Outer Limits 4x4 Board

The CR lacks bottom end tho, and generaly cant be had for pocket change

MADZUKI wrote:The CR lacks bottom end tho, and generaly cant be had for pocket change

Someone will build a crusty old dr400 powered buggy. Then the next person will build a ported 500 husky with custom reeds and expansion chamber. 500's have good bottom end BTW.

slosh wrote:

MADZUKI wrote:The CR lacks bottom end tho, and generaly cant be had for pocket change

Someone will build a crusty old dr400 powered buggy. Then the next person will build a ported 500 husky with custom reeds and expansion chamber. 500's have good bottom end BTW.

Fine then...fawk ya's....CT110 engines only

This idea is great, as said earlier there is no reason why multiple members of one family can't compete in the same comp in the same minibug. (barring breakages of course.)

Just a few questions, is the frame of the buggy going to be the same for all? This way people can still run almost whatever running gear they want (within the rules) wtihout having to worry about the frame being strong enough for safety reasons.
Will there be rules on safety guards? i.e chain guards to protect driver and anyone else nearby if it breaks.

Also personal safety gear rules should be made up front, like will 4 point harness be minimum standard. wrist straps or netting.

Also I think spotters should be allowed. This comp would be ideal for teaching spotters what is required instead of jumping into the deep end in the bigger comps.

Chucky wrote:This idea is great, as said earlier there is no reason why multiple members of one family can't compete in the same comp in the same minibug. (barring breakages of course.)

Just a few questions, is the frame of the buggy going to be the same for all? This way people can still run almost whatever running gear they want (within the rules) wtihout having to worry about the frame being strong enough for safety reasons.
Will there be rules on safety guards? i.e chain guards to protect driver and anyone else nearby if it breaks.

Also personal safety gear rules should be made up front, like will 4 point harness be minimum standard. wrist straps or netting.

Also I think spotters should be allowed. This comp would be ideal for teaching spotters what is required instead of jumping into the deep end in the bigger comps.

The problem I see with spotters, is it makes it unfair if one persons spotter is built like bigfoot & the other is & 10 rear old girl and they are allowed to physicaly help the vehicle in any way (ie. make track changes or stop vehicle from roll over etc), I see no problems if the are only giving directions. with such a light weight buggy bigfoot could just as well pick it up & carry it round the course, NOFAIR!

Ingenious-Eng wrote:

Chucky wrote:This idea is great, as said earlier there is no reason why multiple members of one family can't compete in the same comp in the same minibug. (barring breakages of course.)

Just a few questions, is the frame of the buggy going to be the same for all? This way people can still run almost whatever running gear they want (within the rules) wtihout having to worry about the frame being strong enough for safety reasons.
Will there be rules on safety guards? i.e chain guards to protect driver and anyone else nearby if it breaks.

Also personal safety gear rules should be made up front, like will 4 point harness be minimum standard. wrist straps or netting.

Also I think spotters should be allowed. This comp would be ideal for teaching spotters what is required instead of jumping into the deep end in the bigger comps.

The problem I see with spotters, is it makes it unfair if one persons spotter is built like bigfoot & the other is & 10 rear old girl and they are allowed to physicaly help the vehicle in any way (ie. make track changes or stop vehicle from roll over etc), I see no problems if the are only giving directions. with such a light weight buggy bigfoot could just as well pick it up & carry it round the course, NOFAIR!

Thats half the fun of it...why not try having the youngster drive and adult spot??

Spotters can point but not touch the vehicle maybe?

I am wondering what sort of terrain is being planned, exactly. It would make a big difference to the design. Also, why do they have to have independent suspension at both ends? Surely if you want to use beam axles that could be allowed..?

chimpboy wrote:Spotters can point but not touch the vehicle maybe?

I am wondering what sort of terrain is being planned, exactly. It would make a big difference to the design. Also, why do they have to have independent suspension at both ends? Surely if you want to use beam axles that could be allowed..?

We want people to put more design into the builds...Eventualy hoping to take some of the ideas and transfer over to larger buggies and mabey even engineered road vehicle's

Ingenious-Eng wrote:The problem I see with spotters, is it makes it unfair if one persons spotter is built like bigfoot & the other is & 10 rear old girl and they are allowed to physicaly help the vehicle in any way (ie. make track changes or stop vehicle from roll over etc), I see no problems if the are only giving directions. with such a light weight buggy bigfoot could just as well pick it up & carry it round the course, NOFAIR!

this is a point with the bigger buggy comps as well, but it's null and void... the best spotters rarely have to haul big rocks around (although that helps) they use their brains. watch cal and maurice drive/spot, they hardly ever stack more than a couple of rocks

If I got into this I want my kids to drive it and I have no problems with spotting. Even directions only would be good learning curve for new spotters and would help the young and inexperianced drivers no end.
I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

Bugger, double post.

