P-Limited Motors - Im going to jump on the hot seat.

[longballlumber]

Just food for thought….

Speaking strictly from a racer that exclusively runs P-Limited boats or RTR’s (that covers a decent portion of our club); how many of the motors listed are compatible with the Aquacraft speed and/or ProBoat speedcontrols? I know the Aquacraft has a fixed timing of 10*. I am not sure if the ProBoat units are programmable or not. My basic understanding is the “D” wind motors would need a different controller with adjustable timing?

Just want to make sure we are coving all of our bases.

Another thought, I haven’t heard any ideas on limiting battery mAh? While capacity is difficult to tech; what about size and weight? It’s my understanding this restriction is being used successfully over the pond; right?

[Darin Jordan]

Another thought, I haven’t heard any ideas on limiting battery mAh? While capacity is difficult to tech; what about size and weight? It’s my understanding this restriction is being used successfully over the pond; right?

Mike, to clarify, are you asking strictly in regards to P-LTD, or for batteries in general?

I don't know of anyone who is going overboard with batteries. Most run enough to have capacity without adding extra weight. Sort of self-limiting in my opinion.

I'm not against specifying a weight like they do in Europe, but... remember... whenever add another line to the rules, it's one more thing that has to be tech'd.

I guess we'd have to understand what limiting battery weight would buy us...

[Darin Jordan]

Yes, I have too much time on my hands...

Here is what a potential list of "approved" P-LTD Motors might look like if we combined TP, Leopard, TFL-SSS, and Typhoon together with our existing list.

136172

[longballlumber]

Mike, to clarify, are you asking strictly in regards to P-LTD, or for batteries in general?

Discussion is P-Limited; that is what I am referencing. I was referencing limiting capacity more than anything. This would need to be used in conjunction with other restrictions to promote cost/balanced performance. I was only throwing it against the wall to see the reaction.

[Darin Jordan]

Discussion is P-Limited; that is what I am referencing. I was referencing limiting capacity more than anything. This would need to be used in conjunction with other restrictions to promote cost/balanced performance. I was only throwing it against the wall to see the reaction.

One thing we've found with the recently implemented voltage limits... If you take a 5000mah pack, and charge it to 4.2v/cell, it'll be 5000mah... If you charge it to 4.23v/cell, it'll be 5100mah...

I think the Euros have it right... Weight is a better way to go (probably should have done that in the first place, hindsight 20/20 and all)...

The idea has merit and probably should be considered.

[T.S.Davis]

IDK about the batteries. It doesn't matter how many mah I carry (at the moment) because any more amps and fr'shizzle. I carry 10k for offshore just to combat the rough water. I don't need the power. Ty carries 8k in the Thomas but we've added no other weight to the boat. We can run twice on a charge.

I don't know if that will still be the case with the new potential motors. If the new gear is tougher guys might push harder/more amps. I don't have enough experience with the others to have a clue.

I have to remind myself that it's a 2017 (potential) start up. That's forever from now. By then we may not be buying AQ motors. Nobody really knows. They may be perfectly content to continue down their current path.

I have on my kitchen table:

SSS 3660 1950kv decent motor
SSS 3660 1780kv never been run

The 1950 I ran in a paper light Whiplash. I was able to hang with the big P dogs but I'm not sure if that was because I was fast or if it was a combination of the boat being under 5 pounds and me bludgeoning my way in. I was going to hang back and see how it went but found myself in the mix at the start and just stayed in the lanes making guys go the long way. Felt like LSH speeds.

[Quietlee]

I feel that capacity is self limiting through a couple of reasons. Weight is the one that really stands out to everyone. The other issue is that you are only going to be able to push so much through a motor before pushing it too much. You only need so many MAH in the boat to complete a heat. Extra capacity is needed to give a little headroom for the battery life, but anything over that just gets turned into heat which damages your components.
As far as the ESC issue concerning timing, the RTR versions that have been used will probably go away as the manufacturers "upgrade" their RTR versions anyway.

[longballlumber]

I am still very interested in hearing the thoughts regarding the compatibility back to the RTR speedo’s. This would be an impact for the immediate future; probably not so much for the long term future. The discussion seems to be going in a direction in which we are/will be breaking ties with current and future RTR power systems. If that IS the case, we are getting very close to an “Almost (but not quite) P” class.

COST – has been wrangled in a bit with the new list. Some would argue that $60 (w/jacket)-$115 (no jacket) is a pretty big swing.

Balance in performance – Strictly speaking from the recently added motors; only time will tell. I still have a strong feeling a small percentage will be the superior motors. The $60 or the $115; who knows.

Disclaimer: I REALLY don’t care either way. Personally, I am going to buy whatever I think will allow me to be as competitive as possible. I am interested in making sure we are able to promote the hobby by increasing participation across BOTH orgs.

I am still looking to establish the INTENT of the class though.

[Darin Jordan]

I am still looking to establish the INTENT of the class though.

It sounds like we need to start another thread to help define this... :hide:

[LuckyDuc]

I am still very interested in hearing the thoughts regarding the compatibility back to the RTR speedo’s. This would be an impact for the immediate future; probably not so much for the long term future. The discussion seems to be going in a direction in which we are/will be breaking ties with current and future RTR power systems. If that IS the case, we are getting very close to an “Almost (but not quite) P” class.

I am still looking to establish the INTENT of the class though.


I'm sure that the RTR ESCs will work, but because you cannot adjust the AQ ESC's timing, it will not be running optimally with a motor that wants less timing e.g. D wind motors.

Regarding INTENT... You'll probably get as many answers as there are motor suggestions in this thread. Limited means so many different things to so many people. To me, it means...
-Limited speed (upper 40's to low 50 mph depending on hull type and conditions.)
-Less carnage in racing heats
-Less boat recovery after heats.
-Less damage to the boats when accidents do happen
-A plethora of existing information on proven setups for those just starting out (Let's call it direction on where to start).
-More focus on things like building techniques, setup, prop work, and driving skills as opposed to buying instant horsepower to compensate for a lack there of.

[Doby]

The true intent of any class is to get participation.

[Darin Jordan]

It seems like the one sticking point in regards to "intent" is the tie to RTRs. We generally seem to agree on most of the other bits.

Did we put the original rules in place to specifically be able to run RTRs, or, by adopting their power systems, was that just an ancillary side-benefit? It really didn't take long for people to migrate to all sorts of aftermarket hulls.

[T.S.Davis]

John hit the nail on the head.

Back in the day........when Dave put it together we were trying to encompass what had proven successful in various locations. So what did "successful" mean?

A class with boats racing is success. A class without boats is failure. It's really that simple.

Why was it successful? Subject to debate (again) but we thought at the time it was:

Ease of entry (rtr's)
Fast enough to get the fizz (for the vets)
Cost effective (bang for the buck)

All that said, is it possible to continue with that given that one of those factors may well be short lived. Feels like (no guarantee of course) that the rtr "ease of entry" piece of that puzzle is fading away.

It may be that the next phase needs a different focus entirely. Is fast enough and cost effective enough to sustain it? I don't know.

[Darin Jordan]

Feels like (no guarantee of course) that the rtr "ease of entry" piece of that puzzle is fading away.

Just some food for thought on the RTR... Let's say we weren't even talking about this...

As the CD of the event, one would have the ability to "approve" a new RTR into the class, based on 28.D.1.d.iii)(b).


(b) Any generational change of an approved motor, or a motor that
is used in a Ready To Run (RTR) offering from a manufacturer
that produces over 100 units of said offering, as long as there is
no more than a 5% increase in any of the following
manufacturers specifications as compared to any single
approved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating,
mass, and MSRP.

Clearly, however, there was NEVER the intent to allow the available power to increase more the "5%" "compared to any single pproved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating, mass, and MSRP."

This rule excludes the BJ29 V3 (36 x 61mm 2000KV... 61mm is slightly more the 5%) and the new IM31 V3 (40mm x 68mm... almost 400g... way over 5%), so two of the popular RTRs that started this craze wouldn't fit anyhow.

Further, does this "5%" rule not show a desire to limit the motor size to be close to what we have now? It's clear that the intent wasn't ever to allow a 40mm x 68mm motor.

This shows an intent to limit the motor size and overall performance, more than an intent to be adaptable to ANY RTR package that might come about.

[NativePaul]

Another thought, I haven’t heard any ideas on limiting battery mAh? While capacity is difficult to tech; what about size and weight? It’s my understanding this restriction is being used successfully over the pond; right?

Half right Mike, I race with Naviga and we don't use our motors as fuses, all our classes are open motor classes. We do use LiPo weight to limit power, our Mono2 and Hydro2 classes have similar power to a very safe P ltd boat from what I can tell.

Those classes have a maximum battery weight of 560g (including wire, shrink wrap, velcro, connectors,etc) to play with our races are 6 minutes +10 second mill, +in lap, but if we ignore the mill and in lap it makes the maths very easy as 6 minutes is 1/10th of an hour so the absolute maximum amp draw we can pull is 10 times our battery capacity, which has lead to an evolution of batteries offering better energy density at the cost of power density, ie packs with high capacity but low "C" rate, most of my packs are 20C and I disbelieve the few I have that are labeled as 30C, None have PCBs, all have leads an inch long or less, some with connectors soldered straight onto tabs, only about half have heat shrink (some just use kapton tape for insulation where it is needed) and those that do it is pretty flimsy stuff compared to normal, none have velcro we have to make the boats hold the batteries.

All these things limit the amount of LiPos that are suitable for us. We allow 4-6s but with the same battery weight the power is the same and it is pretty irrelevant, so I will just talk about 4s here ETTI have 20C 6600mAh, Turnigy A specs have 6600mAh with 65C label but cells are exactly same size, weight and performance as ETTI 20C, Tenshock 30C 6800mAh and Redzone 30C 6800mAh, which is more than likely only 2 different cells giving a maximum of 68Amps average current.

Of course to get the full 66-68A available you would have to FLATTEN your battery not leave 20% in it for longevity, I don't think many leave 20% in our cells, but if you flattened them completely you would be lucky to get a race meeting out of them and I don't think many have pockets that deep maybe, a few for big races. Personally I leave 5-9% which gets normally gets me 2 seasons out of a set of cells and in that time there are probably going to be better cells that I want anyway.

From what I hear, you guys are running from about 70-90A in P ltd, and it sounds the same in that if you stay near 70A you can get years from the motor but if you push it to 90A you can expect a much shorter life.

You only need one way to limit power, as you already use the motor you don't need batteries too, it isn't a better a solution, it just means it is a different thing failing (puffed LiPos are less smelly than burned motors, and don't take ESCs with them so may be cheaper, but are more scary). I wouldn't say it is any more successful than what you are doing.

The fairest, safest, and cheapest in the long run way to limit power is with electronic power limters like the flyboys use, but we voted it down, who wants to spend $100 adding something which slows you down? Very few of us when we were first adding LiPos to the rules, but after years of buying new cells probably most of us.

[TheShaughnessy]

I am regretfully making a post here. I have to side with the direction Darin is headed and agree with his reason for doing so, can length/dimensions and weight are easily verifiably. I do not feel like the cost is a huge issue, putting a cap is fine though. Interestingly batteries were brought up.
Here is a scenario, two identical boats, one with 5000 mah 60 c batteries (4s) the other with 5000 mah 35 c (also 4s). The boat with batteries more capable of delivering power is going to be faster, anywhere from 1-3 mph possibly more. This goes back to cost, the 60 c cells will typically be associated with a higher cost, so if the cost of batteries isn't hugely significant than why should the cost variation of the motors be an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong here but these are boats (bust out another thousand). We are on a scale level so lets scale that to bust out another hundred. Racing is a luxury not a necessity, if you can't afford it you can't afford it, no shame there.
Another scenario, lets say a motor makes it onto the "list" and it proves itself to be capable of making a p LTD cat do 57 mph (arbitrary number I made up), that is 10 mph faster than my fastest p ltd cat runs and 5-7 mph faster than razer's (Ray) cat (that thing is fast!!). In a vacuum the faster motor would win every time, but we don't race in a vacuum. I can't tell you how many times I've beat out faster boats because they were upside down, so why does it matter if another motor makes some other guys boat faster, he would likely be faster than you running the exact same motor as is the case already. I believe the goal is to have similar speeds, not exactly the same. Under the current rules we already have some racers in the low 40's and some in the low 50's, at least over here in D19 so again, what's the big deal if the "motor" makes the boat faster. I feel there are so many other variables involved with mph gains that the motor isn't going to be the deciding factor, given it falls within the specs Darin has outlined.

Lastly this is a drivers class if your boat is faster than mine but I stay in lane 1 and you are out in lane 5 guess who is going to win, the guy racing the shorter course. Lets say you don't nail the start, cut a buoy, etc. You are going to struggle to win the heat regardless of motor selection.

Im not sure I've actually said anything here so I'm about done. I personally have no issues with the current rule set, haven't burnt a motor in 2 seasons and have 4 spares I bought in anticipation of burning some. I finished 2nd in our club (SCSTA) racing last year (not district) and I'm sitting in 2nd for the 2015 race season I don't say this to impress you but to impress upon you that you don't have to be the fastest to be competitive. You do however need to time the start properly, stay in lane one or close to it, and last but certainly not least FINISH heats.

All that being said I'd vote in a new selection of motors, continue to race the ones off the old list and likely experience similar results.

[NativePaul]

If there is power parity the fast guys must be running looser in order to be fast. Running on the edge should always be a gamble, so sometimes they win, sometimes they don't finish. If there is not power parity those with more power can run both fast and safely wet.

[JimClark]

And really know how the art of prop tweaking


If there is power parity the fast guys must be running looser in order to be fast. Running on the edge should always be a gamble, so sometimes they win, sometimes they don't finish. If there is not power parity those with more power can run both fast and safely wet.

[Darin Jordan]

Guys... quick question:

In the rules, there is an allowance for the CD to allow additional motors.

IF we were to go with the defined list of motors, as I posted above, would we still retain this section? Seems to add ambiguity and, with the larger selection of motors, unnecessary??

For reference:


iii) In addition, the CD has the discretion to allow the following:


(a) An aftermarket motor that is a re-labeled and exact copy of any
approved motor.

(b) Any generational change of an approved motor, or a motor that
is used in a Ready To Run (RTR) offering from a manufacturer
that produces over 100 units of said offering, as long as there is
no more than a 5% increase in any of the following
manufacturers specifications as compared to any single
approved motor: Kv, maximum constant amperage rating,
mass, and MSRP.

(c) The race flyer shall list additional allowed motors for the event

[D. Newland]

I'd ditch it. As Terry has mentioned, we were just trying to save time from the lengthy rule proposal process with that wording, in the event a "no-brainer" motor came out that matched those specs.

[Darin Jordan]

I'd ditch it. As Terry has mentioned, we were just trying to save time from the lengthy rule proposal process with that wording, in the event a "no-brainer" motor came out that matched those specs.

Gotcha... That's what I was hoping you'd say.

[rayzerdesigns]

I am regretfully making a post here. I have to side with the direction Darin is headed and agree with his reason for doing so, can length/dimensions and weight are easily verifiably. I do not feel like the cost is a huge issue, putting a cap is fine though. Interestingly batteries were brought up.
Here is a scenario, two identical boats, one with 5000 mah 60 c batteries (4s) the other with 5000 mah 35 c (also 4s). The boat with batteries more capable of delivering power is going to be faster, anywhere from 1-3 mph possibly more. This goes back to cost, the 60 c cells will typically be associated with a higher cost, so if the cost of batteries isn't hugely significant than why should the cost variation of the motors be an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong here but these are boats (bust out another thousand). We are on a scale level so lets scale that to bust out another hundred. Racing is a luxury not a necessity, if you can't afford it you can't afford it, no shame there.
Another scenario, lets say a motor makes it onto the "list" and it proves itself to be capable of making a p LTD cat do 57 mph (arbitrary number I made up), that is 10 mph faster than my fastest p ltd cat runs and 5-7 mph faster than razer's (Ray) cat (that thing is fast!!). In a vacuum the faster motor would win every time, but we don't race in a vacuum. I can't tell you how many times I've beat out faster boats because they were upside down, so why does it matter if another motor makes some other guys boat faster, he would likely be faster than you running the exact same motor as is the case already. I believe the goal is to have similar speeds, not exactly the same. Under the current rules we already have some racers in the low 40's and some in the low 50's, at least over here in D19 so again, what's the big deal if the "motor" makes the boat faster. I feel there are so many other variables involved with mph gains that the motor isn't going to be the deciding factor, given it falls within the specs Darin has outlined.

Lastly this is a drivers class if your boat is faster than mine but I stay in lane 1 and you are out in lane 5 guess who is going to win, the guy racing the shorter course. Lets say you don't nail the start, cut a buoy, etc. You are going to struggle to win the heat regardless of motor selection.

Im not sure I've actually said anything here so I'm about done. I personally have no issues with the current rule set, haven't burnt a motor in 2 seasons and have 4 spares I bought in anticipation of burning some. I finished 2nd in our club (SCSTA) racing last year (not district) and I'm sitting in 2nd for the 2015 race season I don't say this to impress you but to impress upon you that you don't have to be the fastest to be competitive. You do however need to time the start properly, stay in lane one or close to it, and last but certainly not least FINISH heats.

All that being said I'd vote in a new selection of motors, continue to race the ones off the old list and likely experience similar results.

dude..im bringing some paint and knowledge to your cat..lol..new cat is faster..more stable..but I do push things to limits..hopefully make it out to last scale race

[rayzerdesigns]

Yes, I have too much time on my hands...

Here is what a potential list of "approved" P-LTD Motors might look like if we combined TP, Leopard, TFL-SSS, and Typhoon together with our existing list.

136172
I think that mayu be too many options..i would say 2 manufacures..maybe 6 total more motors..the tp does seem to be heavier than the others

[Darin Jordan]

I think that mayu be too many options..i would say 2 manufacures..maybe 6 total more motors..the tp does seem to be heavier than the others

I was just going off of Dave's recommendation of 3-manufacturers, with each of the KVs.

I added the SSS motors at the last minute, and I'm still checking to see if they have a 1500kv-ish motors for the list.

Cost is stepped... $60.00 for the Leopard, $85-ish for the TP, $115.00 for the Typhoon. Not clear on what exactly that means. I think it has more to do with the cost of WHERE the manufacturing takes place than anything else, but who knows.

The list is a little long, but it's seems pretty balanced to me. Certainly would take care of supply for awhile.

[GixerGuy1978]

About time to do some real testing of this 'proposed' list of motors. Better get on it Darin! Lol

[Darin Jordan]

Talked to Brian Buaas for a bit tonight and we agreed that the TYPHOON motors should come off the list. Their price and quality exceed the others and based off of Brian's testing with them, parity would be at risk.

That said, I also chatted with Monica at TFL and she is certain that they can supply a 1500KV to go along with their other two on the list. She thinks their price would be more in line with the Leopard as well.

I'll update the list and gather the SSS info as soon as she sends it to me.

[dethow]

I actually have the TFL SSS Motor catalog on my work computer, so I'll look at it tomorrow, but I was able to find these two online that would also fit:


TFL-SSS 3660/1600KV / 6,5D
TFL-SSS 3660/2000KV /5,5D

They may have more options too. Not sure how they compare. The two 2000KV motors I have in my Twin Cheetah seem to be decent quality.

