Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user. If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Strange Rover wrote:I think it woul also be alot easier to design obstacles this way also cause they can be more seperated out and dont necessarity have to flow on from one to another although if they do flow on then its good also. But with the many seperate obstacle format gives the course designer a lot more flexability to pick all the good bits out of the available terrain.
Sam
Yes but is there that many places at LCMP that will allow that style of competition
Sam (StrangeRover) i also agree very strongly with you as i know we have discussed this many times, the biggest issue i see is that the XRCC format of combining a number of Difficult obstacles does not allow the US style rules, the only way they would work is if the FORMAT change to suit those rules!
I think at the moment i could not see David Metcalfe changing the entire Format, i can see him adapting some of the rules we think need modifying!
The US system simply would not work how the XRCC is set-up at the moment!
Hell some of us use 40 points just to get past the first obstacle!
David wont have to really change the format. It could be simply a matter of breaking up the long stage into seperate obstacles. For example the round 1 cources could have been run the exact same way except each stage could be broken up into seperate obstacles with seperate scoring and DNF times.
For example the last stage of round 1 could have been broken into 4 seperate obstacles. Rock out of water,first steep ledge, then second steep rocky climb and lastly the bounder section back down through the gully and out the other side. Each rig could run all the obstacles in one go as they did but the difference is that if you broke something on the first obstacle (as you did) then you get your 45min cumulative break down time (and then go out of order - meaning they let the next rig have a go etc) fix you shiat and then start again on the next obstacle (the first steep ledge)
Now the trailcraft rig didnt do any of this course so they would have DNF each of the 4 obstacles which is 4 x 40 = 160 penality points.
Now if any body managed to not DNF any one of these stages (by winching or whatever) would recieve less penality points than them and everybody would be happy.
POS wrote: Yes but is there that many places at LCMP that will allow that style of competition
There is heaps because you can just pick the guts out of any terrain.
The first track on round 1 could be broken into say three seperate obstacles (say the bit where you rolled, then the climb up and down the rocks and lastly the climb out the top)
Second track is a lot harder cause it didnt have any really hard sections but it still could have been run as two seperate obstacles
Third track (first one on sunday) could easily have been run as three seperate obstacles although they did cross over each other. But just in that area where we drove you could easily get three or four seperate obstacles.
And the forth track I already explained above.
Now if you had looked at the rest of the terrain just where we were ther are seperate little obstacles all over the place. Basically all you had to do was to select an obstacle that just drove into the gully from one side, over a few rocks anbd then climb out the other - basically hundreds of obstacles just in that area alone.
I can see why they are always pretty close events over there!
Yes thats right. And not all obstacles have to be ball breakers. Not all of them have to be technical. Not all of them have to be climbs. And it lets you try to set a very hard obstacle and if nobody drives it and everybody DNFs that obstacle it doesent stuff the competition cause that obstacle is only one of, say twenty, that makes up the competition. As opposed to one of the three courses as it is in the current setup.
Thats a huge problem with designing any track or corse as if you make the start of it to hard the the whole stage is screwed where as the RCAA format it would not matter a great deal as you could justr scrap the one stage and use the other 19!
SAM that is an excellent way of looking at it I didn't even think of it that way It would make for more driving for the competitors and more to see from the spectators point of view as well.
The system you are discussing may also make it easier for the different classes to run in the same course area, with less course restructuring and downtime associated with breakages or recovery. The bottleneck it can create is something to consider (having long complex stages). As the sport grows more rigs will be competing and there are only so many hours in the day to run competition stages, and the spectators will not sit there for 12 hours.
Area54 wrote: and the spectators will not sit there for 12 hours.
I would, not a problem, as long as the fridge is within short walking distance
The way you are describing course construction with independantely scored obstacles would make it sooooo much easier to construct a fair and impressive course and run an entertaining event it is not funny.
At Cal's place at Berridale it is quite difficult to string together a "traditional" short course style series of half a dozen difficult obstacles in a tight formation. But to do the same thing with a short "garage" space of say 5 or 6 car lenghts in between each obstacle would be dead easy.
83 lux wrote:you sound very interested it this are we going to see you compete
Do you read the post?
Rhett has already stepped up to the plate and said he was KEEN!!!!!!
He's driving a Zuki with 30x9.5's!!!
Whats your excuss Scott!!
Keen as mustard boys that is if I can fix my carby reverse my front springs finish fixing my doors from last roll and weld up the front diff in the next few weekends
I ran a door thankyou very much. Dave did say that I would have to change them for round 2 to a steel or alloy and the must be the height of the seat swab.
SAM