Chucky wrote:If I got into this I want my kids to drive it and I have no problems with spotting. Even directions only would be good learning curve for new spotters and would help the young and inexperianced drivers no end.
I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

We did talk about this in length and as MADZUKI pointed out, although we want to keep prices down we also want it to promote developement instead of people just following convention. Having IFS/IFR will also limit wheel travel and how the wheel moves on the suspension in relation to the terrain you are driving. This will mean that we can make the tracks that you are traversing a little more user friendly and still make it challenging. ie. less big spills. This not only makes it safer it will also make it less daunting for younger or first time competitors and not to mention less repairs. As lilrock buggies become more capable then we'll adjust the tracks or the rules to maintain the entry class feel. We might even be able to impress the big guys with some of the developements that come out of this class. If we force people to think outside the square then we'll see some awsome engineering ideas come from this.

toughnut wrote:

Chucky wrote:If I got into this I want my kids to drive it and I have no problems with spotting. Even directions only would be good learning curve for new spotters and would help the young and inexperianced drivers no end.
I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

We did talk about this in length and as MADZUKI pointed out, although we want to keep prices down we also want it to promote developement instead of people just following convention. Having IFS/IFR will also limit wheel travel and how the wheel moves on the suspension in relation to the terrain you are driving. This will mean that we can make the tracks that you are traversing a little more user friendly and still make it challenging. ie. less big spills. This not only makes it safer it will also make it less daunting for younger or first time competitors and not to mention less repairs. As lilrock buggies become more capable then we'll adjust the tracks or the rules to maintain the entry class feel. We might even be able to impress the big guys with some of the developements that come out of this class. If we force people to think outside the square then we'll see some awsome engineering ideas come from this.

Ok...mine is ready to build...

Ok, how about some R&D specs?

frame construction material

overall length/width (absolute, if anything is past this tyres or body included, its out)

realistic max weight (350kg and you are talking chrome molly and the like - after all you want to keep the price down)

max engine output - bugger the size, set a power output limit. Go by the manufactures specs.

Maximum engine mods (used this when racing streetstock 60thou bore
and 30thou head decking, anything else and your out).

etc etc

Chucky wrote:I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

Why not just use a zook.

The reoccuring theme keeps coming up of cheap and entry level. Redesigning the wheel just doesn't sit with this idea.

Stock Sierra, rip the body off, tube it using existing safety regulations, stick on a decent set of tyres to a regulated size and lock the diffs and away you go. No thought needs to go into it, all simple and easy to keep it regulated. Exactly what cheap and entry level is all about.

Nev62 wrote:Ok, how about some R&D specs?

frame construction material

overall length/width (absolute, if anything is past this tyres or body included, its out)

realistic max weight (350kg and you are talking chrome molly and the like - after all you want to keep the price down)

max engine output - bugger the size, set a power output limit. Go by the manufactures specs.

Maximum engine mods (used this when racing streetstock 60thou bore
and 30thou head decking, anything else and your out).

etc etc

OK the overall length and width is post above must fit in a 6x4 trailer. We may have to make some constraints with the construction material for safety like. There must be at least an "A" and a "B" hoops with cross bracing on vertical axis of no less than 30mm and 2.5mm wall. "A" and "B" hoops must be joined no less than 300mm from the floor and at the top of the "door" area. Must have at least 3mm alloy or 2mm steel on the floor and 300mm up the side as well as the roof. Roof must be removable. A solid removable mesh panel on the sides of the cab area (where window nets would be) with no more than a 20mm x 20mm spacing. Minimum of a 4 point harness and a gocart type seat. Must have a fire wall and all movable parts must have a protective guard to shield the driver in the event of a malfunction and if you read all the posts you would notice that there isn't a max weight. If people want to make a lard arse buggy then it won't be as competitive as other lighter ones.

r0ck_m0nkey wrote:

Chucky wrote:I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

Why not just use a zook.

The reoccuring theme keeps coming up of cheap and entry level. Redesigning the wheel just doesn't sit with this idea.

Stock Sierra, rip the body off, tube it using existing safety regulations, stick on a decent set of tyres to a regulated size and lock the diffs and away you go. No thought needs to go into it, all simple and easy to keep it regulated. Exactly what cheap and entry level is all about.

This moves away from the original concept of having a buggy class that is not only cheap but will also promote developement rather than just following convention. AS POSTED ABOVE.

toughnut wrote:a buggy class that is not only cheap but will also promote developement rather than just following convention.