I have a question and possible issue with these SSS motors. Where does one find them? I've been doing some searching of my known suppliers and just general searches on the net. I've yet to find a single SSS 3660 motor. I've found plenty of larger 3674 and 40mm whatevers, but no 3660s.
Edit: Well... I did find a 3660-2070kv and 2726kv.

I also saw your post about the Typhoons coming off the list. Unless I just don't know of a good source, I kind of like the idea of just the TP and Leopard additions due to ease of getting your hands on them.

[dethow]

Wondering what HobbyKing puts in the Pursuit Mono and Apparition Cat. Looks like both come with a 3660 1620kv. Neither calls it out as an SSS brand but based one photo of the Apparition this is an SSS motor while another shows a purple color can which is also what the photo of the Pursuit looks like. I've purchased an Ariane from them in the past that had an SSS motor. Pretty sure the Pursuit, Apparition and Ariane are being supplied to HobbyKing by TFL and should have an SSS motor in them.
I have a question out on the HK discussion area for these two boats to see if anyone can tell me what brand they are supplying in these boats.

We have several guys going over to Pursuits and we also now have 3 Apparitions in MMEU. It may not be a bad idea to include these 1620kv wind SSS motors, if they are indeed SSS brand. This would provide a couple current ARTR options that are VERY low cost.
Pursuit f/g hull with hardware and motor only costs $187.40 from USA warehouse.
Apparition f/g hull with hardware and motor only costs $194.59 from USA warehouse.

[Darin Jordan]

Another thing to consider.

Not every new RTR is going to be suitable for P-LTD.

However, as an example of how cool things have become... Pro Boat has just made possible a really nice Q-Mono / Q-Offshore boat. There is ALREADY a place to run this offering and compete.

The IM31 is a drop in to P-Mono and Offshore as well.

There are places to race these boats that already have rules flexible enough to fit them in.

[LuckyDuc]

... And growing those other classes is a good thing as well. I foreshadow a Q Ltd discussion in the future :-)

[Darin Jordan]

I foreshadow a Q Ltd discussion in the future :-)

Oh Goodness, NO! :hide:

Besides, Q isn't subscribed enough to warrant another version.

[donhuff]

Hey Darin,

I'm kinda in a good position here to do some testing and reporting. I am in the process of building up 4 identical P limited boats. I will outfit 2 with AQ motors, one with a Leopard and the last with a TP. I am interested in seeing the difference that the better motors make.http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52776-What-do-you-call-a-group-of-ORCAs&p=640108#post640108

I am an IMPBA member and race in Atlanta mostly. Doug Smock and I went to the Michigan cup this year and really enjoyed the limited mono and offshore classes, and added it to a couple of our grand prix series races. We have another race scheduled in a couple of weeks and I am trying to get these ready so that we can race them there.

[Darin Jordan]

Hey Darin,

I'm kinda in a good position here to do some testing and reporting. I am in the process of building up 4 identical P limited boats. I will outfit 2 with AQ motors, one with a Leopard and the last with a TP. I am interested in seeing the difference that the better motors make.http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52776-What-do-you-call-a-group-of-ORCAs&p=640108#post640108

I am an IMPBA member and race in Atlanta mostly. Doug Smock and I went to the Michigan cup this year and really enjoyed the limited mono and offshore classes, and added it to a couple of our grand prix series races. We have another race scheduled in a couple of weeks and I am trying to get these ready so that we can race them there.

Let us know what you find out. I suspect I already know, but it would be good to have more real-world data.

[Darin Jordan]

Just for fun, I snapped a picture this weekend of the three different sized Pro Boat motors that are available in their 4S and 6S RTRs...

136290


There is not a rule you could write that would provide "parity" between these motors. And, as you can see... any inclusion of motors 1 and 2 into "P-Limited" would create a serious case of "scope creep" for this class.

Better to leave these RTRs to go run in P-Mono/Offshore and in Q...

I received some additional info from TFL regarding their SSS motors (which I believe are the factory motors in the Pursuit Mono RTR packages from Hobbyking??). The owner of TFL has said it would not be a problem to add the 3660-1500KV option to their line of 36x60mm motors.

That would give three separate manufacturers, each with the three different KV options.

What would be needed now is to do some testing of the three different manufactures to see how they stack up.

[zooma]

Darin,

What about the 4 and 6 pole versions of the new Dynamite 2000kv motors?

[Darin Jordan]

Darin,

What about the 4 and 6 pole versions of the new Dynamite 2000kv motors?

The 4-Pole version is a smaller motor, designed for their 2S/3S boats (Shockwave 26).

The new 2000KV 6-Pole could be considered for adding to the list. It fits the specs.

[D. Newland]

We're lined up here in Az to test this season, which starts in Oct. By the Winter Warmups I bet most/all of the Az contingent will have enough info to have a productive conversation about test results.

No offense, (and assuming the Dynamite motor just mentioned is a ProBoat motor), is anyone else concerned about their past production run history? It's spotty at best and I don't think I can support any more national rule ink just for them.

[Darin Jordan]

No offense, (and assuming the Dynamite motor just mentioned is a ProBoat motor), is anyone else concerned about their past production run history? It's spotty at best and I don't think I can support any more national rule ink just for them.

Hence why no additional RTR motors have been included on any of my proposed motor suggestion lists. ;)

[Darin Jordan]

Guys who care:

Thus far, we've seemed to agree on considering TP, Leopard, and SSS motors.

Are there ANY OTHER MOTORS in the 3658 or 3660, 4-Pole sizes, with 1500, 1800, and 2000 Offerings, that should be considered? Brands?

I've looked around and these three seem to be a reasonable bunch.

Please list any others that should be looked at.

For the record, TFL makes the Pursuit, and I believe they supply HobbyKing with them, so I suspect that that Black motor in that kit is an SSS motor.

[rayzerdesigns]

I would prefer not to have 4 brands..i think it needs to be limited to the current selection and maybe 2 more manufactures..but that's my opinion..at least to start with

[Darin Jordan]

Current list only has three new manufacturers.

[rayzerdesigns]

correct..im saying maybe start with 2..manufacturers that is

[Darin Jordan]

correct..im saying maybe start with 2..manufacturers that is

Awwww ... well, two, three, I'm not sure it's going to matter as long as the offerings are similar between them.

Picked 3 because that's what David N. Suggested.

I'd go with 4, given the option, but finding that brand seems to be tougher.

Given this path, you wouldn't have reason to revise or update the list for some time.

Imagine that? ;-)

[Darin Jordan]

More news...

TFL has added a 1500KV option to their 3660 SSS motor line. Monica sent me the specs this morning:

136374


So, for the purposes of this discussion, assuming no one else has any suggestions for 36x60 sized motors to consider that 1) won't "break the bank", and 2) won't out-perform all those on this list, here is what an "Approved Motor List" might look like in it's entirety:

136375


Guess the next steps would be to gather some real-world numbers?

"On the water testing" only goes so far with me. TOO many variables involved. I'd prefer to see actual controlled test data, measuring actual KV, Idle Currents, KV drop under load, etc., to get a measure of the motors actual performance and efficiency.

I will try to get a couple of the motors on the list, perhaps just one sample of each in the same KV range, and do some bench testing with my "home-grown" test bench. Similar to like what I've provided for the current crop of P-LTD motors. The data seems to fit the performance.

I'll see if I can get these samples here soon.

If anyone else has the ability to get some real-numbers, please feel free to join in.

[T.S.Davis]

haha Book it dano!

This is the lazy route I think but it would buy us another 5 years maybe and guys could stop whining about AQ this and Proboat that. All of course providing that the combination of all these work okay together.

I'm still not sure we even need the TFL motors on there. Currently they're hard to get as nobody stocks them and getting product from TFL can be .................clunky. Even for distributors. At times.

[Darin Jordan]

I'm still not sure we even need the TFL motors on there. Currently they're hard to get as nobody stocks them and getting product from TFL can be .................clunky. Even for distributors. At times.

I'm not sure it would be Feng shui to just have two manufacturers... things look at work better in 3's... Triangles are stronger, after all... ;)

Like I said above, I'd have 4 on the list if we could come up with one more that's on par. I'd hate to have it just two... That's what we have now, and as soon as ONE is missing, you have a mess.

At the very basics... it's not going to HURT having that additional manufacturer listed.

Seeing as the Leopard and the SSS motors are likely just copies of each other... I see minimal risk.

[Darin Jordan]

This is the lazy route I think but it would buy us another 5 years maybe and guys could stop whining about AQ this and Proboat that.

Not Lazy... you have to use the correct "Brian-ism"... BAND-AIDE... :thumbup:

BUT, you are right... this should solidify the power structure for quite some time.

[longballlumber]

Soooo.... All along the number one objective/intent of this conversation (future of P-Limited) was to put enough motors on a list so we don’t need to have this conversation anytime soon. Evidently 5-6 years wasn’t enough? Maybe a better statement would: 1# - Provide enough approved motor options in the case of manufacturing/quality flaws prevent constant motor performance from production batch to production batch.

#2 – Cost

#3 – Balance of performance – (I find this almost laughable) 17 different motors doesn’t promote “parity”

#4 – ease of entry – I don’t think options necessary help newcomers. They won’t know what to buy.

This is exactly why I kept asking what the intent was. Am I the only one that is seeing this????

[T.S.Davis]

Only 13 of those are available to purchase.

Show us the way. This is still an open conversation. There is no proposal or anything etched in stone. We were talking about having guys hunt down their own motors based on dims and weight a couple pages ago.

No attitude intended BTW. I would still be on board with a single motor.

[Darin Jordan]

#3 – Balance of performance – (I find this almost laughable) 17 different motors doesn’t promote “parity”



I would still be on board with a single motor.

On the topic of "parity"... Riddle me this... ONE motor...

You want to run your DF26... Someone else wants to run their 32" Pursuit...

Where is the "parity" with a single motor??

Single-Hull classes... is that what we want? (rhetorical... I sure don't)

The number of motors listed is simply trying to match the KVs we currently have available, which is a formula we all seemed to agree made for a good selection of motors.

[T.S.Davis]

You want to run your DF26... Someone else wants to run their 32" Pursuit...


How about a DF29, a Pursuit, a Thomas, and a Mystic? Same motor in all 4 boats. Each with a little different wangle on the props.

[Darin Jordan]

How about a DF29, a Pursuit, a Thomas, and a Mystic? Same motor in all 4 boats. Each with a little different wangle on the props.

Then you aren't going fast enough... ;)

Single motor doesn't satisfy the supply and quality issues. Sorry, it just doesn't. They might be good today, but then, so was the AQ 2030 at one point...

And, just for the record, I'm NOT for "Centralized Government Control" either... :hide:

[longballlumber]

Only 13 of those are available to purchase.
Understood – Why do we continue to add them to a list if they we’ve confirmed they are not available? It just muddies up the water.

Show us the way. This is still an open conversation. There is no proposal or anything etched in stone. We were talking about having guys hunt down their own motors based on dims and weight a couple pages ago.
Again, I understand that is why I am still conversing :smile:

No attitude intended BTW. I would still be on board with a single motor.
IF equal performance IS the objective then I would support this. The ultimate method of maintaining a level playing field is to eliminate (minimize) as many PERFORMACE variables as possible. One motor sure makes it easier for those entering the hobby (flatter learning curve), and helps manage perception. However, I am not sure a single motor solution would be accepted among the entire membership.

On the topic of "parity"... Riddle me this... ONE motor...
You want to run your DF26... Someone else wants to run their 32" Pursuit...
Where is the "parity" with a single motor??
DF26 is an exception to the rule, sort of speak. I would venture to suspect if someone is going to try and run a 26” hull in a class the routinely has 29”-30” hulls;
#1 knows what they are getting themselves into and is accepting the challenge per the given limitations.
#2 probably has more than one hull at their disposal.

Single-Hull classes... is that what we want? (rhetorical... I sure don't)
The number of motors listed is simply trying to match the KVs we currently have available, which is a formula we all seemed to agree made for a good selection of motors.
IF the objective is to have lots of choices; then by all means put the 37 motor list back together. All of these decisions are going to have consequences

[Darin Jordan]

Understood – Why do we continue to add them to a list if they we’ve confirmed they are not available? It just muddies up the water.

Mike, if we remove them from this list, then everyone's current setups become non-compliant for the class. We can't just remove them.


IF equal performance IS the objective then I would support this.

It doesn't address the 1) Supply issues, or 2) Quality (continuous quality) issues. And it only provides "parity" if everyone is running the same hull.



DF26 is an exception to the rule, sort of speak.

First, I disagree... AS recently as 2012 they were the boat to have in P-LTD Mono and even in Offshore. This was but one example of a smaller hull I was using to illustrate a larger point. If you specify a motor, which would likely be the 1950 since everyone is so obsessed with KV, then the classes will eventually migrate to "one hull" classes as people figure out exactly which hull compliments that motor the best. Our club, for example, might as well call P-LTD Sport "Spec-FE30"... highly annoying. It's all going to come down, just like always, to everyone chasing after and running whatever the top guys are running, because that's the "best" hull to have. Is that kind of restrictive class structure really what we're after? Guess that comes back to the intent question.




IF the objective is to have lots of choices; then by all means put the 37 motor list back together. All of these decisions are going to have consequences

My objective would be to have a LIMITED amount of choices. I don't consider 9 motors "a lot"... It's 3 different manufactures, each supplying three different KVs. All the motors put out the same amount of power (watts), they just have different "sweet spots".

To me, that says that putting together a winning package should be possible with any of the 9 options.

[Ken Haines]

I just want to reiterate.....I am still happy with continuing to use the current list of P-Ltd motors
until AQ & PB stop supplying them entirely.

That being said if we need to add additional motors due to the end of the current supply,
and since I was the voice asking about the TFL motors in the RTR Pursuits, is the 1620Kv
motor actually one of those on the list ? The 1620Kv is the one currently being installed,
so we really need to look at all the RTR offerings by any source. Of course also if their supplied
motor after careful testing is determined less than or equal to the power of the current standard listed motors.
Again......Just my opinion

[longballlumber]

Mike, if we remove them from this list, then everyone's current setups become non-compliant for the class. We can't just remove them.
I was speaking from a current conversation standpoint. Ultimately, I understand they will be on the “approved” list for the NAMBA rule book. Honestly they should probably be in a separate table of motors that are “grandfathered” in. Regardless, the proper wording will get ironed out at a later date.


It doesn't address the 1) Supply issues, or 2) Quality (continuous quality) issues. And it only provides "parity" if everyone is running the same hull.
No matter how many rules you put in place; Supply Issues and/or Quality Issues are completely out of our control (the racers). We’ve already experienced that. I understand the thought process; we are protecting ourselves with lots of options in case the motor we all (80% rule) end up using falters because of something out of our control. That is EXACTLY why I asked about INTENT!!!! So far we are attempting to avoid another AquaCraft 2030 issue. That has been #1 regarding intent all along only no one put it in writing.

I disagree with your vision of “parity”. There are plenty of variables in boat building/tuning, batteries, controllers, and props that will allow you to have a minimal choice of motors and be competitive (notice I didn’t say one). That’s why props are not “limited”. I refuse to accept that any one particular hull won’t be competitive because of a motor limitation. It’s all about orchestrating a concert not a one man band.


First, I disagree... AS recently as 2012 they were the boat to have in P-LTD Mono and even in Offshore. This was but one example of a smaller hull I was using to illustrate a larger point. If you specify a motor, which would likely be the 1950 since everyone is so obsessed with KV, then the classes will eventually migrate to "one hull" classes as people figure out exactly which hull compliments that motor the best. Our club, for example, might as well call P-LTD Sport "Spec-FE30"... highly annoying. It's all going to come down, just like always, to everyone chasing after and running whatever the top guys are running, because that's the "best" hull to have. Is that kind of restrictive class structure really what we're after? Guess that comes back to the intent question.

Your example is happening right now WITH motor options. How are more options going to change this? Fast guys are still going to be fast; one motor or 37 motors. For the record, I am not for or against one motor. In theory I like it, but I know it’s not what the entire ORG will approve for a national class. With that being said, I think add 9 more motors to the list (making 13 total) would be excessive because it offers too many choices in the name of balanced performance.






My objective would be to have a LIMITED amount of choices. I don't consider 9 motors "a lot"... It's 3 different manufactures, each supplying three different KVs. All the motors put out the same amount of power (watts), they just have different "sweet spots".

To me, that says that putting together a winning package should be possible with any of the 9 options.

I will back off from here on out…

[Darin Jordan]

I will back off from here on out…

I wish you wouldn't.... You raise important questions and a lot of good points.

[T.S.Davis]

Mike does have a point. Do we need consider the new..er guy a little more here so he has a shot?

Currently there are two motors really (80% rule again). Proboat has none. They're all discontinued. Sure you could run a Himax and figure it our but a new guy?........not gonna happen. He doesn't have a bushel basket of props and couldn't modify one either. No offense to new guy.

So at the moment someone looking to get going chooses between the AQ2030 and the AQ1800. Two! Pretty easy pick'ns. Boat runs light maybe a 2030. Boat needs more blade in the water maybe the 1800. If we add 9 that gives them 11 and they have to figure it out. Right prop, right hull, right strut, shmooze it, rub, it caress it, put it on a pedestal next to your bed and dream about it. What ever your process is.

Can new guy do all that? I know we want both new guy and veteran to run together but new guy has a pretty steep learning curve and is emptying out his wallet along the way.

Maybe just two from each new manufacturer? IDK. Something similar to a 2030 and similar to an 1800 form each manufacturer. Thinking being that it's the same choice that we're already making......2030 or 1800. Just have to pick your manufacturer.

Thinking out loud here.

[T.S.Davis]

Yes I know the 1700 is available but it's rarely the best choice.

[dethow]

I like the TP and Leopards. For ME... the main reason to add SSS to the list would be to include the motor that TFL is putting in the ARTR Pursuit and Apparition. But you have not included that 1620kv motor in the list so I see no point to having SSS on the list.

Furthermore, I can not seem to find a single one these SSS motors currently available for sale on OSE, Kintec, RC Boat Bitz, eBay, or Amazon. I asked this earlier and no one answered my. Where exactly does one find these motors??? If TFL themselves are our only source... you are just adding a hard to get your hands on motor which defeats the purpose here. Thought we were proposing to add some motors due to a future supply problem for some on the existing list?

Mike B. does have some good points and I think those points could be resolved with a happy medium. One motor will not work and not be promoted by national membership. Three brands with nine new choices may be a little much. Then add in that the SS motor are not easy to get, other then the 1620kv. But then again I can't find a replacement SSS 1620kv on Hobbyking or anywhere else, so what does one do if they fry that motor.

My vote would be for the existing plus addition of the three TP and three Leopards. If you really think we need more then six, find a different brand. I don't think SSS will accomplish anything. But I personally feel six additional would be enough for now.

[dethow]

Maybe just two from each new manufacturer? IDK. Something similar to a 2030 and similar to an 1800 form each manufacturer. Thinking being that it's the same choice that we're already making......2030 or 1800. Just have to pick your manufacturer.

