Tuff Truck 2013 - Results...

[Z()LTAN]

Thanks for the reply dude.

Let us know.

[tuf045]

Will the design of the cage and the welding be as scrutinised as the material we use? There have been poorly designed roll cages how will this be policed? Will the welding of the cage need to be done bye a qualified welder to a standard? Or will we see again as we have before the cage falling apart at the welds from poor welds as i am yet to see a pipe fail there only ever the welds!! Again how will these issues be addressed? No matter what material is used its only as strong as the design and welding that make it up!

need a like button, well said HANCOCK

[offroadboss]

The design requirements are pretty clear on the CCDA website. You can print all the material and design parameters on a big A3 sheet of paper, stick to your wall for quick reference as you build. So design will be easily policed by TTC.
It does matter what material is used, just as it matters how it is designed, and as it matters how it is welded. They're all important in the build of a cage, and none can make up for a lacking in the other.
I'm sure any good engineer ( I am not an engineer ) can easily tell if a weld has been done correctly or not, just by looking. So I don't see why there should be any problem policing these rules. Just as they already do in current CCDA events like winch challenges. This stuff has been going on for ages, they're not re writing the rule books!
Do you really want to suggest that they implement a rule where all cages have to be built by an engineer? And signed off/log booked, like cams requirements?

[Bentzook]

So unless ur 38.1mm 3.25mm wall is somehow partially opposing a layer of gravity to make it lighter, your comments make no sense & are typically uneducated.

the Gravitron has always had this, once you drive through the first layer, all other layers are opposing

A new die & some tube has been sourced locally, so lets party , thanks

[micka1]

So unless ur 38.1mm 3.25mm wall is somehow partially opposing a layer of gravity to make it lighter, your comments make no sense & are typically uneducated.

the Gravitron has always had this, once you drive through the first layer, all other layers are opposing

A new die & some tube has been sourced locally, so lets party , thanks

Ah so its the pipe that makes your car drive through the first layer of gravity i always thought it was the fact it looked the same from the front as it does from the back

[hazard44]

The design requirements are pretty clear on the CCDA website. You can print all the material and design parameters on a big A3 sheet of paper, stick to your wall for quick reference as you build. So design will be easily policed by TTC.
It does matter what material is used, just as it matters how it is designed, and as it matters how it is welded. They're all important in the build of a cage, and none can make up for a lacking in the other.
I'm sure any good engineer ( I am not an engineer ) can easily tell if a weld has been done correctly or not, just by looking. So I don't see why there should be any problem policing these rules. Just as they already do in current CCDA events like winch challenges. This stuff has been going on for ages, they're not re writing the rule books!
Do you really want to suggest that they implement a rule where all cages have to be built by an engineer? And signed off/log booked, like cams requirements?

yep 100% think it time to stop fucking around and inplement log books & cages to be certified on these cars.. eg if a car has a masive roll at tt, and then 2 months later competes in another comp, who has the say that that roll cage is safe, should it had repair prior to the next comp, has that cage lost its Integrity/Strength, lots of questions, if saftey is the aim, then look at other types of motor sport & see how its done, this sport has been to lenient for to long

[HANCOCK]

The design requirements are pretty clear on the CCDA website. You can print all the material and design parameters on a big A3 sheet of paper, stick to your wall for quick reference as you build. So design will be easily policed by TTC.
It does matter what material is used, just as it matters how it is designed, and as it matters how it is welded. They're all important in the build of a cage, and none can make up for a lacking in the other.
I'm sure any good engineer ( I am not an engineer ) can easily tell if a weld has been done correctly or not, just by looking. So I don't see why there should be any problem policing these rules. Just as they already do in current CCDA events like winch challenges. This stuff has been going on for ages, they're not re writing the rule books!
Do you really want to suggest that they implement a rule where all cages have to be built by an engineer? And signed off/log booked, like cams requirements?

yep 100% think it time to stop fucking around and inplement log books & cages to be certified on these cars.. eg if a car has a masive roll at tt, and then 2 months later competes in another comp, who has the say that that roll cage is safe, should it had repair prior to the next comp, has that cage lost its Integrity/Strength, lots of questions, if saftey is the aim, then look at other types of motor sport & see how its done, this sport has been to lenient for to long

I don't think we need to go as far log books this will make things too time consuming and costly. As well as the trucks are driven a lot more socially then in comps do you think the rolls that happen socially will be logged I don't think so.

[brooksy]

Exactly Hancock !!!
An impossible task to undertake as it relies on honesty



brooksy

[SierraDan]

Just build the cage the way CCDA want it done and everyone will be happy.

[offroadboss]

Just build the cage the way CCDA want it done and everyone will be happy.

I agree, the CCDA setup seems perfect for this level of motorsport. The cams system make it so hard, and is surely over the top for this style of vehicle. Again it's been keeping winch challenges safe and insured for a long time, why argue with it?