That defeats the purpose of entry level which from where i am sitting is what this idea seems to revolve around. No one cares about designing things at this level. Keeping it simple, cheap, easy to build and maintain is what people want. Less time building and thinking and more time driving. Go to any club motorsport day (motorkhanas, hillclimbs, lap sprints etc.) and you will see plenty of cars that aren't "race cars" they are just normal everyday cars that people just get out there and drive. It's a tried and proven theory.

MADZUKI wrote:Fine then...fawk ya's....CT110 engines only

I spent a fair while designing some CT110 dragracing class rules in a similar exercise about 5 years ago. Was great fun.... CT110's are very cheap to abuse....

r0ck_m0nkey wrote:

toughnut wrote:a buggy class that is not only cheap but will also promote developement rather than just following convention.

That defeats the purpose of entry level which from where i am sitting is what this idea seems to revolve around. No one cares about designing things at this level. Keeping it simple, cheap, easy to build and maintain is what people want. Less time building and thinking and more time driving. Go to any club motorsport day (motorkhanas, hillclimbs, lap sprints etc.) and you will see plenty of cars that aren't "race cars" they are just normal everyday cars that people just get out there and drive. It's a tried and proven theory.

Heres a simple solution...YOU build a buggy for WeRock....Problem solved

Chucky wrote:If I got into this I want my kids to drive it and I have no problems with spotting. Even directions only would be good learning curve for new spotters and would help the young and inexperianced drivers no end.
I also think a solid front diff, possible from a zook would be much easier to get working than IFS.

Picked up even a zook diff recently? You put two zook solid axles on it and there's a huge weight disadvantage straight up. Then add the weight and chassis strength to support those heavy axles, and the bigger wheels for the same ground clearance.

Someone who did it with IFS and chain drive would have a few hundred kilos advantage - a big difference with a motorbike engine pushing it.



The principle here is light light light, and making stuff with some different components and some new ideas rather than just copying what people do with current competition tech. If you wanna make it that way, buy a 1 litre zook, put a rockhopper in it, CIG both ends, remove most of the panels, fit a set of secondhand 35"s and go play with the big boys. It'll work out cheaper, quicker and easier anyway, and there's already competion classes out there that cater to you.


In the end though I dont really care if solid diffs are allowed or not, but it sounds like too many are trying to copy whats already out there.



The principles should be on light weight and size, and easy and cheap availability of parts to make it accessible for everyone. As such I'd support using solid axles, and I'd support using some old 600 trailbike engine.

in the end, before it gets too competitive, let people build wihtin a few simple rules.

We'll soon see what works and what doesnt..... and If two things work well maybe you end up with a seniors 500cc+ and a juniors under 500cc class or single cylinder and a multicylinder class, or capacity restictions based on cylinders, or weights for # of cylinders.

After all 500cc GP's basically started with 500cc, anything goes. The rules got refined every year until it's now GP1 with cylinder/capacity and weight controls. Or look at formula 1... same thing there.....

Beastmavster wrote:In the end though I dont really care if solid diffs are allowed or not, but it sounds like too many are trying to copy whats already out there.

Fair enough, but I've seen a buggy with a chain driven solid rear axle - I mean SOLID, no diff just a big cog for the chain. And it went pretty fast before it broke. It was more of a dune buggy style of thing than a rock crawling type of thing, but you get the point... making everything solid axle isn't innovative, but ruling out solid axle might also keep people from being imaginative.

Nev62 wrote:realistic max weight (350kg and you are talking chrome molly and the like - after all you want to keep the price down)

Check out the weights on the Edge website. Taipan, 160kg... Sidewinder 280kg. The Piranha (built for 1000cc engines) is about 375kg.

Why should there be some 500kg minimum? A weight of around 350kg is reasonable and it's set low to prevent people dropping in 100kg 1100cc motorbike engines. the lighter the weight the less rollcage you need, and the less engine you need to push it.

If you're looking at it, realistically its likely most people would be building something similar to a sidewinder with front drive. They probably would go over 350kg, but not by much.

The weight may end up being more or less, depending on budgets and how big people build.

This is all theory. First of all someone needs to come up with one to see whats reasonable as far as weights and capacity goes. Obviously higher weights need more capacity, needs more weight again.

Beastmavster wrote:

Nev62 wrote:realistic max weight (350kg and you are talking chrome molly and the like - after all you want to keep the price down)

Check out the weights on the Edge website. Taipan, 160kg... Sidewinder 280kg. The Piranha (built for 1000cc engines) is about 375kg.