I also agree with Terry's thought to only having the two from each being in the 1800 to 2030 range. I didn't want to say anything because I don't know if there are guys out there running 1500kv motors for a particular setup. I can say that I don't think there is a single person running a 1500 in MMEU. Most are running the 2030 and those running the 1800 either change over to the 2030 if the motor goes, or they are running the 1800 by choice. I personally run an 1800 in my River Cat/Apparition on an M545 and run a 2030 in everything else. Except my MMEU SV27 which is limited to the 1800 only.

[Darin Jordan]

The brands were selected partially based on 1) EVERYONE seems to have wanted to try Doug's TP motors, and 2), the brands that OSE has a line on, that aren't higher quality than desired for this class.

If motors are approved, do you NOT think that OSE will stock them??

[Darin Jordan]

I can say that I don't think there is a single person running a 1500 in MMEU.

I don't know about MMEU, but I can promise you that there was more than one National's Podium finish with a boat running a 1500.

Offshore boats like 1500s....

PT Stealths like 1500s...

YOU guys are FIXATED on KV. I just don't get it.

And I'm not buying this "keep it simple for the newbie" argument. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys can tie your own shoes but you can't pick one of 9 motors from a list? Seriously?? Or, even simpler, make a post and ask the same question that a HUNDRED "newbies" ask on this forum everyday, when they DON'T have the benefit of a local racing club to guide them, to pick one BRAND off the list (most likely the cheapest one, based on how FE boaters think), and then pick the right KV for a 4S boat running either 2-minutes or 4-Minutes?

Sorry, guys... I'm just not buying that the average person, let alone the average boater, is really that naive, and, if they are, won't have help available.

It's three KVs and three manufacturers, guys. Come on... You make it sound like this is so complicated. It's not...

[T.S.Davis]

haha I finally pushed Darin to the edge.

[Doby]

Like Darin said.....Its not complicated......get your heads out of your KV thinking butts.

Also, it sounds like some folks are trying to ensure that Newbies are standing on the podium on their first racing event.

Not going to happen, even if you only spec one motor..not going to happen...there is a substantial learning curve that newbies should expect themselves to go through and it has nothing to do with the Kv of a motor. Anyone else on here remember their first time on a race course. I suppose you all finished on the podium that day:olleyes:

[Doby]

It can also be argued that there will never be "parity" in racing...the closest you get is what the Michigan Bozo's have done with the stock SV class, one boat, one motor, one ESC, one prop......but then again you have seasoned racers racing against kids/newbies.....where's the "parity" in that? The answer is there is none and never will be.

[Darin Jordan]

haha I finally pushed Darin to the edge.

Haha... note to self, they're just toy boats!

For what it's worth, if we were to limit the list, I'd choose one Manufacturer (TP) and the three KVs over Two Manufacturers with one KV each.

[rayzerdesigns]

I think ease of availability is a big issue..as terry stated..its hard to come by tfl stuff..and I have tested the tp3630 10d..that motor is def faster than a aq2030..i have run a 47mm prop on a mono in middle of summer here in az..with no temp problems..that is way bgger prop than can run with a 2030 in summer temps here

[ray schrauwen]

I'd still like to see the Turnigy SK-3 1900kv EDF motor on the list... 'cause I have one, lol... :hide:

[dethow]

I don't know about MMEU, but I can promise you that there was more than one National's Podium finish with a boat running a 1500.

Offshore boats like 1500s....

PT Stealths like 1500s...

And I did not know that... but now being informed I go back to being good with three TPs and three Leopards.
I am still not getting any feedback on where to actually buy these SSS motors. Since OSE only currently offers two SSS motors with both being larger 4074 and 4082, maybe we should hear directly from Steve that he will stock them if they are in the approved list. For that matter we need to confirm he will stock the TPs and Leopards as well. As of right now, the only new motor on the list that can be bought from either OSE or Kintec is the TP 1950kv.

And what does that really say...??? We are putting 9 motors on an approved list that apparently nobody currently likes because you can't find them anywhere.

A piece of me still feels like this issue should be waited on. Wait for the AQs to dry up and change the ENTIRE approved list to slightly larger motors with no attempting to match up to current ones approved. Once we can't get the AQs you won't get the push back to make sure we only have new motors that compete with them. Then we could actually go to the future and jump limited class up to some cheap 40mm motors.

Examples being the Leopard 4074 for $95 with a jacket from OSE or $86 without the jacket from Kintec. And the SSS 4074 is $80 with a jacket on OSE. So actually cheaper then an $75-$80 AQ that doesn't come with a jacket. Cheaper to an $11 increase from the AQ and the class moves forward to keep up with the modern RTR boats coming out.

As Terry said once before. What a snore... go buy a 50+mph RTR boat and then go throw in a lower power motor and loose 5 to 10 mph. What a snooze...
Just makes no sense (to me) to keep running these small 3660 motors and not moving forward with the rest of the hobby.

[longballlumber]

Dave indirectly brought up another point that has been on my mind…

Access to motors:

The current legal motors are available all over the web, hobby shops, and directly from the distributer (Hobbico and Horizon Hobby). I would also assume the motors get produced in larger quantities because of the RTR market and boats being sold to hobbyist.

Now; speaking directly on the addition of new motors; we need to ask ourselves what can we do as racers to make this successful and keep the manufacturers interested in making motors? My answer: BUY MOTORS. The more motors on the list, the higher the probability lower quantities of each motor will be sold. IMO, that doesn’t help our cause for sustainment with the manufacturers. I would assume they would be much happier if they sold lots of a couple of winds rather than a few of many different winds.

Secondly, where are we going to get these motors from? Our natural response is going to be Steven at OSE. Will there be others? Maybe? Probably? One thing is certain, it won’t be as easy as the AquaCraft and/or Proboat motors. I am sure that Steven would much rather stock 4 different motors rather than 9 different motors. Maybe I am way off base, I am not sure.

[T.S.Davis]

Dave, I hear ya. I had mixed emotions about just letting the first phase of "limited" die out but it would be a lot like losing power at your house. By the time you get the geny going the milk is spoiled.

Just turning away from the existing setups would equate to deleting the fleets of many existing racers. For some, so what right? We're addicts. We'll just do it. Ty and I have 8 to 12 limited boats going at any one time. So maybe 500 to 1000 to change them out depending on the choice. Not everyone can or is willing to make that leap. For some it wont even be a cost thing. It will be principle. We lost club members when we quit racing N2 Sport and went to limited.

Jumping up to 40mm motors is P power. No way around it. P can be fast. Really fast. Likely will take 8k+ mah. Bring on the amps. 170 maybe. Takes away the "for everyone" thing I still think this can be. I think if we tried to write this next phase to include the new generation of RTR's then we're moving to P. We have P. If a bunch of P mono or Q mono start showing up.....I'll run with them. Already got the boats. Or......at the club level...we ditch SV27 and add Impulse RTR or even Voracity RTR when they start showing up.


This next phase isn't going to be what we've run before. We're not going to enjoy the influx of guys from the RTR market. We're not going to enjoy the buying power of the RTR market. Think that's what Mike is talking about. These motor manufacturers may be in the position (at some point) to make a decision about our precious supply of motors. They look at the numbers and..................hosed again. More of a lower selection may be better. Maybe. Could be that we don't add up to any attention regardless.

I feel like we're quibbling over minute details at this point.

[T.S.Davis]

Hey, are the Typhoon motors easier to find?

[dethow]

Just turning away from the existing setups would equate to deleting the fleets of many existing racers. For some, so what right? We're addicts. We'll just do it. Ty and I have 8 to 12 limited boats going at any one time. So maybe 500 to 1000 to change them out depending on the choice. Not everyone can or is willing to make that leap. For some it wont even be a cost thing. It will be principle. We lost club members when we quit racing N2 Sport and went to limited.

I having a problem seeing how a change from a current P-limited 36mm motor to a 40mm motor would cost anyone $500 to $1000 to change. (or were you saying $500 to $1000 to change ALL 8 to 12 boats?)

The motor itself would cost $80 to $90 and if needing to upgrade from an AQ 60amp, a new SK180 costs $120. So we're at a $200 investment. For those that need to make a change from 0.150 to 0.187 shafts... another $100 tops for stinger or strut (if necessary), stuffing tube, flex and collet. So we at $90 to $200 to $300 investment per boat.
At MI Cup I took my Pursuit with a SK180 and swapped out my AQ2030 for a $75 Leopard 3674 2200kv with an X642 prop. Boat was running just under 55mph and I did okay in P-Offshore. At the back of the pack, but I was happy to be racing at an increased speed.

As far as why have 40mm motors in a limited class??? Because that is basically just open P???
I don't think someone running a $80 to $90 motor on a $120 esc is going to be able to compete with someone having a $250+ Neu motor and $250+ speedo that allows them to prop up much larger and thus go faster.

And the answer there may be to limit both the motor and esc if we go to 40mm motors so that things are affordable with even competition. Another benefit of limiting the esc for limited class is that those still running 0.150 shafts probably wouldn't need to upgrade since there wouldn't be that outrageous of a load increase.

Just limit the motor list to six to nine 40mm choices and cap the esc at 180amp. Any brand esc just not over 180amp. Maybe even a 120 amp limit (which would decrease upgrade expenses by another $35). That way people could bring a new IM31 and only need to change out an $80 motor assuming that ProBoat motor wouldn't be in the list.



Sorry if I'm off base and missing the point here. But it just seems that a continuation down this road of 36mm P-limited is just going to die a slow death and we'll be left with nothing but people that want to put the time and money in to open P.
Yes... there WILL be less of a speed gap between P-Limited and Open P. BUT... costs of motor/esc in P-Limited ($150-$200) will be drastically less then Open P ($500-$600) and we'll hold people's interest in the class because these P-Limited boats won't be running slower then off the shelve stuff coming out.

And if members have a problem with the change, why can't we just expect the local clubs to start running specific spec classes that are necessary in their area? You know much like the expectation that it should be up to local clubs to keep up with the RTR models coming out.
In other words... we are going to loose future new members because we refuse to have a cost effective class that runs as fast as their RTR boat? All over some people wanting to still run outdated slow boats/motors when they could still run those in their local club if they want to.

With a 40mm upgrade and limited esc, we're not stopping people from continuing to run their current boats at their local clubs. But if we don't upgrade we are leading P-Limited to a slow death. Once existing people start switching to Open P, no one will step back to a P-Limited class that was upgraded to late. Thus clubs will start running Open P only, leaving a cost effective class a mere memory.

So in the end, just propose what you're going to propose. Really doesn't matter because this class will be dead in 3 to 5 years with or without these additional 36mm motors. IMO...

[dethow]

Hey, are the Typhoon motors easier to find?

It's further up in this thread that someone said the Typhoons would have an obvious advantage over current motor selections.

[Darin Jordan]

Guys, can we PLEASE stop even considering 40mm plus motors? Those of us who REALLY DO know about how this stuff works KNOW that this would blow the current performance parameters of the class completely up. Can you PLEASE just take our word for it?

There are a lot of National Championships, SAW and 2-Lap records, and heat wins in this group that its likely to have enough experience to judge what a power system will do.

Including anything outside of the parameters suggested is a horrible idea. Just let the class die and run the existing P class if 40mm motors are the direction you want to go.

In the meantime, I looked at Hobbyking and they have an AquaStar series of motors with 1500, 1700, and 2050KV and are 36x60, 4-pole, 280g. They might be considered. However, I'm not sure on the supply as they are all shown on Backorder.
http://www.hobbyking.com/mobile/viewproduct.asp?idproduct=38657&type=&idparentcat=438

136411

[Darin Jordan]

The HET Typhoon motors are licensed from Neu. The have a 2500W rating. The others are 1800-ish. They are also $115.00. Probably out of scope.

[Darin Jordan]

On the SSS motors, if OSE carried them reliably, would that constitute a solid supply? It works for me.

If it weren't for OSE and this forum, the growth of our hobby would have stagnated a long time ago. If Steven can support us, I'm happy to support OSE.

[Darin Jordan]

As was mentioned previously, the Turnigy SK3 do seem to have the right basic specs, and the price is right. I'll have to look to see what KVs are offered. Hobbyking does seem to have them in stock. Here is the 1600KV:

http://www.hobbyking.com/mobile/viewproduct.asp?idproduct=25416&type=&idparentcat=355

136412

[Darin Jordan]

Oops.... sorry, double post

[raptor347]

Hey, are the Typhoon motors easier to find?

Terry,

I'm going way off topic for one post.

The Typhoon motors are very easy to get, www.highendrc.com. Best shipping and customer service short of OSE.

The reason I recommended they be removed from the list is I know what they are capable of. I've run 114mph with a 650-58 series motor on 4 cells. 3400W burst, no problem. I love the reliability, they are every bit as capable as the first generation Neu motors. They are not even close to on par with the rest of the motors being considered.

Now if you're looking for Neu like performance on a budget, there is no better bang for the buck. True P-T motors for $130-$170. An HET 700-83-1445 and a Seaking 180, $270 Q setup that goes very well. Here's the budget option for those who want to get into the open motor classes and not give up performance.

My .02

[GixerGuy1978]

I having a problem seeing how a change from a current P-limited 36mm motor to a 40mm motor would cost anyone $500 to $1000 to change. (or were you saying $500 to $1000 to change ALL 8 to 12 boats?)

The motor itself would cost $80 to $90 and if needing to upgrade from an AQ 60amp, a new SK180 costs $120. So we're at a $200 investment. For those that need to make a change from 0.150 to 0.187 shafts... another $100 tops for stinger or strut (if necessary), stuffing tube, flex and collet. So we at $90 to $200 to $300 investment per boat.
At MI Cup I took my Pursuit with a SK180 and swapped out my AQ2030 for a $75 Leopard 3674 2200kv with an X642 prop. Boat was running just under 55mph and I did okay in P-Offshore. At the back of the pack, but I was happy to be racing at an increased speed.

As far as why have 40mm motors in a limited class??? Because that is basically just open P???
I don't think someone running a $80 to $90 motor on a $120 esc is going to be able to compete with someone having a $250+ Neu motor and $250+ speedo that allows them to prop up much larger and thus go faster.

And the answer there may be to limit both the motor and esc if we go to 40mm motors so that things are affordable with even competition. Another benefit of limiting the esc for limited class is that those still running 0.150 shafts probably wouldn't need to upgrade since there wouldn't be that outrageous of a load increase.

Just limit the motor list to six to nine 40mm choices and cap the esc at 180amp. Any brand esc just not over 180amp. Maybe even a 120 amp limit (which would decrease upgrade expenses by another $35). That way people could bring a new IM31 and only need to change out an $80 motor assuming that ProBoat motor wouldn't be in the list.



Sorry if I'm off base and missing the point here. But it just seems that a continuation down this road of 36mm P-limited is just going to die a slow death and we'll be left with nothing but people that want to put the time and money in to open P.
Yes... there WILL be less of a speed gap between P-Limited and Open P. BUT... costs of motor/esc in P-Limited ($150-$200) will be drastically less then Open P ($500-$600) and we'll hold people's interest in the class because these P-Limited boats won't be running slower then off the shelve stuff coming out.

And if members have a problem with the change, why can't we just expect the local clubs to start running specific spec classes that are necessary in their area? You know much like the expectation that it should be up to local clubs to keep up with the RTR models coming out.
In other words... we are going to loose future new members because we refuse to have a cost effective class that runs as fast as their RTR boat? All over some people wanting to still run outdated slow boats/motors when they could still run those in their local club if they want to.

With a 40mm upgrade and limited esc, we're not stopping people from continuing to run their current boats at their local clubs. But if we don't upgrade we are leading P-Limited to a slow death. Once existing people start switching to Open P, no one will step back to a P-Limited class that was upgraded to late. Thus clubs will start running Open P only, leaving a cost effective class a mere memory.

So in the end, just propose what you're going to propose. Really doesn't matter because this class will be dead in 3 to 5 years with or without these additional 36mm motors. IMO...

I feel your kinda missing the whole other side of the story that we've been talking about all along. What your suggesting (to me...somewhat newbie that belongs to a solely P-Ltd club) equates to huge expenses, in the end, for everyone involved in P-Ltd. I for one definately don't see the limited class 'dying a slow death' as you put it. There is currently WAAAAY too many people involved in this area to consider them/us eventually all go your route.

Darin; I do feel (personally) that the motor list MIGHT be getting too long......but I continue to follow. I'm sure once we find a result, there will be much testing for parity.....

just my thoughts.....

[Darin Jordan]

Darin; I do feel (personally) that the motor list MIGHT be getting too long......but I continue to follow. I'm sure once we find a result, there will be much testing for parity.....

just my thoughts.....

Please keep in mind that we're just bantering about motors. No list has been set. Just trying to flush out options to consider to meet the concerns of those wondering about availability.

[dethow]

Guys, can we PLEASE stop even considering 40mm plus motors? Those of us who REALLY DO know about how this stuff works KNOW that this would blow the current performance parameters of the class completely up. Can you PLEASE just take our word for it?

Okay, I'll shut up about it. After one last point...

I'm sorry I don't understand why everyone should go spend $80-$100 to upgrade to a different 36mm motor that they are just going to burn up trying to get close to 50mph (in mono and cat). When that same amount of money could be spent on a better 40mm motor. Limit the motor list to cheaper/cost effective choices and add a 120amp limit to the esc and we have the future of limited class that has distinctive limiting factors compared to Open-P.


What your suggesting (to me...somewhat newbie that belongs to a solely P-Ltd club) equates to huge expenses, in the end, for everyone involved in P-Ltd.
The 40mm motor costs are about the same and a SK120 is actually $2 cheaper then a new AQ60amp (according to OSE prices). Besides the future savings because people are not burning there $hit up as often. This is not a cost issue as far as I'm concerned. The only point to keeping the current limited motors is so that the existing guys with 5 to 10 years experience can continue to run their boats 5 mph faster then newbies because they know how to tune a boat without burning up motors and speedos. Meanwhile we get a new guy on the pond and after the second motor or esc burn-up they just stop showing up because this inexpensive limited class just got costly real fast.

My biggest point of this suggestion is to help stop the amount of motor burn-ups and actually save money for all of us. At our last MMEU race we had two experience guys burn a motor and I burned two. One of mine went because I lowered the strut on my pursuit not understanding that was going to lower the bow and increase load. The other was in my UL-1 because it took a noise dive on take off, stayed open throttle with loose of signal, submarined to the bottom, got the prop wrapped in weeds which burned my motor and broke the flex shaft.

How is the limited class cost effective, if newbies are spending $$$ replacing motors and speedos all the time in an effort to keep up with more experienced guys who also burn stuff up sometimes?

And that is all I'll say on the subject. I guess we'll come back to this in a few more years when people get bored of running slower then RTR boats and sick of spending $$$ burning 36mm motors all the time when they could just go buy a 40mm for the same money.

[ray schrauwen]

.............

[Darin Jordan]

Limit the motor list to cheaper/cost effective choices and add a 120amp limit to the esc and we have the future of limited class that has distinctive limiting factors compared to Open-P.

This is a false predicted result. I race one of these motors in "Open-P"... I can assure you that it's NOT a "limiting factor"...

I'm going to stop discussing larger motors by simply saying this... There is a REASON why Nitro doesn't allow 7.5cc (.45) motors in the 3.5cc (.21) class...