[mickyd555]

I thought all CCDA cages have a log book, i had one and a number, they had drawings of the cage and every event the log book gets handed in. If you have a heavy roll you dont get the book back until you fix the cage.

[want33s]

I don't think we need to go as far log books this will make things too time consuming and costly. As well as the trucks are driven a lot more socially then in comps do you think the rolls that happen socially will be logged I don't think so.

Wouldn't proper scrutineering pickup on any (social wheeling) damage before an event?

[SierraDan]

Any damage worth worrying about would be just as bad/obvious as sign post pipe and pelican shit cages.

[t price]

GUYS IT SEEMS YOU ARE ALL HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THE CAGE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR MANY YEARS. NOW LETS BE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING ON WITH BUISNESS OF RUNNING AND COMPETING NEXT YEAR. WE CAN ONLY USE COMMON SENSE REGARDING WELDING AND PAST ROLLOVERS. WE WANT YOU TO BE SAFE. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

TONY

[SierraDan]

Sounds good.

[Tuff Events]

Guys, we do listen, its not a closed book, its a progression, we will NEVER satisfy everybody even though we continue to try.

We are more than likely going to come up with an alternate percentage for front profile due to the fact that their is a disadvantage to teams using i.e Nissan Patrol GQ/GU/MQ, 80/100 series etc.

We are researching profile % options on a range of vehicle types. Maybe looking at allowing 70% or 75% for these types of vehicles. Yet to be confirmed.

e.g. a 75 series landcruiser would have to meet the 80% rule as the guards are what we consider re-movable, same as 40.45/47/70/75/78/79 series, Jeeps, Nissan G60 and some others. ( Nissan GQ/GU guards are removable but not like a 40 series or Jeep )

Cheers

[joshy]

Sounds good, I want to move my front diff forward but there's no way I can and meet the 80% that's been mentioned above.

[matt79]

Yeah that does sound good. Might make it a lot easier on my 60 front end.

[alexcliffo]

Sounds like a good compromise and will make it easier for us too. Its a subjective area so will be hard to please everybody.

[stock 4runner]

Why not just make it the grill has to be a certain percentage of the width of the cab would make it fair for all

[ezzman]

would it be viable to allow the narrowing of the whole car so that it can still retain a factory appearance, albeit just narrower. maybe have a minimum width at the a pillar similar to that of a 40 series so that there isn't an advantage for either make? AKA, the whole car is within the 80%?!

[Turbo Tonka]

pretty sure there has been teams not allowed to run in the past due to narrowing the vehicle

[pricey]

would it be viable to allow the narrowing of the whole car so that it can still retain a factory appearance, albeit just narrower. maybe have a minimum width at the a pillar similar to that of a 40 series so that there isn't an advantage for either make? AKA, the whole car is within the 80%?!

Straight from the TT rules

The vehicles body width must remain at its original width at the A-Pillar relative to the body used. i.e. Cannot be narrowed. B-Pillar must also be at least A-Pillar width.

[stilivn]

In later years you guys ever think of running a buggy class?

[johnsy86]

i think the way the front profiles have been for the last few years is good i still know what all the vehicles are and i like that alot of builder are pushing the limits of the rules, thats whats suppose to happen isnt it?. please dont restrict these guys too much other wise a lot might just get over all these rules changes essentially its sounding more and more like u want stock bodied cars rocking up with some lift and tyres, 10 years ago that might have been cool

[ezzman]

i know that's in the rules. i was posting that up as an alternative to the front profile rule so that all cars would have a minimum size to work to but still maintain tha overall profile of the car. as these cars can be built around a cage it would mean that they are only modifying the bonnet and grille which could be done quite easily and still maintain an overall 80% rather.

[MogLux]

In later years you guys ever think of running a buggy class?

That was tried it was called W.E Rock... hoping one day buggy comps come back to NSW..

[pricey]

i think the way the front profiles have been for the last few years is good i still know what all the vehicles are and i like that alot of builder are pushing the limits of the rules, thats whats suppose to happen isnt it?. please dont restrict these guys too much other wise a lot might just get over all these rules changes essentially its sounding more and more like u want stock bodied cars rocking up with some lift and tyres, 10 years ago that might have been cool

Please tell us how we're wanting more standard cars in the event by just because we have cleared up a rule that can be interpretated differantly by differant people? Your point may have been valid if we said no narrowing of the front end is allowed, but clearly we havent.

The rule change, more so a clarification, was so there was no grey area in the front profile. Also it is to ensure the average person can easily identify what vehicle it is. Thats not exactly a huge restriction is it?

[evanstaniland]

In later years you guys ever think of running a buggy class?

That was tried it was called W.E Rock... hoping one day buggy comps come back to NSW..

Think it was more aimed in conjunction with the other trucks not a full buggy comp

[MADSHORT]

as soon as you accept somebodys weld your duty of care comes into play lol