Why should there be some 500kg minimum? A weight of around 350kg is reasonable and it's set low to prevent people dropping in 100kg 1100cc motorbike engines. the lighter the weight the less rollcage you need, and the less engine you need to push it.

If you're looking at it, realistically its likely most people would be building something similar to a sidewinder with front drive. They probably would go over 350kg, but not by much.

The weight may end up being more or less, depending on budgets and how big people build.

This is all theory. First of all someone needs to come up with one to see whats reasonable as far as weights and capacity goes. Obviously higher weights need more capacity, needs more weight again.

I'm actually starting to like having a weight limit now because it'll stop people going out and just grabbing a zuk chassis and running that. Some people are missing the basic concept that MADZUKI and I came up with to start with which was to build something that is along the same lines of a normal rock buggy but is cheap and can develop the sport, both in competitors and in how to actually build something and as some people have mentioned, to maybe use this as a cheaper platform to perhaps develop ideas for the bigger classes. I'm starting to think that a cc limit and perhaps a slightly smaller tyre limit for juniors would be a good idea. If you went for a power limit how do you police it. Do you take a dyno to each event??? Some people are worried that if they build something that someone else will build something that will blow them and others away. This may well be the case but with any motorsport you have a team that just smashes the competition. That just sets a bench mark that others have to achieve. If it out of reach then you adjust the rules for parity. As beastmavster said, just keep the rules fairly open to start with and see what peoples imagination can come up with. Stop thinking car parts and think motorcycle and quad parts

toughnut wrote: Stop thinking car parts and think motorcycle and quad parts

Not even...I think we could come up with 90% of it all custom and cheap...

Come on guys. Why fall into convention when we can start something that is different and develops a different way of doing things right from the start?!

I'd still like to see electric engines being allowed, becuase eventually they will be the future of motoring, and the technology benefits they can bring (motor per wheel for instance, no driveshafts etc) are very VERY interesting from a design viewpoint.


The capacity restriction probably needs to be decided on sooner rather than later, and I think you need to make a decision on two strokes.

Obviously a simple 500cc capacity limit is good, because it's simple and easy to enforce, but then we get that whole CR500 or RG500 thing going on.

Plus of course, most olf 500cc trailbike engines have been overbored by now.



I can see where you wanted to go, which is the old 500cc single type engines, but these motors are getting pretty old and rare these days. Most trailbike motors have been 600cc or 650cc for more than a decade.

For instance, the XT500 died off 20 years ago, and so too did the DR500, XR500. The XT600 and XR600's had a very very long model run though.



Maybe the best solution on the engine thing is to specify aircooled engines up to say 600cc or 650cc. That stops all the late model motorcross stuff, all the high horsepower race reps and the high horsepower two strokes. Should keep the cost down, but still allow a lot of flexibility in the engine choice based on whats available during the build.

Fitting big old aircooled 4 cylinders should be kind of tough with 4wd requirements as well.

If you want me to make up some sort of list on what engines would fit into those categories I can do that.



For a juniors class, perhaps a 250cc or 350cc capacity and maybe smaller wheels??

There are some good water cooled engines under 500cc Maybe we could start with 400cc. Heaps of torquey engines in that class. HHMMM a VFR V4 400cc Fairly cheap from a wrecker and water cooled. Some of those little V-twins are pretty good as well. Singles and V type motors usually have more torque than the straight 4's and would be more suited to this as the straight 4's rely on movement a fair bit for cooling because they run fairly high revs. If we make it 400cc then that would cover quite a few engines and you could say that it has to be a production engine, not a 250cc GP engine

I would have leant more towards inline aircooled twins.

Very compact, reasonably good torque. Very much unwanted in the wreckers too, and the sort of stuff likely to be lying around in people's sheds. Stuff like CB400's, GSX400's, Z400 & Z440's.

Probably buy a running bike for a few hundred bucks.

love the idea guys if u want to limit it just make it so it has to be chassis must be a custom job so then u dont have to worry about ppl using factory chassis as for wheels and tyres i think u should allow sunnys and such in the 15" as they are cheep and give good clearance also these buggies could use tyres with very little tread as they dont hav to support much wieght so really just the fact that they are rubber should by rights be enuff to stick to the course not saying u can use chunky tyres but i think the size should be limited but not the construction or type of wheel or tyre just a set size that way most ppl will be able to fab up a fairly capable yet cheap buggy and we really could make a go of this idea as i too have thought about a similar thing not a class but just a muck around project also a limit to ground clearance and overall height would be a good ideato promote enginuity in the class thats my rabble neways
Cheers Bourkey