There is already a class for these "Open" sized motors.

[Darin Jordan]

.............

:frusty:

[T.S.Davis]

Dave, it's a tremendous expense for some. I have 8 to 12 boats to retool if I want to keep up with the 40mm guys. To make it worse, I would have at least 5 boats that can't run that much power. So I would have to start over on those. It's not all about the motor speedo "replacement" cost. Transfer that expense into say a club with 25 or 30 racers whose boats are not going to work on that much go juice. Suddenly a club is looking to rebuild (conservative) 40 boats to deal with more power.

I'll do what ever the rules say but there is no reason in my opinion to flush the setups of the most populated classes in FE history.

Also, burning motor after motor shouldn't happen. There's something wrong usually. Either a motor build glitch or a boat build glitch. This is where a club comes in to look at a setup to try and figure it. 3 of us looked at Benjos boat before we figured that sucker out.

[Darin Jordan]

To make it worse, I would have at least 5 boats that can't run that much power.

And, NOT RUNNING that much power is exactly the point of P-Limited. Always has been.

[T.S.Davis]

Hey, this discussion has taken on a brushed vs brushless quality.

"WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH ALL MY EXISTING CRAP!"

[Darin Jordan]

Hey, this discussion has taken on a brushed vs brushless quality.

"WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH ALL MY EXISTING CRAP!"

If we do this right (like using the motors on the currently drafted motor list... TP, Leopard, TFL or ???)... Then you'll continue to use them in some boats while you slowly replace them in others.

I would have NO ISSUES putting the PB Dynamite 1500KV up against any of these, in the right application.

[T.S.Davis]

And, NOT RUNNING that much power is exactly the point of P-Limited. Always has been.

Well, I could but they would explode on re-entry into earths atmosphere.

Somewhere in Shooters' New P sport thread there is a picture of what happens when you just throw more ponies in your paper machete LSH boat.

[T.S.Davis]

Darin, I meant that based on Dave's notion that we should just replace 36mm with 40mm since the market is creep'n that way.

You and I are on the "keep our brushed motors" er............36mm crap side this time.

What do I do with my old brushed setups if we go BL?
What do I do with my Nicd setups if we allow Nimh?
What do I do with my 700 motors if LSH goes to P limited?
What do I do with my Nimh setups if we all go LiPo?
What do I do with my 36mm boats if we go 40mm?

Never really ends with FE. I'm not saying we ditch our 36mm stuff but I am saying it's happened to us umpteen times. What Dave suggested isn't that nutty.

[dethow]

What Dave suggested isn't that nutty.

Thank you, Terry... I was feeling totally beat down.

I really do get all the points, but what you are eluding to is correct. Where would we be if we stopped progress...???

With a switch to 40mm we'd probably have more blow overs and less burnt motors/speedos until guys actually learn to bring their prop size down a little and/or learn how to self limit their throttle finger. In which case either method would result in far less burn-ups in efforts to push the P boats to their limits.

I feel new people would much prefer a chance at winning if they can learn how to not be up side down... over a chance of winning if they can spend the $$$ burning stuff up learning how to tune a boat.

Ummm... learn how to drive, or learn how to tune a boat? Learning to drive better costs nothing, while learning to build/tune a boat can cost a lot.

Open-P is the class for tuning, not P-Limited. The way things are P-Limited takes more tuning then open. Makes no sense to me.

[Darin Jordan]

What Dave suggested isn't that nutty.

See any Brushed Motors or NiMH these days?

36mm x 60mm motors are a standard size across the industry. We're not talking about a dieing technology here. RTRs don't define racing. Their power systems were convenient at the time.

We now have the formula. I say let's keep it.

You know me, I'm all about RTR boats (You won't BELIEVE what Pro Boat sent me THIS week!! :spy: ), but their inclusion in the race day needs to be handled at the club level.

Imagine, if you will, if we had pushed to have a NATIONAL class for Spec-SV27? Where would that be today??

[Darin Jordan]

Open-P is the class for tuning, not P-Limited. The way things are P-Limited takes more tuning then open. Makes no sense to me.

All classes have to be tuned for. It's just life when you are racing. 40mm motors (.45 vs. .21s) just mean you get to do it 10mph faster.

[dethow]

36mm x 60mm motors are a standard size across the industry. We're not talking about a dieing technology here.

Then why is only one of the suggested 36mm motor additions actually currently available to purchase? But yet I can go buy anything I want in a 4074 in multiple brands from multiple sources.

And.... RTR is already starting to make the leap to 40mm as well. The industry standard is/has changed.... but I guess we should just stick with brushed motors because that what everyone already has.

[Darin Jordan]

Then why is only one of the suggested 36mm motor additions actually currently available to purchase? But yet I can go buy anything I want in a 4074 in multiple brands from multiple sources.

You can go buy your 4074, just like I can go buy ANY of the other 9 motors being suggested to add to the existing list.

You are trying to change the performance envelope of this VERY successful class structure. I'm working to keep it the same, and also trying NOT to destroy the investments of those who have sustained this class for 5+ years.

We are likely at an impasse on this topic... You'll never convince me that pushing the performance of this class 10mph+ faster is ever going to make any sense.

[dethow]

See any Brushed Motors or NiMH these days?

YES... I could actually go buy those easier then majority (8 out of 9) of the new 36mm motors suggested.

[dethow]

You can go buy your 4074, just like I can go buy ANY of the other 9 motors being suggested to add to the existing list.

I've asked the question multiple times in this thread and no one has answered me yet. WHERE DOES ONE FIND THESE? Other then the TP 1950 I can't find any of the other 8 suggested on OSE, Kintec, RC Boat Bitz, eBay or Amazon.

YOU may be able to buy ANY of these, but where do I buy them. I'm not a TFL dealer and I don't have any special connections to manufactures.

As I said before... what does it really say about these motors that no one even sells them? Means no one wants them. Means they are NOT the industry standard.

[Darin Jordan]

And.... RTR is already starting to make the leap to 40mm as well. The industry standard is/has changed.... but I guess we should just stick with brushed motors because that what everyone already has.

Dave, I was here when P-LIMITED was CONCEIVED. I helped write the rules. I know what the intent of the class was. Our club in 2007 ran the first "P-LIMITED" style spec class at the 2007 Nationals at Mirror Lake in Monroe, WA.

P-LIMITED was NOT a class designed to be all inclusive of any RTR that might come along. The selection of THOSE motors on that list currently was done because it was CONVENIENT, and didn't require that we actually sit down and figure out what the rules for motor limits might be. They were also selected because the defined a PERFORMANCE LIMIT for the class. We didn't want "P" speeds out of these things. And, conveniently at the time, since we selected THEIR motors, the current batch of RTRs happened to fit as well. A few follow-on RTRs even got designed to specifically be able to fit into the class (hmmmm.... I wonder whose idea that was???)

I'm sorry you are feeling beaten up. That's not my intent. However, it doesn't seem like you are understanding that what YOU are talking about is taking a class that basically has similar to "N2" speeds, without the amp draw or expense of N2, and trying to turn that into an ALMOST (if not MOST) "P" class. And for WHAT? So ONE RTR boat (IM31 currently) can be squeezed into the class??

That just doesn't make any sense, and I don't think it's the spirit of the class. The class is "LIMITED P"... 4S, but slower/less powerful.

[Darin Jordan]

I've asked the question multiple times in this thread and no one has answered me yet. WHERE DOES ONE FIND THESE? Other then the TP 1950 I can't find any of the other 8 suggested on OSE, Kintec, RC Boat Bitz, eBay or Amazon.

YOU may be able to buy ANY of these, but where do I buy them. I'm not a TFL dealer and I don't have any special connections to manufactures.

As I said before... what does it really say about these motors that no one even sells them? Means no one wants them. Means they are NOT the industry standard.

First off, the limited "list" of motors wasn't my idea. YOU are one of the several who clamoured to "make it easier" on everyone and just give a list. If it were up to me, I'd have defined a set of INDUSTRY STANDARD dimensions (yes, 36x60 IS a VERY popular motor size... ) and left it at that.

If you want a TP motor, you simply go here: http://www.tppowerusa.com/motors/build-your-own/tp-36xx-series/tp-3630, select the wind you want, and in 2-weeks you'll have it. All for $85.00.

Steven has already said he was working on the Leopard motors, and he is likely to have the TFL motors as well.

Turnigy may be an option as well. I've asked here, but haven't really gotten any response from people.

The point is that these motors ARE available. If you just wanted to be able to get a motor ANYWHERE, then you'd have let me just leave this at the dimensional specs and let the racers find their motors. That wasn't what people wanted.

The VERY SAME ISSUES are going to exist if you tried to define the list for several manufacturers of 40mm motors... Same brands, different sizes.

The Motors on the proposed list are from manufacturers that supply a lot of product. They're likely to be around, in other words. Not everything is always in stock, however. Sometimes there has to be demand.

At least with two of these three manufacturers, getting the motors is simply a matter of ordering them.

[dethow]

However, it doesn't seem like you are understanding that what YOU are talking about is taking a class that basically has similar to "N2" speeds, without the amp draw or expense of N2, and trying to turn that into an ALMOST (if not MOST) "P" class. And for WHAT? So ONE RTR boat (IM31 currently) can be squeezed into the class??

That is not my intension at all. My intention is to move to the next step in this hobby and stop burning up motors. Which is probably why RTR boats are leaving 36mm motors in history for P sized boats. They are sick of warranting and paying for under sized motors, just as we should be.

As far as RTR being able to be squeezed into the class. That's just an extra benefit. much like it was when P-Limited rules where originally written.

And my thought is not to have P-Limited be similar to Open-P. If we limit the ESC to 120 amp, then the prop sizes will self limit (just as they do now) and the P-Limited boats will not be capable of reaching the Open-P speeds.
IOW... if people want to push prop size (the way they do now) they will burn up an $83 speedo instead of an $80 motor.

[Darin Jordan]

That is not my intension at all. My intention is to move to the next step in this hobby and stop burning up motors. Which is probably why RTR boats are leaving 36mm motors in history for P sized boats. They are sick of warranting and paying for under sized motors, just as we should be.

Being just a LITTLE bit involved in the RTR industry, I can assure you that they are NOT moving on for that reason... they are moving on because they want their 40mph boats to be able to easily do 50mph out of the box.

It's performance based.

[Doby]

Dave..let it go...if people continue to burn up motors of the "limited" (AQ/TP/whatever) size, they need to look into the mirror to see why that is.

This class is by far the most popular (fun) of any..be it mono/hydro/cat/ lawnchair...whatever...having lots of boats racing at "slower" speeds is a lot more fun than fewer boats at faster speeds.

[Doby]

Being just a LITTLE bit involved in the RTR industry, I can assure you that they are NOT moving on for that reason... they are moving on because they want their 40mph boats to be able to easily do 50mph out of the box.

It's performance based.

Exactly. Just like Apple introducing a new phone every 3 weeks for the minions to buy because it has some new feature that somehow people lived without for years....

People want faster and shinier RTRs to brag about to their beer drinking buddies....how many people who buy RTRs actually race them?? Proboat and AQ care about profits...can't blame them, everyone does.

[dethow]

The point is that these motors ARE available.

Correction... these motor WILL BE available (because we ask for them).

Not available NOW (because no one wants them).

And so our only two sources will be TP directly and OSE. Maybe Kintec will catch on and start stocking them as well.

I'm sorry I'm going to get out of this conversation. Because you've already made it clear you will NEVER be convinced otherwise and I tend to get the same impression from others. Like I said... I guess we'll have this conversation in a couple years. Probably about the same time this new list is implemented (2017) it will become more obvious to everyone that 36mm motors are as old school as brushed motors.

There are other ways to limit the class....

[Darin Jordan]

I'll give Dave this, however, concerning motor availability:

The TP motors, thus far, are clearly the most readily available.

This is why I wanted to leave specific motors out, and just define a dimensional limitation of up to, and including, 36x60mm... Lots of readily available motors in the 36x50, or 36x58, or even 28x58, etc... sizes... that would be well within the performance envelope of this class.

Whatever gets "spec'd", we have to make sure that people can ACTUALLY get them.

OR, we limit it to those that we actually can, in this case, TP... which puts us right back to a single thread supply.

[dethow]

And back on topic of the list and leaving the 40mm stuff in the past...


Darin, I too originally liked your dimensional limitations. But those parameters would open the door for a few Neu, Lehner and Typhoon motors.

Selfishly, I thought "great I'll go buy a $200 Neu motor and be able to run at 50mph (in my mono and cat) with little to no risk of burning it up."

But that door opening will just have guys pushing the limits of THOSE motors and hitting speeds close to 55mph which will force people to start spending big dollars on a motor or run 5 to 10 mph slower and non-competitive.

To twist the knife a little... allowing these high priced motors in limited class is more damaging then allowing cheap 40mm motors. Speeds of an expensive 36mm motor (with an unlimited esc) wouldn't be far off those of a cheap 40mm (with a 120a esc limit). But with the expensive 36mm motors you are cutting out the guys who can't spend $200 on a motor and $200 on a large amp esc to push it near 55mph.

Just saying... everyone can afford an $85 40mm motor and an $83 120amp speedo. And then everyone can do 50 to 55mph in P-Limited, while Open-P speeds will be in the 60 to 65 mph range where hull design, tuning and driving skills becomes more important to keep it on the water.

LOL... zipper has now been installed on my mouth. (Maybe :confused2:)

[dethow]

Being just a LITTLE bit involved in the RTR industry, I can assure you that they are NOT moving on for that reason... they are moving on because they want their 40mph boats to be able to easily do 50mph out of the box.

It's performance based.

Sorry Darin... you say patato and I say pototo.

They want their 40mph RTR boats increased to 50mph because they (manufactures) are probably tied of us (racers) increasing prop sizes to get the 50mph we (racers) want and burning up motors in the process. Of which those motors are being sent back for warranty and thus costing them (manufactures) money. Cure... put a 40mm motor (that costs the same) in the boat and we (racers) won't burn them up as much trying to get to speeds that the hull is capable of handling.

[rayzerdesigns]

if you don't think we could burn up a 40mm motor you are highly mistaken..people will puch limits of any motor approved no matter what size..i for one love the speed and challenge of getting it out of smaller motors and in the limited speed..yes I have p boats..i like the limited speed..yes its the biggest classes out there..why change that..look at the car side of rc..they have size..and turn limits for stock..and it is by far the most competitive and biggest class..yes people are always trying to get more..and end up burning up stuff..thats the fun part,,doing everything to get them working the best..its a lot easier to go fast in p..because of the power..in limited..u need your setup and everything else working in top tier to be quick..that is the aspect I love..i would rather work on my boat setups and everything else to have a quick boat..and stable..thats a challenge..not saying p power isn't..but way easy to over power a p setup..if you like the 40mm size..then y all means run p..as for myself..and the others that swarm this class we are trying to get a few motors to help keep the class going..enough of my rant..hope to see you at a race soon

[rayzerdesigns]

Mike does have a point. Do we need consider the new..er guy a little more here so he has a shot?

Currently there are two motors really (80% rule again). Proboat has none. They're all discontinued. Sure you could run a Himax and figure it our but a new guy?........not gonna happen. He doesn't have a bushel basket of props and couldn't modify one either. No offense to new guy.

So at the moment someone looking to get going chooses between the AQ2030 and the AQ1800. Two! Pretty easy pick'ns. Boat runs light maybe a 2030. Boat needs more blade in the water maybe the 1800. If we add 9 that gives them 11 and they have to figure it out. Right prop, right hull, right strut, shmooze it, rub, it caress it, put it on a pedestal next to your bed and dream about it. What ever your process is.

Can new guy do all that? I know we want both new guy and veteran to run together but new guy has a pretty steep learning curve and is emptying out his wallet along the way.

Maybe just two from each new manufacturer? IDK. Something similar to a 2030 and similar to an 1800 form each manufacturer. Thinking being that it's the same choice that we're already making......2030 or 1800. Just have to pick your manufacturer.

Thinking out loud here.
don't forget about the dynamite 1500..come out to az terry..i will show you why this motor is my new fave..in all my boats at nats

[rayzerdesigns]

I also agree with Terry's thought to only having the two from each being in the 1800 to 2030 range. I didn't want to say anything because I don't know if there are guys out there running 1500kv motors for a particular setup. I can say that I don't think there is a single person running a 1500 in MMEU. Most are running the 2030 and those running the 1800 either change over to the 2030 if the motor goes, or they are running the 1800 by choice. I personally run an 1800 in my River Cat/Apparition on an M545 and run a 2030 in everything else. Except my MMEU SV27 which is limited to the 1800 only.
well maybe that's an east coast thing..but I guarantee you my boats are not slow..3 nats wins..i exclusively use dynamite 1500 now..and I would challenge you or anyone in your club to try it..yes different props..but woohoo

[T.S.Davis]

Doesn't shock me Ray. I would think you could put a ton of blade in the water to pull all the way through the turn.

[dethow]

Darin, as I said much earlier in this thread... I should just not say anything and leave it up to those that know more then I on these subjects. And I assume you wrote this description of your involvement to convince me that you know best.


Dave, I was here when P-LIMITED was CONCEIVED. I helped write the rules. I know what the intent of the class was. Our club in 2007 ran the first "P-LIMITED" style spec class at the 2007 Nationals at Mirror Lake in Monroe, WA.

However, I REALLY hate to question you and REALLY don't want to dis-respect you in ANY way, but...


...allowing these high priced motors in limited class is more damaging then allowing cheap 40mm motors.

If YOUR choice (dimensional specs) of alterations to the rules/list creates a problem far worse then my suggestion, then why is my inexperienced voice that silly?

Where we are at...
1.) We add nine motors to the list and we still have supply issues. Or...
2.) We do dimensional specs and we have unbalance competition that makes so they guys with deepest pockets win.

You guys may think I'm crazy but I think I'm on to something.
Anyone can get a 120amp esc and we can find tons of 40mm motors from many sources. If the list only included TP, Leopard and SSS motors that are 40mm in size I could go online right now and buy those from multiple sources or even drive down the street to my local hobby store and get them.

And rayzerdesigns... I'm not saying that burned up motors will be eliminated totally. But with an esc limit added there will be a cap to the prop you can run and thus still leave tuning and driving skills as part of the equation. But if you have people running in the 50 to 55mph range they will be less likely to push limits of the motor and esc since the hull itself won't handle much more and will most likely flip with any further speed increases. You can't burn a motor or esc on a belly up boat and there's no point in pushing the speed limits to the point you will burn them up if you keep flipping over.

And I just don't get you guys throwing out all this... "we already have a class for that, P"
I'm sorry but why do "P" racers spend the big money on expensive motors and speedo if someone with an $80 4074 motor and $83 SK120a speedo can compete with them???

[Ken Haines]

well maybe that's an east coast thing..but I guarantee you my boats are not slow..3 nats wins..i exclusively use dynamite 1500 now..and I would challenge you or anyone in your club to try it..yes different props..but woohoo

Great news....now I have to buy an additional $500 worth of
Dynamite 1500's to make our 4 day trek to Washington next year,
and thousands in travel expenses just to race toy boats.....lol
:bounce:

[T.S.Davis]

Curiosity Dave.............how are you planning to tech the 120 amp esc's? By the sticker on the box? I've seen the green Castle Hydra Ice boxes that aren't Castle Ice Hydra speedo innards. How do you do it?

