less rules. We are racing, not modeling.If everybody can get one it's legal. There are so many rules out there, looking real enough should not be one.
You will never see off-road being realistic, but they try and keep a happy medium. this should be done with sedans as well I think.
01-09-2005, 09:20 PM
#12
There does need to be a balance, however.
What is aero and works on a full-scale car doesn't necessarily work on a 1/10th scale (and for those who say air is still air, I'm not really talking about function, I'm more talking about feasibiltiy - look at splitter plates on touring cars and Le Mans cars just as an example. . .how long would a "true" splitter plate work on 1/10th scale?
)
The original post where specific guidelines were talked about - this is a good idea but then I'm not the Technical Director. . .
I do know that there are complications but, come on, nobody can tell me that the goofy and EXTREME 1/12th cars are anything that even resemble reality!
I just read through the rules (starting at page 17) and they are pretty loose. Off-road doesn't even need to resemble anything specifid (3-18).
But if Sedan is supposed to be even somewhat realistic. . .shouldn't it be somewhat realistic?
What is aero and works on a full-scale car doesn't necessarily work on a 1/10th scale (and for those who say air is still air, I'm not really talking about function, I'm more talking about feasibiltiy - look at splitter plates on touring cars and Le Mans cars just as an example. . .how long would a "true" splitter plate work on 1/10th scale?
) The original post where specific guidelines were talked about - this is a good idea but then I'm not the Technical Director. . .
I do know that there are complications but, come on, nobody can tell me that the goofy and EXTREME 1/12th cars are anything that even resemble reality!
I just read through the rules (starting at page 17) and they are pretty loose. Off-road doesn't even need to resemble anything specifid (3-18).
But if Sedan is supposed to be even somewhat realistic. . .shouldn't it be somewhat realistic?
01-10-2005, 09:51 AM
#14
403 - sometimes ROAR reps don't access this board every day of every week as some other do.
I would answer the question but I do not know the answer..... but I would suggest somebody who really wants to know contact Bob Ingersoll, [email protected] who is the ROAR Technical Director. He does not access the message forums on a regular basis.
I would answer the question but I do not know the answer..... but I would suggest somebody who really wants to know contact Bob Ingersoll, [email protected] who is the ROAR Technical Director. He does not access the message forums on a regular basis.