Another thing.........that solves nothing. So I have Schultze fabricate a custom 120 amp speedo. It will be under rated by half because they always were. Then what?

Speedo limits wont work.

[T.S.Davis]

Great news....now I have to buy an additional $500 worth of


bahaha Ken, I heard that Ray was swapping motors half way through each heat. He's that good.

Just wanted to see if I could make your head explode.

[Darin Jordan]

And I assume you wrote this description of your involvement to convince me that you know best.

Or, if you take things with the glass-half-full attitude, it might have been to assure you that I understand very clearly the intent and history and purpose of the class...


I'm seriously to the point here with this subject that I think I might adopt Ken's approach:

Run with what's on the list (or don't and go run other classes) until the motor supply is exhausted and let P-LTD die a natural, slow death...

NO set of "limited" rules is going to make everyone happy, and opening this one up to much larger, more powerful motors, seems entirely "UN-Limited" to me. It may equate on a strictly $$ sense, but then so does running Open P where you NEVER generally push your equipment as hard as we do in LTD i.e.: buy one quality motor vs. 3 spec motors a season. Running unrestricted motors and using ESCs as the limiting factor seems equally as dubious.

I'm going to leave this for you all to discuss. I will continue to tinker off-line to see what I can find regarding motor supply. That might mean looking down just a tad to 36x58 or 36x50 motors (which are closer to the current motors anyhow), to build an appropriate list. We we to simply use dimensional limits, these would have been legal anyhow. I'll post data as I have it.

[dethow]

What... what... what...

Light bulb just came on :cool2:

Is it at all possible to consider having it both ways?
1.) P-Limited36 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 36mm and continued no esc limit. (maybe add the esc limit as well)
2.) P-Limited40 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 40mm and a 120amp esc limit.

This way clubs and national events continue to run the beloved P-Limited, and we add an alternative for clubs and national event to go to the next level of cost effective without spending the money that running full P takes.

This would also add a place for existing a future RTR with 40mm motors without throwing them in the fire of full P and put them up against guys what may have a couple thousand in their boat.

Mono and Cat Approximate speed and cost for each class:
P-Limited36 - 45 to 50mph boats at $300 to $500 investment to get in.
P-Limited40 - 50 to 55mph boats at $350 to $500 investment to get in.
Open-P - 55 to 65mph boats at $500 to $1000 investment to get in.

[dethow]

I'm seriously to the point here with this subject that I think I might adopt Ken's approach:

I am truly sorry Darin. I didn't mean to piss you off or aggravate you in any way.

[Darin Jordan]

I am truly sorry Darin. I didn't mean to piss you off or aggravate you in any way.

No worries... I don't easily get pissed off, and I'm not now. It's all good.

[dethow]

What... what... what...

Light bulb just came on :cool2:

Is it at all possible to consider having it both ways?
1.) P-Limited36 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 36mm and continued no esc limit. (maybe add the esc limit as well)
2.) P-Limited40 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 40mm and a 120amp esc limit.

This way clubs and national events continue to run the beloved P-Limited, and we add an alternative for clubs and national event to go to the next level of cost effective without spending the money that running full P takes.

This would also add a place for existing a future RTR with 40mm motors without throwing them in the fire of full P and put them up against guys what may have a couple thousand in their boat.

Mono and Cat Approximate speed and cost for each class:
P-Limited36 - 45 to 50mph boats at $300 to $500 investment to get in.
P-Limited40 - 50 to 55mph boats at $350 to $500 investment to get in.
Open-P - 55 to 65mph boats at $500 to $1000 investment to get in.

I suspect this will probably lead to more people going the P-Limited40 route within a few years. But would allow for a much smoother transition to where this hobby may need to lead to keep membership numbers up.

As previously said. I don't see guys buying 50mph RTR boats, tuning them to 55mph and then turning around and dropping in a cheap/limited 36mm motor so they can race without having to spend the big bucks to race with the full P guys.

Comparison is in regards to taking my boats out to my mother's lakefront property for the weekend... not club racing.
I don't like the idea of spending time and money tuning my P-Limited race boat, only to have my %ss handed to me by my cousin (or whomever) that went and bought a RTR and put it on the water for the first time. That person isn't going to understand motor size and torque. All they will know is that they went and bought a boat that bets the one you have spent hours upon hours tuning. Same size boat... why is mine faster? Is all they will think.
You tell them about the motor and battery limits. And then tell them they won't have a place to race in the club unless they either slow their boat down or go spend as much you just spent on your entire boat so you can compete in Open-P. You know what they will say? Well... that sounds stupid.

So what could have been a potential new member turns into a friend/family member thinking you are wasting your time and money being involved in this club.

But with P-Limited36 AND P-Limited40 classes you can explain the differences and why you choose to run in P-Limited36. Followed by an invite to bring their boat As-Is to the next club race. Say they can borrow some 4S batteries and a larger prop so they can be competitive with the other P-Limited40 racers.
Bet they show and bet they join.

[dethow]

Curiosity Dave.............how are you planning to tech the 120 amp esc's? By the sticker on the box? I've seen the green Castle Hydra Ice boxes that aren't Castle Ice Hydra speedo innards. How do you do it?

Another thing.........that solves nothing. So I have Schultze fabricate a custom 120 amp speedo. It will be under rated by half because they always were. Then what?

Speedo limits wont work.

Okay... we have a specific list of speedos as well.

I wasn't aware people would use a simple limit to find a way to cheat the limit. I guess no different then people have Neu make them a custom wind or finding other ways (such a c/f can) to stay within weight limits if we went with dimensional specs on the 36mm motors.

And as far as someone using different innards and cheating... what is really stopping someone who knows motors from opening an AQ and customizing it to cheat?

[T.S.Davis]

?
1.) P-Limited36 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 36mm and continued no esc limit. (maybe add the esc limit as well)
2.) P-Limited40 class which limits the motor to a specific list of 40mm and a 120amp esc limit.


If you look at a satellite image of earth there's a black hole where Wisconsin used to be. They freaked when we included cat in limited. Two sets of limited?.....:flashfire:

Still no way to verify a 120 amp esc is 120 amps.

[Doug Smock]

The door is open........... just look away Doug. There you go.......... Good boy.:thumbup:

[zooma]

What... what... what...

snip, snip ....................................

Mono and Cat Approximate speed and cost for each class:
P-Limited36 - 45 to 50mph boats at $300 to $500 investment to get in.
P-Limited40 - 50 to 55mph boats at $350 to $500 investment to get in.
Open-P - 55 to 65mph boats at $500 to $1000 investment to get in.

I started a new thread to ask about tuning for speed, but are these realistic speeds among regular racers? They are about 10-15 MPH higher than I and my club members are getting.

[rayzerdesigns]

ok guys..and gals..p limited is where it is..if we cant decide to stay within the limits of where we are..then why even try..i like the ideas of a couple motors..no..not 40mm..p limited does not need to be any faster..if you don't like the class or want to change it..why are you here trying to make your own set of rules?? this started last year..i wont state names..but he went his own direction..and that did nothing but decline racing..and if you truly want to know..im ok with current selection..a lot aren't so we are discussing a bigger motor..plain and simple..we are trying to find a few motors that are comparable to what is approved now..not faster or bigger..period..and im not trying to single you out dethow..but this is what we are trying to figure out..will p limited die off..maybe..but there are many boats and people that love this class the way it is..if you don't...don't race it..again..there has been some testing of petersons tp motor he wanted so bad..but I will tell you right now that motor is way faster than a 2030..prop to prop..boat to boat..not to mention you can prop it up..we either need to keep the current list..or add a few more that are of equal performance..period..or like darin said..leave it as it is..we are trying to be proactive in new motors..not trying to make class faster and have to many restrictions..being prop..speedo or whatever..again I will say I like the idea of tuning props and setups to get the most out of my limted boats..maybe we need to just see on here who wants to keep list the way it is..or add a few comparable ones..from sound of this thread..its to include a coule more motors..not faster...but comparable..and that can be done with testing..and seeing where it goes

[rayzerdesigns]

I started a new thread to ask about tuning for speed, but are these realistic speeds among regular racers? They are about 10-15 MPH higher than I and my club members are getting.

again not trying to bust your balls..but if your club is only getting 30 to 45mph out of limited as you say..i say you need to check your setups..i have seen terrys boats above 45 easy..my slowest limited boat is my mono..and its easily over 45mph..i have seen many lsh almost 60mphmid to upper 50s easily..even at nats this year..with sticky hot water, propped down quite a bit..and were still in 50s in lsh..and cat was right at 50..mono was prob right around 42 44..thats down 3mm prop size from what we run in heat in az..im really looking fwd to nats next year in nice cool water in washington

[rayzerdesigns]

Great news....now I have to buy an additional $500 worth of
Dynamite 1500's to make our 4 day trek to Washington next year,
and thousands in travel expenses just to race toy boats.....lol
:bounce:

better get them before I buy them all up..lol..but darin did say they are still making them..and good thing they are on average 25 to 30 dollars cheaper than a 2030

[ron1950]

I have four extra dynamite 1500's guess I better get a few more before Ken puts in a order lol....

[rayzerdesigns]

lol..its all good..they are still being made as of now

[ray schrauwen]

I've asked the question multiple times in this thread and no one has answered me yet. WHERE DOES ONE FIND THESE? Other then the TP 1950 I can't find any of the other 8 suggested on OSE, Kintec, RC Boat Bitz, eBay or Amazon.

YOU may be able to buy ANY of these, but where do I buy them. I'm not a TFL dealer and I don't have any special connections to manufactures.

As I said before... what does it really say about these motors that no one even sells them? Means no one wants them. Means they are NOT the industry standard.

??SSS Motor? Maybe:

http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__30530__OuterLimits_Fiberglass_Offshore_Brushless _Racing_Boat_w_Motor_870mm_.html
I think it is but, Monika would have to confirm

[Darin Jordan]

.but darin did say they are still making them..

Well... to be accurate... Darin said that Horizon Hobby said... It's all a matter of sales numbers.

[Doby]

Dave:

There is no shortage of the "new" motors on the list. The "list" is just a discussion that you seem to be taking as gospel for some reason...for gods sake, it still has to go through whatever formal channels and that will take a while.......long while once and if Darin (or whoever) chooses to move forward with it.

I think you need to concentrate on P and step away from the spec classes..

Most of your comments in this thread should be moved to a separate P power thread, they are very argumentative.

This thread is about a certain size motor only....again, move on with the topic or start a new thread to voice you opinions about P classes.

[dethow]

Dave:

There is no shortage of the "new" motors on the list. The "list" is just a discussion that you seem to be taking as gospel for some reason...for gods sake, it still has to go through whatever formal channels and that will take a while.......long while once and if Darin (or whoever) chooses to move forward with it.

I think you need to concentrate on P and step away from the spec classes..

Most of your comments in this thread should be moved to a separate P power thread, they are very argumentative.

This thread is about a certain size motor only....again, move on with the topic or start a new thread to voice you opinions about P classes.

I'm sorry that you think I'm being argumentative. I'm not trying to be. I felt that I was bringing up valid points as to why the current proposed changes will not continue the existing nor help the future of P-Limited.

There's been multiple responses on this thread that describe several of the possible motors being vastly superior to the existing ones.
And there IS a shortage of the "new" motors on the list. The only ones I can actually go buy are the TPs. Even Darin admits that with the current 3 new brand additions we're looking at a single source supplier.

So I guess the only resolution to this discussion is to leave things the way they are and not try to come up with meaningful alternatives? It seems that most don't want anything to change and don't want anything added to the list that's not similar to the existing.

Based on what I've read and seen that's impossible. Basically anything added will be an improvement on the existing. That's how technology works. New motors are going to better then stuff developed and unchanged over the past 5 years.

And last... all of my comments in this thread are in regards to P-Limited motor choices and sizes. How does my discussion of changing the motor size for P-Limited from 36mm to 40mm belong in a P class discussion? This subject has nothing to due with P class and I'd appreciate if some would stop trying to chase me off from running P-Limited just because I don't agree with continuing a flawed system of rules and motors.

And if its not flawed then why are we even having this discussion. Leave the perfect oiled system of P-Limited alone. I'm fine with that and I'm happy to run in P-Limited.

But if we are going to make a change that will ultimately eliminate the use of the existing motors... then why don't we just go ahead and jump to the next level all together. NOT "P" but still a cost effective and limited "P". Or as I said in my last thought before you blasted me for being off topic. Maybe we just keep P-Limited the way it is but develop a new class between current P-Limited and Open P to help make a transition if the current motors do dry up and so we have a place for future RTR boats to run without have to be thrown in an Open P class.

[Darin Jordan]

The "flawed system " comments and the like are why Doby may be suggesting the argumentative part.

Moving back to the topic and focusing on maintaining CURRENT levels of performance. ...

I reexamined this subject a bit, and also received an email or six, and took another look at our currently legal motors.

From a specs standpoint, they are much, much closer to a 36x50 motor than a 36x60 motor. Dimensionally and weight wise.

The inclusion of Doug's TP 3660 1950 motor is what blew the size and weight up, as we tried to match THAT motor. That's perhaps not the correct tact.

Sourcing 36x50 motors appears to be much easier initially. Right here on OSE two of the 3 Leopard motors appear to be stocked.

Likewise, TP sells that size as well.

Hmmmmmm....

[dethow]

The "flawed system " comments and the like are why Doby may be suggesting the argumentative part.

Problem is that I didn't say "flawed system" until after I was already accused of being argumentative.
And how about being told by several to just not race if I don't like P-Limited. And told be several to take my 40mm motor talk to a "P" class discussion.

My opinions on P-Limited motors have nothing to do with Open-P class, but I'm the one being argumentative???

[dethow]

I reexamined this subject a bit, and also received an email or six, and took another look at our currently legal motors.

From a specs standpoint, they are much, much closer to a 36x50 motor than a 36x60 motor. Dimensionally and weight wise.

The inclusion of Doug's TP 3660 1950 motor is what blew the size and weight up, as we tried to match THAT motor. That's perhaps not the correct tact.

Alright... back on topic.

Why are we SOOOO worried about matching up to old technology of 5 year old motors? Seems that this motion is just as flawed as attempting to match or keep up with RTR.

I'm just getting frustrated because the goal here should be to make an improvement, not stay stagnant.

We started with a dimensional spec idea which would have allowed Neu, Lehner and Typhoon into the mix. (Darin's idea which is an improvement on existing)
Then we reduce to a defined list of some specific motors which included TP3630. (Doug's idea which is still an improvement on existing)
Now were looking at going down to 36x50 to keep as close to existing as possible. (Because several want no change and thus no improvement)

Why are we bending over back-wards to stick with these outdated motors?

[DPeterson]

rayzor

testing of petersons tp motor he wanted so bad..but I will tell you right now that motor is way faster than a 2030..prop to prop..boat to boat..not to mention you can prop it up..

Ray - you keep saying this. Do you have some data you could post. This conflicts with our WI. data, conflicts with what QuiteLee reported on post 177 and again with what Greg Schweers had found and posted. Again the TP is not my motor. It was an option we found to work and kept P-Limited alive in IMPBA D4 for 2015. Otherwise the 2030 killed racing in our parts.

Here again is the WI data:

http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/...268#post595268

[dethow]

rayzor


Ray - you keep saying this. Do you have some data you could post. This conflicts with our WI. data, conflicts with what QuiteLee reported on post 177 and again with what Greg Schweers had found and posted. Again the TP is not my motor. It was an option we found to work and kept P-Limited alive in IMPBA D4 for 2015. Otherwise the 2030 killed racing in our parts.

Here again is the WI data:

http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/...268#post595268

Doug, can I ask why the 2030 killed racing in your parts?

[Darin Jordan]

"Old Technology "? "Outdated "? Your opinion. Far from fact. Same tech, different dimensions, compared to your 40mm preferences.

We want to do this because that's how P-LTD works. That's the class. Bigger, more powerful power systems race in P-Open. We want to maintain the current levels of performance.

Classes have rules and limitations. These are P-LTD's. We don't want to blow that up. That's just how it is. Not sure how much clearer we can put it.

[Darin Jordan]

Doug, can I ask why the 2030 killed racing in your parts?

Oh Goodness! Doug Please don't! Not again. Take it offline. This is totally off topic, and frankly we don't need to go over this again.

[zooma]

again not trying to bust your balls..but if your club is only getting 30 to 45mph out of limited as you say..i say you need to check your setups..i have seen terrys boats above 45 easy..my slowest limited boat is my mono..and its easily over 45mph..i have seen many lsh almost 60mphmid to upper 50s easily..even at nats this year..with sticky hot water, propped down quite a bit..and were still in 50s in lsh..and cat was right at 50..mono was prob right around 42 44..thats down 3mm prop size from what we run in heat in az..im really looking fwd to nats next year in nice cool water in washington

Balls are intact. However I started another thread in the hopes of getting some genuinely useful advice.

http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?52810-P-Limited-race-speeds

[dethow]

"Old Technology "? "Outdated "? Your opinion. Far from fact. Same tech, different dimensions, compared to your 40mm preferences.

We want to do this because that's how P-LTD works. That's the class. Bigger, more powerful power systems race in P-Open. We want to maintain the current levels of performance.

Classes have rules and limitations. These are P-LTD's. We don't want to blow that up. That's just how it is. Not sure how much clearer we can put it.

Okay... I get the point.

No more power... match current levels of performance... no changes... leave P-Limited alone... and don't talk about current issues a club had with existing motors...

[dethow]

"Old Technology "? "Outdated "? Your opinion. Far from fact. Same tech, different dimensions, compared to your 40mm preferences.

Just to be clear... when I'm talking about "Old Technology" and "Outdated", I'm referring to the current AQs. It's a vastly shared opinion that one of the weakest points on those motors are the lead wires and breakdown of the thin wrap on them. Most of the more modern motors don't seem to have the same potential issue as their wires appear beefier and better protected.
It's my untested opinion, but it would seem to be logical that if a weak point of those existing motors is taken out of the picture then the new motors may be able to handle more load and thus have an advantage over the existing. I may be totally wrong but I think if correct a lot of people are going to be upset that some are running 46 to 47mm props on there new TP motors while their existing AQ can only handle a 45mm without burning up.

So if that theory proves correct then most will migrate to the new top pick of TP power, thus eliminating AQ from the equation. So why are we considering being completely equal with these existing motors. This ISN'T a 40mm push!!! I'm asking this about other 36mm motors that if proposed could actually be a good improvement over the existing in both performance and reliability.

[GixerGuy1978]

if you don't think we could burn up a 40mm motor you are highly mistaken..people will puch limits of any motor approved no matter what size..i for one love the speed and challenge of getting it out of smaller motors and in the limited speed..yes i have p boats..i like the limited speed..yes its the biggest classes out there..why change that..look at the car side of rc..they have size..and turn limits for stock..and it is by far the most competitive and biggest class..yes people are always trying to get more..and end up burning up stuff..thats the fun part,,doing everything to get them working the best..its a lot easier to go fast in p..because of the power..in limited..u need your setup and everything else working in top tier to be quick..that is the aspect i love..i would rather work on my boat setups and everything else to have a quick boat..and stable..thats a challenge..not saying p power isn't..but way easy to over power a p setup..if you like the 40mm size..then y all means run p..as for myself..and the others that swarm this class we are trying to get a few motors to help keep the class going..enough of my rant..hope to see you at a race soon

(Rayzerdesigns) EXACTLY my thoughts!!!

And David (Dethow), we need to REALLY think about, and not forget about, what is already the majority currently out there. We can not dismiss those guys and there setups.....please try to keep that in mind.....

[Jeff]

Oh Goodness! Doug Please don't! Not again. Take it offline. This is totally off topic, and frankly we don't need to go over this again.

Darin, Doug is only responding to Ray's claim about a TP motor in another district in another organization.
If you think this forum is only for your opinions and no one elses, you should start your own.

If there is nothing wrong with the Aquacraft 2030 motor, why does this thread even exist? I know you won't anser this question but choose to arque about everything else I posted, Oh well.

[Doby]

Really Jeff??:olleyes:

[Jeff]

Really Jeff??:olleyes:

Doby, you have tested this motor and given your actual results, I remember it was only a couple miles an hour faster. Do you agree with Ray saying it is way faster? So much faster that Darin agrees with it with out even testing one? Please indeed.

[Doby]

Yeah, about 1-2 Mph faster if I remember correctly...so what.

I was commenting on your post about this forum only being for Darin's opinions.

Pathetic...you never seem to be happy about anything...born to complain I suppose.

This thread is the first serious look at viable motor options for the class. You guys in Cheese land should be having wet dreams right about now as what you want to happen is actually happening...opening it up to more motor options. Yet even with "Doug's" motor being at the top of the potential list, you continue to complain. Does anything make you happy?

Pathetic, childish....maybe Pappa Peterson needs to discipline his kids better..

[Ken Haines]

ok guys..and gals..p limited is where it is..if we cant decide to stay within the limits of where we are..then why even try..i like the ideas of a couple motors..no..not 40mm..p limited does not need to be any faster..if you don't like the class or want to change it..why are you here trying to make your own set of rules?? this started last year..i wont state names..but he went his own direction..and that did nothing but decline racing..and if you truly want to know..im ok with current selection..a lot aren't so we are discussing a bigger motor..plain and simple..we are trying to find a few motors that are comparable to what is approved now..not faster or bigger..period..and im not trying to single you out dethow..but this is what we are trying to figure out..will p limited die off..maybe..but there are many boats and people that love this class the way it is..if you don't...don't race it..again..there has been some testing of petersons tp motor he wanted so bad..but I will tell you right now that motor is way faster than a 2030..prop to prop..boat to boat..not to mention you can prop it up..we either need to keep the current list..or add a few more that are of equal performance..period..or like darin said..leave it as it is..we are trying to be proactive in new motors..not trying to make class faster and have to many restrictions..being prop..speedo or whatever..again I will say I like the idea of tuning props and setups to get the most out of my limted boats..maybe we need to just see on here who wants to keep list the way it is..or add a few comparable ones..from sound of this thread..its to include a coule more motors..not faster...but comparable..and that can be done with testing..and seeing where it goes

Great points....well said

[Darin Jordan]

Yeah, Really Jeff.

Seems everyone 's opinions are being heard and considered here, especially when the are on topic.

If you or Doug want to once again air out your anti-NAMBA, anti-Aquacraft 2030, and anti-Darin BS, why don't YOU start a new thread or your own forum.

This thread exists to address the SUPPLY issue, and to see what might be done to continue the P-LTD power specification, in case you missed that.

Good Grief, you guys don't even race with NAMBA. Why do you even care?

[dethow]

(Rayzerdesigns) EXACTLY my thoughts!!!

And David (Dethow), we need to REALLY think about, and not forget about, what is already the majority currently out there. We can not dismiss those guys and there setups.....please try to keep that in mind.....

I get that, I really do. I just think that a few of the final choices will end up being superior to the existing ones and the majority currently out there will want to make a change/upgrade. So if the end result is them upgrading anyway... could we consider a descent upgrade. And again I'm not pushing 40mm. I'm saying that even if the TP3630 and others have a slight advantage over AQ, we should put them on the list. Let's not set the AQ 1800 or 2030 (or the Dynamite 1500) as the top bar that we're not allowed to exceed because we have to consider the ones already out there.

[dethow]

I get that, I really do. I just think that a few of the final choices will end up being superior to the existing ones and the majority currently out there will want to make a change/upgrade. So if the end result is them upgrading anyway... could we consider a descent upgrade. And again I'm not pushing 40mm. I'm saying that even if the TP3630 and others have a slight advantage over AQ, we should put them on the list. Let's not set the AQ 1800 or 2030 (or the Dynamite 1500) as the top bar that we're not allowed to exceed because we have to consider the ones already out there.

I'm really trying to reel it back in here and I'm sorry to those I offended with my 40mm motor talk. I am a team player and just want what's best to continue and promote both this hobby and NAMBA.

[T.S.Davis]

This thread existed in an effort to plan for the eventual loss of the motors that are currently legal. It had nothing, zero, nil to do with the quality of the 2030 motor. It wasn't an opportunity for yet another debate about the quality of 2030 motors. I don't even race it. Lots of us don't. There are options available that work better that are on the current list.

The idea is to maintain the current level of performance (close) without rendering everyone's existing setups obsolete. I'm not ready to tell 100's of guys racing limited that they have to replace their fleets because there might maybe could possibly be 40mm motors in RTR's. 40mm motors will be faster. The level of performance will be higher. Probably not in the RTR's which they come but in aftermarket boats for sure. Existing fleets would have to change.

If there is a demand for a 40mm P light or some such thing some day it will be obvious. They'll be leaking from our pours. We'll cross that bridge then. Right now we have I think, 27 classes we can't completely populate due to FE ADD. Adding a 40mm limited specification on top of a 36mm spec will add another 7 classes (cat, mono, hydro, sport, offshore, crackerbox, OPC, is skiff a class?) ahhhhhhhhhhhh Make it stop.

Dave, I know you're thinking we'll just be back discussing this again in "x" number of years. We will. Absolutely. That's been true since I've been racing. The rules can't last. It's not possible. This isn't fossil fuel where the concept hasn't really changed in eons. The tech grows right out from under us about every 2 years. Motors, speedo, batteries, something, this, that, the other. We're always buying time. I'm still shocked limited held up as long as it has.

[T.S.Davis]

I'm really trying to reel it back in here and I'm sorry to those I offended with my 40mm motor talk.

No worries Dave. A healthy discussion where you present your thinking and don't just try to incite a riot is always welcome.

[raptor347]

If the goal is to maintain the level of performance we currently have, the 36-50 motors should be much closer to the power output potential of the existing list motors. That's just based on claimed wattage.

From what I've heard, TP's run quite a bit cooler under the same load/conditions compared to similar kV P-ltd motors. I may be wrong, but my experience has been cooler running motors can handle more load. How much additional load can be run on the 36-60 before it fails?

[Darin Jordan]

OK, because I still seem to care, I've put my own money out in order to do some testing. Time for real, controlled environment numbers.

I have 4 new motors on order. Two 36x60 sized, and two 36x50 sized. In addition, I have several samples of several already approved motors.

I order the following:

Leopard LBP3660/5D 1900KV
TP3630-10D 1950KV

Leopard LBP3650/4Y 1840KV
TP3620-8Y 1970KV

That's the closest I could get in KV for each.

I ordered the LBP3650/4Y and the TP3630-10D from here on OSE.com

I found the LBP3660/5D seemingly in stock here: http://www.rctophobby.com/ We'll see how long it takes for delivery. Cost was $88.76 + $5.81 for shipping.

I found the TP3620-8Y at TP-USA: http://www.tppowerusa.com/index.php?route=common/home . Cost was $80.00 + $11.55 for shipping

The LBP3650/4Y was $56.99 here on OSE. NOTE on this motor: it has an 1/8" shaft. Shouldn't affect the results, as the shaft through the motor is still 5mm.

The TP3630-10D was $79.95 here on OSE, making my OSE total $159.39.

So, total is: $345.51... Good Grief! Yeah, I'm just in this for myself... RIGHT. :glare: There goes my PT Stealth in Carbon...


Obviously the OSE motors will be here first. The TP should be 2-weeks out. Lord only knows on the Leopard. Probably several weeks.

I will proceed to do some comparison tests, both 36x60 to 36x60, and 36x50 to 36x60. REAL numbers.

I will also test the AQ2030, and the last revision of the PB1800, for comparison. These are arguably the two most potent P-LTD motors that were available.

I will also DISASSEMBLE these as I see necessary to take measurements, etc. Again, REAL information for comparison.

With real numbers, we can proceed to see where P-LTD should probably go.

Stay tuned.

[Diegoboy]

Just a dumb thought.
If a specific brand of motor is causing arguments and keeping the class true to its origin (as I recall) of keeping this class competitive and affordable;
Why not limit motors by MSRP instead of brand? Say any motor $85 or less MSRP is acceptable, not actual purchase price...

Just as thought guys

[rayzerdesigns]

[QUOTE=DPeterson;640654]rayzor

Doug..not chastising u r moyor..but in testing over weekend..With eagle tree and gps..The tp motor in same boat..(Lim mono) as the 2030..same proo..same setup..The tp was almost 2mph faster..and was 25 to 35 degrees cooler..The big surprise was how many more amps it pulled..has spikes at 115..where the 2030 max spike was 87..that's a big difference..now maybe u didn't get that much difference. .but also remember our temps here in AZ are above 110 degrees..With water temps easily in upper 80s..do the cooler part was good..now back to motor..only brought a few props..started both on a m445..then decided to try a detounged x447..2030 could only do about 2 laps before temps were above 140..which is not good for that motor as we all know..The tp pulled it with ease. .amps only increased by about 5..but did see a couple spikes over 120..but it pulled it..then tried a 447 3 blade..which I knew wouldn't be good on 2030..1 lap..almost 159 degrees..so probably shot now..The tp did pull it..but not without temps in 140 range..but it did do 5 laps..And again amp spikes went up..138 max spike..so in all actuality. .it is a much better motor than a 2030..and I think it's cool your club runs it...but as a comparison to a aq 2030..nothing on paper or in comparisons in water and testing show its not better all around..it's a stout motor..but really not a fair comparison..more weight..obviously stronger. .and Def more amps..again..I do think it's okay you guys have created u r own class for it..
Ray - you keep saying this. Do you have some data you could post. This conflicts with our WI. data, conflicts with what QuiteLee reported on post 177 and again with what Greg Schweers had found and posted. Again the TP is not my motor. It was an option we found to work and kept P-Limited alive in IMPBA D4 for 2015. Otherwise the 2030 killed racing in our parts.

Here again is the WI data:

http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/...268#post595268[/QUOTe

I think the idea is

[Jeff]

Yeah, about 1-2 Mph faster if I remember correctly...so what.

I was commenting on your post about this forum only being for Darin's opinions.

Pathetic...you never seem to be happy about anything...born to complain I suppose.

This thread is the first serious look at viable motor options for the class. You guys in Cheese land should be having wet dreams right about now as what you want to happen is actually happening...opening it up to more motor options. Yet even with "Doug's" motor being at the top of the potential list, you continue to complain. Does anything make you happy?

Pathetic, childish....maybe Pappa Peterson needs to discipline his kids better..
And yet Doug and Jeff are the only ones accused of personal attacks and name calling.
Doby, do you think 1-2 miles an hour is a lot faster?
Would you be willing and have time yet this year to try and run the TP motor again and over prop it to see how it responds? I am not asking you to burn anything up so take it easy if you do.


[QUOTE=DPeterson;640654]rayzor

Doug..not chastising u r moyor..but in testing over weekend..With eagle tree and gps..The tp motor in same boat..(Lim mono) as the 2030..same proo..same setup..The tp was almost 2mph faster..and was 25 to 35 degrees cooler..The big surprise was how many more amps it pulled..has spikes at 115..where the 2030 max spike was 87..that's a big difference..now maybe u didn't get that much difference. .but also remember our temps here in AZ are above 110 degrees..With water temps easily in upper 80s..do the cooler part was good..now back to motor..only brought a few props..started both on a m445..then decided to try a detounged x447..2030 could only do about 2 laps before temps were above 140..which is not good for that motor as we all know..The tp pulled it with ease. .amps only increased by about 5..but did see a couple spikes over 120..but it pulled it..then tried a 447 3 blade..which I knew wouldn't be good on 2030..1 lap..almost 159 degrees..so probably shot now..The tp did pull it..but not without temps in 140 range..but it did do 5 laps..And again amp spikes went up..138 max spike..so in all actuality. .it is a much better motor than a 2030..and I think it's cool your club runs it...but as a comparison to a aq 2030..nothing on paper or in comparisons in water and testing show its not better all around..it's a stout motor..but really not a fair comparison..more weight..obviously stronger. .and Def more amps..again..I do think it's okay you guys have created u r own class for it..
Ray - you keep saying this. Do you have some data you could post. This conflicts with our WI. data, conflicts with what QuiteLee reported on post 177 and again with what Greg Schweers had found and posted. Again the TP is not my motor. It was an option we found to work and kept P-Limited alive in IMPBA D4 for 2015. Otherwise the 2030 killed racing in our parts.

Here again is the WI data:

http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/...268#post595268[/QUOTe

I think the idea is
Ray, was the almost 2 mph faster with the same prop you normally run? How much faster was it when you over propped it?


The reason I am asking these questions is I think in theory the TP motor should pull way more prop but it appears to not. I think it is because of the D wind and it is almost max on our esc battery set ups now. This is why I think we need on water data along with Darins evaluations on his bench tester. I suspect that the Y winds with a lower KV could be over propped and gain some speed by getting closer to 100 amp, this is what currently is being done with the 2030. I hope we could keep the speed increase to within the 5% range(or actually less).

I have some opinions on some of the discussion about the specs for the rules, if you would like I would comment on them for this discussion but only if you realize it isn't for attacks but to have rules that are more manageable.

[Darin Jordan]

I have some opinions on some of the discussion about the specs for the rules, if you would like I would comment on them for this discussion ...

I'd encourage anyone with constructive comments, thoughts, data, opinions, etc., to please contribute.


...but to have rules that are more manageable.

Sounds like we have some common ground here...



2 mph faster...

I'm a little slow on my math this morning, but I think people need to BACK OFF of being so fixated with "max speed", especially if they are only recording this with a single-point GPS system.

A more accurate measure of "same-ness" would be to record LAP TIMES. Or, better yet, to help average out that one bad lap, 6-LAP HEAT times.

This would take into effect power off the corners, acceleration, loading in the corners, AND top speed. It would give a MUCH better measure of how two setups perform against each other.

Example would be this... My P-LTD OPC Tunnel regularly runs 1:32-1:35-ish heats when I'm against the top competition. The other boats run more in the 1:40-1:42 range. HOWEVER, the next two boats are usually FASTER top speed. I give up 1-2mph in the straights with a setup that let's the boat be faster though the corners.

One motor can have more top-speed, but if it doesn't have as much torque, it'll load up more in the corners and the overall lap time would be slower.

It's knowing how this works that let me figure out pretty much immediately after bench testing the last versions of the 1500 and 1800 DYNAMITE motors that they were going to be able to do what they do. Their Idle Currents and IR showed on the bench what has been proven on the water.

I will do the same tests with both the 3660 and the 3650 sized motors, and, once I have this data in hand, we'll see where to go from there. Perhaps then on-the-water tests might help.

I honestly think that just comparing the bench testing data between these and the current motors will be quite revealing.

[Darin Jordan]

do you think 1-2 miles an hour is a lot faster?

I was able to get past my poor early morning math skills and find an online Speed Distance calculator... I can answer this question from an "on the water" perspective.

On a 1-mile course, Average Speed = Heat Time:


40 MPH = 1:30
41 MPH = 1:27.80
42 MPH = 1:25.71

So, to answer the question "is 1-2 mph a lot faster"...

YES, most certainly. 2 mph means you finish the race almost 5-seconds before the next guy.

In our local club, there are a couple of guys running the TP 3660-1950KV and their boats are noticeably "more competitive"...

[Brushless55]

See any Brushed Motors or NiMH these days?

36mm x 60mm motors are a standard size across the industry. We're not talking about a dieing technology here. RTRs don't define racing. Their power systems were convenient at the time.

We now have the formula. I say let's keep it.

You know me, I'm all about RTR boats (You won't BELIEVE what Pro Boat sent me THIS week!! :spy: ), but their inclusion in the race day needs to be handled at the club level.

Imagine, if you will, if we had pushed to have a NATIONAL class for Spec-SV27? Where would that be today??


Hmmmmmmm......

[T.S.Davis]

Darin, Tom and I will sift through our boxes of stuff and see what SSS motors we have. I know I have a couple 60mm1780 and 1950 and Tom might have a 50mm 1950 still alive. When we were trying to lead TFL towards something that would be legal we couldn't find anything that was 56mm. 60mm was too large of a can so that left us with the 50mm which in our opinion wasn't up to the task.

We'll send what ever we still have kicking around to ya My 1950 was in a pretty graphic accident but I think it's still okay. I'm still apprehensive about even considering the SSS'ss's's to be honest. The availability thing concerns me. I know we can get them but I think mass produced supply line kinda matters.

Plus (we're still just a conversifying here), I'm still not convinced that more choice is better. Choice sure but at some point the racers are trying to pick the best noodle from a bowl of spaghetti. Nuts like father Ken will just buy the whole bowl.

[LuckyDuc]

I would say that 1 - 2 mph faster averages in a 6 lap heat race is a fair assessment over the original version UL-1 2030 motor. My tests were conducted with the same prop, setup, and water conditions for these 6 lap heats using a Whiplash sport hydro plane.

Does this mean that it should be excluded for consideration... Perhaps. That is for all of you to debate and test over the next season.

I know from my own experience racing with this motor, and against it with the UL1, that the winner of the heat race won because of their driving and setup skills. It takes more the 1 -2 mph to pass someone on the outside.

The TP 3630 1950kv did not run cooler than the UL-1 however. It averaged 16 degree hotter temps on the motor leads than the UL1 with the same setup and water.

The older version UL1 motor (circa 2012) had a bit more top end speed in the straights, ran cooler, and pulled more amps on average. The timing for the UL1 was set to 10 degrees.

The TP 3630 – 1950kv motor pulled less amps than the “old” version UL1 on average, but ran hotter, had less top end speed, but averaged higher speeds overall because it carried more speed through the corners. The timing for the TP 3630 – 1950kv was set at 0 degrees timing.

I can provide the Eagle tree charts for anyone interested in seeing more details.
http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=122433&d=1414295972

[Darin Jordan]

We'll send what ever we still have kicking around to ya

Thanks, Terry, that would be fantastic.



Plus (we're still just a conversifying here), I'm still not convinced that more choice is better. Choice sure but at some point the racers are trying to pick the best noodle from a bowl of spaghetti. Nuts like father Ken will just buy the whole bowl.

I'm kind of leaning towards enough of the RIGHT choices. I'd like to see at least three manufacturers, but we'll see.



the 50mm which in our opinion wasn't up to the task.

You might be right. The current crop of motors are all listed at 36x56mm.

However, if you take a look inside, they have a LOT of room inside that can. That's why I want to take these samples apart and measure the inside.

I'm also not sure what the difference is in performance between a 4-Pole and a 6-Pole. I hope to get info to resolve that as well.

[T.S.Davis]

40 MPH = 1:30
41 MPH = 1:27.80
42 MPH = 1:25.71


To give a visual of a 5 second difference......

That's like you are entering turn 3 on your last lap and the guy ahead of you just finished......approximately.

Now that doesn't take into consideration corner speed, acceleration out of the corner, blah de, blah, de blah. Think Darin touched on that. Max speed matters sure but it ain't everything if you lose more speed to turn than the guy with more torque. All that speed doesn't win every time. I can out run anybody with my hotter P mono setup in the straights. Eventually I gotta turn and Don Huff is passing me there.

[T.S.Davis]

That's great stuff Sean.

Any idea why the variations on the 2030 motor? Max speed fluctuated and the wire temps were all over the place. Whereas the 1950 seemed to stay pretty consistent. Not a critic of the data. Just wondered if you had any ideas why the UL acted weird.

Pretty consistent average speeds for each motor. That's same prop same everything?

Did you guys try taking the 1950 up to 130+ degree ranges? I think that's where guys start to get concerned. They worry that we can take the TP up to a higher temperature without losing the motor. Some are already doing this with the existing set of motors that they know can take a little more heat. The discontinued PB1800 was a little more forgiving for example.

2 mph wont let you run around the outside of a guy but all things being equal (driver, traffic, wind, whatever) a 2mph increase in speed equates to losing by about 1 turn like I described above.

[LuckyDuc]

I’m not 100% sure why the Motor lead temp and Max speed fluctuated for the UL-1 on run #2 versus run #1 and #3. My best guess would be that the water was choppier during that heat. The temp sensor may have moved a bit too during the run.

I used my usual “Go to” heat racing prop for each test as I wanted to start with something that I was familiar with from a performance stand point. The only change that I made to the boat was the motor swap and the ESC timing. I used 10 degrees of timing for the UL1, and 0 degrees for the TP.

I didn’t personally try to prop it up to test the temp ceiling.

There is no doubt that increasing your average lap speed by 1 – 2 mph is noteworthy, but the question for those participating in this discussion is… Does this still fit within the “INTENT” of the P-Ltd class (In regards to an acceptable speed range for the class)? Some may feel that an average of 41 mph per lap is too fast, some might find it acceptable.

[Darin Jordan]

There is no doubt that increasing your average lap speed by 1 – 2 mph is noteworthy, but the question for those participating in this discussion is… Does this still fit within the “INTENT” of the P-Ltd class (In regards to an acceptable speed range for the class)? Some may feel that an average of 41 mph per lap is too fast, so might find it acceptable.

First, THANK YOU for the data, Sean... that's exactly what we need here.

Concerning the INTENT... for me, I'm not concerned about gaining or losing 1-2mph, I just want to be able to select a group of motors for "approval" that are similar enough to not have a "single" motor class. We kind of have that now, with the UL-1, and it looks like we'd have that again with the TP, were it on the list.

I know we can't get it perfect, but I think we can get it really close. Just need to figure out where that happy medium is. 3660? 3650?? 36XX ??

That's where I'm trying to figure this out.

[T.S.Davis]

Concerning the INTENT... for me, I'm not concerned about gaining or losing 1-2mph, I just want to be able to select a group of motors for "approval" that are similar enough to not have a "single" motor class. We kind of have that now, with the UL-1, and it looks like we'd have that again with the TP, were it on the list.


It may be that we find all the motors are between 2mph slower and 2 mph faster based on the application. Might be that's perfect. The more data we can gather the better.

[Darin Jordan]

Just some more data to mull over regarding the physical sizes of the current motors.



AQUG7000 (SV27) Advertised at 36x56
AQUG1800/2030 Advertised at 36x56

PRB3310/4017 (Pro Boat) Advertised at 36x50, can measures 36x53.7 overall
DYNM3835/3830 (Dynamite) Advertised at 36x50, can measures 36x56 overall


I inquired with Dynamite and had confirmed that the internals of the motor did not change in dimension with the update to the motor. They lengthened the can to help fit in the larger, 12-awg, motor leads. Rotor and Stator remained at the 36x50 size.

I'll measure again tonight, but I'm almost certain that the internals of the UL-1 and Revolt motors (2030 and 1800) internals measure the same as the Pro Boat/Dyn parts. I'll double check that.

If I'm right about that, it means the we are ALREADY running 36x50 sized motors.

I don't think anyone who has run one would claim that the DYNM3835 1500KV motor is "underpowered" for ANY of our current P-LTD hulls.

[T.S.Davis]

Darin, Tom found a pair of 50mm SSS motors to send but they're both 2080 motors. These did not fair well at all.

So we'll send you:
36x60 1950kv
36x60 1780kv
(2) 36X50 2080kv
4 calling birds
3 french hen
2 turtl..........what were we talking about?

I'll call him on the way home to see if he has anything else that we should throw at your make shift dyno. He's a junky bad as we are. Who knows what's lurking in his archive.

[Darin Jordan]

Darin, Tom found a pair of 50mm SSS motors to send but they're both 2080 motors. These did not fair well at all.

So we'll send you:
36x60 1950kv
36x60 1780kv
(2) 36X50 2080kv
4 calling birds
3 french hen
2 turtl..........what were we talking about?

I'll call him on the way home to see if he has anything else that we should throw at your make shift dyno. He's a junky bad as we are. Who knows what's lurking in his archive.

Sweet. I will text you my address this afternoon once I get out of this cave here at work. :)

[Greg Schweers]

When I tested the TP motor, I checked to see how it pulls off the corners, see how it pulls the top end, and how it comes out of the hole. The TP definitely pulls harder on the top end than the UL1. But the UL1 comes out of the hole better and pulls the turns better. If I had a choice for off shore, I'd use the UL1. I ran the TP in my Mono with a 545; it's probably the second fastest boat in the Club. So, I tried a 645, and it just couldn't pull it like the 545. Today I ran my whip with the Pro-Boat 1500 and an ABC 1915-17; the boat gps'd at 55. I'm sure it could use more prop. With a UL1 motor and the ABC 1715-17, the boat ran 57. Two days ago I tried a Turnigy SK-3 3659 1900 kv. I ran this with an H5, and it ran 56 mph. For the money ($50), this motor could be a good choice. I'll send this motor to Darrin. This year I'm running conservative on all my setups. I want to go a whole year without burning up a motor--10 races so far/0 burnt motors. Even if we have 20 motors on the list, we all know one's going to rise to the top.

[T.S.Davis]

Even if we have 20 motors on the list, we all know one's going to rise to the top.

That's true.

Sadly it may not even be the best motor. Guys are weird. They tend to think "got beat by x,y,z motor...................must...................... .obtain.......................motor x,y,z". A couple fast guys at the pond is all it takes and everyone gravitates to what ever they're running. The success some are having with the 1500's of late may have some to do with the 1500 sure but likely has more to do with the guys spending time with they're boats to find the right combination. The sweet spot.

[revoltrunner]

Sweet. I will text you my address this afternoon once I get out of this cave here at work. :)

Cave ? one of the guys sent me a pic of your office....LOL

[Darin Jordan]

Two days ago I tried a Turnigy SK-3 3659 1900 kv.

They also make this motor in TWO KVs...


Turnigy SK3 Fandrive - 3659-1900kv (90mm EDF)
Turnigy SK3 Fandrive - 3659-1600KV (90mm EDF)


Currently both in stock at Hobbyking for about $51.00.

From a Specs standpoint, it fits right in with the rest of them...

Seems like a consideration at least.

[rayzerdesigns]

And yet Doug and Jeff are the only ones accused of personal attacks and name calling.
Doby, do you think 1-2 miles an hour is a lot faster?
Would you be willing and have time yet this year to try and run the TP motor again and over prop it to see how it responds? I am not asking you to burn anything up so take it easy if you do.

[QUOTE=rayzerdesigns;640716]
Ray, was the almost 2 mph faster with the same prop you normally run? How much faster was it when you over propped it?


The reason I am asking these questions is I think in theory the TP motor should pull way more prop but it appears to not. I think it is because of the D wind and it is almost max on our esc battery set ups now. This is why I think we need on water data along with Darins evaluations on his bench tester. I suspect that the Y winds with a lower KV could be over propped and gain some speed by getting closer to 100 amp, this is what currently is being done with the 2030. I hope we could keep the speed increase to within the 5% range(or actually less).

I have some opinions on some of the discussion about the specs for the rules, if you would like I would comment on them for this discussion but only if you realize it isn't for attacks but to have rules that are more manageable.

yes jeff that was with the same m 445 prop..when I went up to the 447 it picked up another 2 mph..this was on my limited mono btw..so I went from a max of 44.6 to a max of48.9..4mph is pretty stout..and im sure with a little more tweaking on prop..or different prop,,could get a bit more

[rayzerdesigns]

That's true.

Sadly it may not even be the best motor. Guys are weird. They tend to think "got beat by x,y,z motor...................must...................... .obtain.......................motor x,y,z". A couple fast guys at the pond is all it takes and everyone gravitates to what ever they're running. The success some are having with the 1500's of late may have some to do with the 1500 sure but likely has more to do with the guys spending time with they're boats to find the right combination. The sweet spot.

might not be the easiest to find the right prop for..but potential is there..i haven't found the right prop for lsh yet..but keep trying..as for cat..well that's my baby

[Darin Jordan]

Need to know what you have before you can know where you're going.

I removed the endbell from an example of EACH of the current P-LTD motors. Will measure the stator to get a real idea of the current motor sizes. Have the rotors as well. I'll get some better pics for comparison/discussion later this weekend.

136492

136493

One thing to note, can length can be very deceiving.

[T.S.Davis]

That's what I thought. You could have a 60mm can with windings that would fit in a 45mm can. I have some motors where the wind is shorter than the can and the rotor is even shorter.

[rayzerdesigns]

I would say that 1 - 2 mph faster averages in a 6 lap heat race is a fair assessment over the original version UL-1 2030 motor. My tests were conducted with the same prop, setup, and water conditions for these 6 lap heats using a Whiplash sport hydro plane.

Does this mean that it should be excluded for consideration... Perhaps. That is for all of you to debate and test over the next season.

I know from my own experience racing with this motor, and against it with the UL1, that the winner of the heat race won because of their driving and setup skills. It takes more the 1 -2 mph to pass someone on the outside.

The TP 3630 1950kv did not run cooler than the UL-1 however. It averaged 16 degree hotter temps on the motor leads than the UL1 with the same setup and water.

The older version UL1 motor (circa 2012) had a bit more top end speed in the straights, ran cooler, and pulled more amps on average. The timing for the UL1 was set to 10 degrees.

The TP 3630 – 1950kv motor pulled less amps than the “old” version UL1 on average, but ran hotter, had less top end speed, but averaged higher speeds overall because it carried more speed through the corners. The timing for the TP 3630 – 1950kv was set at 0 degrees timing.

I can provide the Eagle tree charts for anyone interested in seeing more details.
http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=122433&d=1414295972

I didn't think of changing timing..but I run 3 degrees on 2030..so was same on tp..never changed it

[Darin Jordan]

That's what I thought. You could have a 60mm can with windings that would fit in a 45mm can. I have some motors where the wind is shorter than the can and the rotor is even shorter.

Exactly. That's why I pulled the endbells off. The AQ endbells are much thinner than the ProBoat endbells, so the OAL of the motors can be deceiving.

From what I'm seeing, we've been running with 36x50 motors this whole time.

One exception may be the SV27 motor, which is a lot stouter than I think people give it credit for. I think it might be 56mm, but I'll have to carefully measure them all to know for sure.

I think THIS is the right way to go about figuring out where this class stands.

When I show you the pics of the rotors and rotor sizes, it'll be quite revealing.

[RandyatBBY]

yes jeff that was with the same m 445 prop..when I went up to the 447 it picked up another 2 mph..this was on my limited mono btw..so I went from a max of 44.6 to a max of48.9..4mph is pretty stout..and im sure with a little more tweaking on prop..or different prop,,could get a bit more

With my SS30 I run 52MPH to 54.6MPH with a 2030 that I bought in 2009. With the current 2030 motor I can not pull the same prop but with a smaller prop I do hit 52.8MPH. And Joe Slaney burns up motor until he finds one that will pull the prop he wants and runs about 55.6MPH in a dark hores shovel.

[RandyatBBY]

Exactly. That's why I pulled the endbells off. The AQ endbells are much thinner than the ProBoat endbells, so the OAL of the motors can be deceiving.

From what I'm seeing, we've been running with 36x50 motors this whole time.

One exception may be the SV27 motor, which is a lot stouter than I think people give it credit for. I think it might be 56mm, but I'll have to carefully measure them all to know for sure.

I think THIS is the right way to go about figuring out where this class stands.

When I show you the pics of the rotors and rotor sizes, it'll be quite revealing.

Bigger rotors cause more toque and smaller rotors cause more RPM

[RandyatBBY]

Need to know what you have before you can know where you're going.

I removed the endbell from an example of EACH of the current P-LTD motors. Will measure the stator to get a real idea of the current motor sizes. Have the rotors as well. I'll get some better pics for comparison/discussion later this weekend.

136492

136493

One thing to note, can length can be very deceiving.

Very interesting! Thank you Darin for all your hard work.

[Darin Jordan]

Very interesting! Thank you Darin for all your hard work.

No problem, Randy. It's important enough to me, and my racing piers, to do this right.

I think once we understand what we already HAVE, we'll have a better idea of which direction to go, re: 36x60? 36x50? etc...

[ray schrauwen]

They also make this motor in TWO KVs...


Turnigy SK3 Fandrive - 3659-1900kv (90mm EDF)
Turnigy SK3 Fandrive - 3659-1600KV (90mm EDF)


Currently both in stock at Hobbyking for about $51.00.

From a Specs standpoint, it fits right in with the rest of them...

Seems like a consideration at least.

Thank you

[RandyatBBY]

When I tested the TP motor, I checked to see how it pulls off the corners, see how it pulls the top end, and how it comes out of the hole. The TP definitely pulls harder on the top end than the UL1. But the UL1 comes out of the hole better and pulls the turns better. If I had a choice for off shore, I'd use the UL1. I ran the TP in my Mono with a 545; it's probably the second fastest boat in the Club. So, I tried a 645, and it just couldn't pull it like the 545. Today I ran my whip with the Pro-Boat 1500 and an ABC 1915-17; the boat gps'd at 55. I'm sure it could use more prop. With a UL1 motor and the ABC 1715-17, the boat ran 57. Two days ago I tried a Turnigy SK-3 3659 1900 kv. I ran this with an H5, and it ran 56 mph. For the money ($50), this motor could be a good choice. I'll send this motor to Darrin. This year I'm running conservative on all my setups. I want to go a whole year without burning up a motor--10 races so far/0 burnt motors. Even if we have 20 motors on the list, we all know one's going to rise to the top.

Good Info. Thanks I would like to see the same thing motors for $50 that last for the year. So I can put more money in to my motor home and Keep the rolling ghetto on the road and running to races. If possible I might come up to the Nats next year. But that is another subject.

[Doug Smock]

Need to know what you have before you can know where you're going.

I removed the endbell from an example of EACH of the current P-LTD motors. Will measure the stator to get a real idea of the current motor sizes. Have the rotors as well. I'll get some better pics for comparison/discussion later this weekend.

136492

136493

One thing to note, can length can be very deceiving.

Now you're getting to the meat and taters! Exactly what we need to be looking at!

Thanks Darin.:thumbup1:

[Ken Haines]

And Joe Slaney burns up motor until he finds one that will pull the prop he wants and runs about 55.6MPH in a dark hores shovel.

That typo is pretty funny.....
Terry we could have fun with this after a few drinks
:bounce:

[madmikepags]

Hey guys how about we have a list of motors like you say, for urs mine or any club to use but for *!***!***!***!**s and giggles lets say the host club of a big event like a nationals picks a motor (from the approved list) and we have "hand out" motors?? they can pick the motor well enough in advance so you know what you're gonna get. build the price of the motor into the entry fee (if you tell any manufacturer ur gonna buy 50-100 motors and they'll give you a deal). Just a thought I haven't read this whole thread and maybe someone all ready brought this up. This is what we used to do years ago in car racing before brushless, it actually worked pretty well, the guys that knew how to tune motors well were faster, this will turn out the same way with the guys who know how to tune props, there's always someone with an advantage!!!

[Brushless55]

.. :spy:

[jaike5]

Again, to keep a level playing for the less experienced, and the new guy with his outta the box unit...... woh, let me rephrase that ! With his rtr. A stock esc of one kind or the other or both will keep the prop mods to a dull roar. Or you will have p - limiteds like Larry's with high amp hvdra's with massive cap banks and other internal mods to be able to swing outrageous prop's. his p- limited whip is really quick should be in p, and be faster than most.
Cheers, Jay.

[ray schrauwen]

Could be, not should be. He has worked that same hull for a good 5 years and his props aren't that outrageous. His ecs is rated at 120 amps from Castle. You have that same hull for n2, just pull out the motor and have at him.

[Darin Jordan]

I received the TP3660-1950 and the Leopard 3650-1840 today.

The 3660 TP definitely has WAY more copper on there. I'll get measurements once I get test data.

[jaike5]

Ray , try and be factual. the 120 hydra may be rated at that from the factory. With the mods 4 x 35v, 470 uf Rub. caps external bec with the internal bec disconnected runs 10* cooler , we all know what that means. makes for a well over the rated 120 amps, larry boasts 240 amp.

Cheers, Jay.

[Ken Haines]

Everyone,
We are all certainly aware that NAMBA and IMPBA rules differ on the P-Ltd ESC"s allowed.
I am actually not bashing IMPBA here as I understand the thinking very well.
The reason I bring this point up is that most likely IMPBA will follow suit on the motor options
being discussed here. Again, I do not have inside info here, I am only making that assumption.
(Btw...I have not spoken to Doug Smock since the Michigan Cup.....I don't even like him that much)......lol
But the thought came to me this morning..... our motors probably need to survive the AQ ESC.
Let's all ponder this for a moment.....will the TP motor burn up one of them on a standard race set-up ?
If so then this may be an issue.
Your thoughts ?

[RayR]

Ken,

As I understand it, IMPBA does not have an ESC restriction. In fact, there is no defined P-Limited class in IMPBA. The folks in D13 do have a restriction for thier defined P-Limited class.

[TRUCKPULL]

Or you will have p - limiteds like Larry's with high amp hvdra's with massive cap banks and other internal mods to be able to swing outrageous prop's. his p- limited whip is really quick should be in p, and be faster than most.
Cheers, Jay.

Jay
First lets get your facts right.
In my LSH (p limited Sport Hydro)
I run an old Castle Barracuda 80Amp ESC not the 120's that I modify for N2 & P classes
UL1 motor
Modified cut down 440/3 prop--( NOT outrageous )
and my cut down modified WIP 26 7/8" long ( I also use this hull in N2 class)

You have the same Hull that you bought from me, but don't use it for LSH ( why not??)

Larry

[Ken Haines]

Ken,

As I understand it, IMPBA does not have an ESC restriction. In fact, there is no defined P-Limited class in IMPBA. The folks in D13 do have a restriction for thier defined P-Limited class.

Then I stand corrected...thanks Ray

[jaike5]

Larry,
I know you us the same hull in N2 as lsh , that's why Ray said You just swap out the motor, don't know where the barracuda came from.... although I'm sure you have one or 5. The props you said you use are cnc props from Europe , you got me some as well. this is why we need stock esc's, along with the motors, to keep it real.
Cheers, Jay.

[Darin Jordan]

I'm sorry, and I don't want to derail this thread from its intended conversation, but there is no such thing as a "stock" ESC.

It's a flawed concept, that doesn't restrict anything, especially when the Pro Boat RTR now have 120A escs.

[Doug Smock]

Everyone,
We are all certainly aware that NAMBA and IMPBA rules differ on the P-Ltd ESC"s allowed.
I am actually not bashing IMPBA here as I understand the thinking very well.
The reason I bring this point up is that most likely IMPBA will follow suit on the motor options
being discussed here. Again, I do not have inside info here, I am only making that assumption.
(Btw...I have not spoken to Doug Smock since the Michigan Cup.....I don't even like him that much)......lol
But the thought came to me this morning..... our motors probably need to survive the AQ ESC.
Let's all ponder this for a moment.....will the TP motor burn up one of them on a standard race set-up ?
If so then this may be an issue.
Your thoughts ?

Well Ken I just barely tolerate you so I guess it's all good. :laugh::wink: I guess you don't need any shafts hardened??

Smart IMPBA clubs will be looking at what motors NAMBA is running. They know they need to make it easy on racers to crossover.

The districts that have ESC restrictions can adjust easily if they want/need to. I was able to make two phone calls and open up the Spring Nationals to any ESC when those yahoos from Michigan showed interest in attending.

FWIW I expect to see a change in the ESC language for 2016 in D13. However, I imagine there may still be a limit. We'll see in Nov.

[TRUCKPULL]

Larry,
I know you us the same hull in N2 as lsh , that's why Ray said You just swap out the motor, don't know where the barracuda came from.... although I'm sure you have one or 5. The props you said you use are cnc props from Europe , you got me some as well. this is why we need stock esc's, along with the motors, to keep it real.
Cheers, Jay.

Sorry Darin
This is my last comment to Jay here.

JAY get your facts right before you comment.
The Custom props from Europe are for N2 only NOT LSH.
My LSH props came in RAW form from OSE

Larry

[TRUCKPULL]

Darin

I have been running the (I guess the older one, Gray can with blue end bells) DYNM 1500KV motor in "P" spec MONO and Offshore
The only specs that I can find on it are
6 pole
2 turn

Can you tell me what wind it is "Y" or "D" ??
also what differences are there to the new DYNM 3835 - 1500KV ??

Dynamite also has a DYNM 3910 - 2000KV motor
Would this fit into the "P" spec class??

Larry

[jaike5]

Sorry, my bad. The aqua craft esc that ken mentioned. comes as stock/standard equipment with UL-1 rtr out of the box for spec class.

[Darin Jordan]

Hmmm... Doing some more searching...

Here is an interesting consideration from Neu that might fit.

It's 36mm x 57mm, 205g, 1850KV.

Will have to test to know:

http://neumotors.cartloom.com/shop/item/25324

http://cartloom.s3.amazonaws.com/neumotors/25324_58955048aa140bac3a05e9b2e8ce6d64_mid.png


Here is the description:


The 1410/2Y/SE is designed as a lower cost version of our popular 14XX series motors. It has a little smaller rotor diameter rotor but to makeup for that the stator is a bit longer. The Kv for this motor is 1850 with a no-load current of 1.4 amps. Weight is 205 grams. Diameter is 36.5mm and is 58mm in length. The output shaft is 5mm. We are offering a limited time special on these motors of $99. This motor is a good match for the MidiFan running 6 or 7S and drawing 60-80 amps with thrust in the 70-90oz range. The 1410/2Y also will make a prop plane move right along too with a 8x5 prop and a 3S battery it will draw 50 amps and with 7x7 prop 45 amps.

[raptor347]

50mm stator length as well.

[Darin Jordan]

Hmmm... Doing some more searching...

Here is an interesting consideration from Neu that might fit.

It's 36mm x 57mm, 205g, 1850KV.

Will have to test to know:

http://neumotors.cartloom.com/shop/item/25324

http://cartloom.s3.amazonaws.com/neumotors/25324_58955048aa140bac3a05e9b2e8ce6d64_mid.png




Price is right too! $49.99...

I inquired with Steve and he can have them made in additional winds to cover the required KVs also, though this is the only one he currently has in stock. He has over 100 of them in stock currently.

Would be nice to have another SOLID supplier available.

I've ordered one of these just now and will include them in the testing.

[ray schrauwen]

Hmmm... Doing some more searching...

Here is an interesting consideration from Neu that might fit.

It's 36mm x 57mm, 205g, 1850KV.

Will have to test to know:

http://neumotors.cartloom.com/shop/item/25324

http://cartloom.s3.amazonaws.com/neumotors/25324_58955048aa140bac3a05e9b2e8ce6d64_mid.png


Here is the description:


The 1410/2Y/SE is designed as a lower cost version of our popular 14XX series motors. It has a little smaller rotor diameter rotor but to makeup for that the stator is a bit longer. The Kv for this motor is 1850 with a no-load current of 1.4 amps. Weight is 205 grams. Diameter is 36.5mm and is 58mm in length. The output shaft is 5mm. We are offering a limited time special on these motors of $99. This motor is a good match for the MidiFan running 6 or 7S and drawing 60-80 amps with thrust in the 70-90oz range. The 1410/2Y also will make a prop plane move right along too with a 8x5 prop and a 3S battery it will draw 50 amps and with 7x7 prop 45 amps.

I've mentioned this motor numerous times and Terry thought it would not cut the mustard. I like it.

[Darin Jordan]

I've mentioned this motor numerous times and Terry thought it would not cut the mustard. I like it.

I'm working hard (and spending a LOT of $$$) in order to gather facts that will cut through any speculation.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has actually gotten INSIDE these motors (and will shortly with all these additional motors), to actually physically measure and compare.

When this exercise if finished, we'll know exactly what we are presently have, and then we'll know what might compare.

One thing that is already clear: we do NOT have 36x60mm motors... Every one of the currently approved motors have the same 31.49mm stator and are all considerably shorter than the TP3660 motor I have here. All the currently approved motors are 36x50.

[ray schrauwen]

Thank you for your hard work Darin! Several times I almost bought one of the NEU's but, balked. I'll test the SK3-1900kv motor I have.

----

The SK3 can't be taken apart unless people know more than me. I can still measure the rotor length and field length.

[ray schrauwen]

Turnigy SK3-1900kv

Rotor length 39.6mm

Winding length 46mm

4 poles

D wind

35.8mm Can OD

60mm exterior Length

This motor is packed with copper compared to an AQ 2030, 1800 or PB motors I've had.

[rayzerdesigns]

keep us updated darin...

[RandyatBBY]

Thank you for your hard work Darin! Several times I almost bought one of the NEU's but, balked. I'll test the SK3-1900kv motor I have.

----

The SK3 can't be taken apart unless people know more than me. I can still measure the rotor length and field length.

Most times the end bell is glued on. Hold the motor in your hand and tap firmly on the shaft it will come off. Then put the motor back together and carefully drill and tap threw the can to the end bell.

[ray schrauwen]

Most likely Randy. I don't want to take it apart unless I really need to. If I tap out the end bell it may damage the bearings.

[Darin Jordan]

Turnigy SK3-1900kv

Rotor length 39.6mm

Winding length 46mm

4 poles

D wind

35.8mm Can OD

60mm exterior Length

This motor is packed with copper compared to an AQ 2030, 1800 or PB motors I've had.

Ray,

Greg Schweers is going to send me one of these motors to add to the test pile.

[rayzerdesigns]

I agree with testing..they need to be equal..or very close to it..be thankful we font have the legality testing that we do on the car side..here is a pic from motor tech at roar nationals this past week in california

[Doby]

I agree with testing..they need to be equal..or very close to it..be thankful we font have the legality testing that we do on the car side..here is a pic from motor tech at roar nationals this past week in california

If it ever gets that anal in the FE world, I'm outta racing...:doh:

[raptor347]

If it ever gets that anal in the FE world, I'm outta racing...:doh:

It's probably the most even and fair racing in RC. Lot's more people involved and many fewer classes.

[Doby]

Probably true...but really, to what extent do you take things before it becomes "not fun" and more of a PITA for the race organizers and competitors. Toy boats...toy boats.....

[raptor347]

Not arguing. It's the big sanctioned races need that level of scrutiny. Some of the problem comes from the technology available in FE. It's easier to stray outside the lines with what is available today. You have to be pretty creative to cheat in most of the IC classes, it usually requires a conscious choice to combine parts that will put you outside the rules.

With regards to FE inspection:
For club races, no real need unless there's a problem with cheating in a particular club.
Nationals, probably should but usually don't.
Time trials, definitely.

Honestly, it's with regards to record trials and records where we hear "was it a legal setup?"or it was "special team motors". Even then, it's online afterwords by non-participants, not at the event.

[rayzerdesigns]

its still fun racing..its a pre qualifying racing inspection..then motors are sealed...it makes for very even and close racing..top 10 qualifiers in stock were all within 3 seconds over a 5 minute round..cant get much closer than that

[Doug Smock]

Honestly, it's with regards to record trials and records where we hear "was it a legal setup?"or it was "special team motors". Even then, it's online afterwords by non-participants, not at the event.

IIRC all of the noise stemmed from the lack of answers when asked about the procedure for technical inspection of the limited motors. I imagine the noise makers that are still interested (if any) will continue to have questions unless there is a clear procedure technical inspections adopted.

Darin is collecting some internal data now. I imagine putting some of that in the rule book would be a good start. Or, we can keep doing what is being done and expect more of the same.

Just my .02 FWIW

[Darin Jordan]

IIRC all of the noise stemmed from the lack of answers when asked about the procedure for technical inspection of the limited motors. I imagine the noise makers that are still interested (if any) will continue to have questions unless there is a clear procedure technical inspections adopted.

Darin is collecting some internal data now. I imagine putting some of that in the rule book would be a good start. Or, we can keep doing what is being done and expect more of the same.

Just my .02 FWIW

OR we just eliminate P-LTD from record eligibility.

[T.S.Davis]

OR we just eliminate P-LTD from record eligibility.

Do you have any idea how much hand wringing this would make go away? I would support this 100%.

[Fluid]

IIRC all of the noise stemmed from the lack of answers when asked about the procedure for technical inspection of the limited motors. I imagine the noise makers that are still interested (if any) will continue to have questions unless there is a clear procedure technical inspections adopted....It goes back far longer than that, and it is not just with record trials. At the 1996 APBA FE Nats one team was beating everyone, so the losers started the rumor that the winning team was running 14 NiCd cells in the 12-cell classes. No tech was performed, so the rumor flooded the hobby, and the team quit racing a few years later.

At the 1997 FE Nats one entrant in N-1 (stock 05 ROAR motor) ran away from the rest of the field in two classes, and after the event everyone said the guy had illegal motors. But without any tech inspection no one knew for sure, and the guy's name was smeared even by folks who had never been to a race. He left the hobby.

At the 1998 Nats I ran the tech inspections on the N-1 motors, with help from the ROAR Technical Director. At that time the only way to tech a motor was to tear it down, so the winners' motors were unwound, the wire measured and the turns counted. This added $30 to the cost of winning those classes, but it eliminated any unfair name-calling by anyone.

People will cheat, I have seen it several times at National events, but most do not. Without a tech inspection some people will always assume the winner won because he/she cheated.

.

[Darin Jordan]

Do you have any idea how much hand wringing this would make go away? I would support this 100%.

Yes. :beerchug:

[Darin Jordan]

Without a tech inspection some people will always assume the winner won because he/she cheated.

.

Let's not kid ourselves... even WITH tech inspection, people will always assume that the winner cheated. Lance Armstrong proves that case. :)


All that said, I can't think of anyone who holds a current SAW record for P-LTD that has, or frankly WOULD, cheat to get that record. Several have been drawn to participating in the SAW events BECAUSE of the P-LTD classes also. It would be a shame to reduce that participation again because of the paranoia of a few.

Just because YOU (generally speaking "you"... not YOU, Jay. :wink:) can't make a P-LTD motor go that fast, doesn't mean it can't be done. That's a HARD concept for many people to grasp.

IF it gets to unwinding motors, etc., then yes, let's just make them NOT record eligible. Even ROAR doesn't do this any longer. I have a Gauss meter, as well as a motor checker that can measure the resistance of each phase on a motor. Destruction of motors shouldn't be necessary.

[T.S.Davis]

Just because YOU (generally speaking "you"... not YOU, Jay. :wink:) can't make a P-LTD motor go that fast, doesn't mean it can't be done. That's a HARD concept for many people to grasp.


WHAT! You mean I can't just buy all the same stuff as you and get the exact same speed!?!? WTH!

I've actually reached the point myself that when someone asks "what prop do you have on that?" and I hesitate. Not because I don't want to share but because I know what I did to it and I don't know why someone is asking. The prop that I butchered and run loose as a goose on what ever boat might not translate to someone running a wet/hoppy/turn heavy/etc/etc setup. They throw the same prop on their boat and fr'shizzle.

I know everyone rips the Fine's but many moons ago at a Cup Chris pulled me aside to let me know he was going to cheat in Q offshore. Think it was Q....... He wanted to make sure we caught him. It was the first time we'd seen Lipo raced. No rumors that time. That was just flat out true.

I hate the rumor mill. The internet has made it even easier to spread lies and paranoia. The conspiracy theories wear me out.

[raptor347]

OR we just eliminate P-LTD from record eligibility.

We discussed doing it that way when the original rules were proposed, but some felt that not allowing records wouldn't be right/fair (can't remember the wording). I still think making them eligible was a mistake from the beginning.

And I agree with Terry, I'd support that change. Clean the slate, erase the records and move on. Disallow records for 1/10 scale also since the power is a subgroup of p-ltd motors. I think I hold eight of those p-ltd/10th records and I'll be the first to toast their demise.

Less drama for those that run/tech at the time trials.

[raptor347]

Terry,
I know how you feel. When was the last time I recommended a prop online?
That's right, 65mph stock UL-1 with a prop change at the SAWs. What do they do; try to run the same prop for 5 min and burn up a bunch of parts.

I got a LOT of nasty pm's for that! How dare I tell people what I ran, I should have more sense than that.

[Darin Jordan]

I've actually reached the point myself that when someone asks "what prop do you have on that?" and I hesitate.

I don't hesitate at all any more... I simply don't answer that question. It's safer that way.



We discussed doing it that way when the original rules were proposed, but some felt that not allowing records wouldn't be right/fair (can't remember the wording). I still think making them eligible was a mistake from the beginning.

Yes, me too...


And I agree with Terry, I'd support that change. Clean the slate, erase the records and move on. Disallow records for 1/10 scale also since the power is a subgroup of p-ltd motors. I think I hold eight of those p-ltd/10th records and I'll be the first to toast their demise.

Less drama for those that run/tech at the time trials.

Yup... I'd support it too, and I think I hold 2 of them.

BUT, what would they accuse us of cheating with then??

[T.S.Davis]

Terry,
When was the last time I recommended a prop online?


I noticed. I cringe on those occasions where you spill one. I once ran with a prop size you had posted. Didn't work for me. Wasn't a power/heat issue though. The boat I was running just didn't like the prop you found worked for your boat.

I recently ran a starting point prop size by Darin for an N2 boat. I'm already 3mm over his guess. The boat wont take any more blade so next I'll bust out the salad spoons until I find the sweet spot.

[T.S.Davis]

BUT, what would they accuse us of cheating with then??

No worries man. HV cells are showing up more and more. I figure we have about a year before they're the only cells. You can be accused of something with those.

[madmikepags]

I don't need to cheat, I'm the best

[properchopper]

"All that said, I can't think of anyone who holds a current SAW record for P-LTD that has, or frankly WOULD, cheat to get that record. Several have been drawn to participating in the SAW events BECAUSE of the P-LTD classes also. It would be a shame to reduce that participation again because of the paranoia of a few."

Thanks Darin. Exactly so for me.

I wouldn't know how to cheat even if I wanted to. Besides my friends from "up the coast" provide me with all the gofast inspiration I need.

AND

Frankly the LTD SAW class is in my affordable zone and allows me to participate. The next class up is a quantum leap dollar-wise for me and not do-able..

[Darin Jordan]

Frankly the LTD SAW class is in my affordable zone and allows me to participate. The next class up is a quantum leap dollar-wise for me and not do-able..

THAT is the part that makes me TRY to figure out ways to satisfy the nay-sayers as far as tech'ing goes so that people CAN participate. Not sure where the happy medium is.

[RandyatBBY]

I like the Idea of no records for P LTD. I really like the $49.00 Neu motor too. Proper Chopper is spot on for my interest, Running the P open class has stretched my budget a little and doing two open class's is too much. But I do run four P LTD's.

[Doug Smock]

I remember a record trial in Valdosta where Jerry Crowther broke the IMPBA Thunderboat SAW record. Jerry pulled the engine out and brought it over to my pits for inspection. (Stock Zenoah G26O PUM)
There was a racer there watching me and said "Man your tearing down JERRY CROWTHER'S engine"? I said yes it's the rule. He said "So you think he's cheating"? I said no. The inspection is to prove that he's not!
The inspection includes 12 measurements among other things. It is a royal pain in the butt. Especially when you have several of them at a RT.

The IMPBA N Stock and Super Stock classes are a pain as well. All of those motors are sent to the Nat. FE Dir. for inspection and use ROAR spec.

The P Limited class is a challenge no doubt!

I know your wheels are turning Darin, what are you thinking?

[T.S.Davis]

Not having records doesn't really cure the accusation station people. They'll still have in their collective holsters "you won race x,y,z because you used an illegal motor". Has to be tech-able to shut these people down.

Maybe I'm still sore over being accused in the past of corruption. The conspiracy theorists aren't interested in having any faith in their fellow man. They already believe the rules were written to appease specific racers. Believing that those checking the motors at any and all events are simply in on the cheat isn't a stretch for them.

Doug checked Crowther's motor. The book said he was supposed to. The true nut bags would just say Doug was in on keeping Crowther at the top. There's really no cure for these types. We probably all need to just accept that. Me especially.

[jaike5]

Don't be bummed Terry, every man has his price..... for you we all know two bags of gummy bears, and a bag of double bubble, and your bought and payed for.

Cheers, Jay.

[Doby]

I've bought Terry for even less...

[TRUCKPULL]

I've bought Terry for even less...

John
Your web site does not work any more??

Larry

[T.S.Davis]

I've bought Terry for even less...

Oh sure one doughnut and now you own me!? Yer not the boss of me.

[Darin Jordan]

Just got notification that the 36x50 TP motor I ordered is on the way.

Once it gets here I'll start testing on the motors I have here.

Hoping to get anot her Leopard or two and some SSS motors to try, but I'll proceed with what I have. That may establish some baseline parameters to help guide us.