PDA

View Full Version : P-Limited Motors - Im going to jump on the hot seat.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Steven Vaccaro
08-21-2015, 08:49 AM
Please give me the pros and cons of a rule similar to this.

A max kv and max weight on a motor. Local clubs races would be able to self regulate and when it comes to bigger events, a kv checker and scale would be used.

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 11:27 AM
For the sake of discussion, here is a staring point for a motor specification:


Specs:
Can Measures: 36mm diameter x 58mm long (perhaps allow to 60mm, which seems to be a standard)
Poles: 4 pole (perhaps allow 4 OR 6 Pole)
Weight: 252 Grams (That's without water jacket. Perhaps allow up to 260 Grams)
Max KV: 2050


Perhaps people would be willing start gathering a list of motors to post in this thread that are close to these specs, and those motors could then be discussed and compared.

A prudent way to manage the class would be to get an initial list of motors together and make them official... re: part of the rulebook. Pretty much how we have P-LTD now.

Then, perhaps before each season or National event or ???, any new motors that come up could be considered, discussed, voted on, and added to the list... Should be pretty cut and dried if the specs are setup correctly, and shouldn't require too much controversy.

I think the level of power we've been running is great and provides a very nice level of competitiveness and excitement, so pushing that bigger doesn't make a lot of sense. We have the "Open" motor classes if you need a new thrill.

I think I just got myself involved deeper than I should have, but with our club hosting the Nats in 2016, I think someone from our club needs to be concerned about this. I'll start the ball rolling.

Ready, Set, GO! :hide:

RandyatBBY
08-21-2015, 11:50 AM
I am really interested in finding a real cheap end result but it is tough. Dougs P's TP 1950Kv motor is one I would like to see added. I will add more as I find them. thanks guys.

Doby
08-21-2015, 11:52 AM
Well, as the current batch of AQ (gold and blue) and older Proboat motors (blue and grey?) would be obviously grandfathered in, the first one that comes to mind obviously would be the (sorry Darrin) TP motor the cheese-heads have been using. Test results from a few people, myself included would seem to indicate that it is pretty close in all aspects.

By the way Darin, when did you start working for Target?

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 12:02 PM
the first one that comes to mind obviously would be the (sorry Darrin) TP motor the cheese-heads have been using.

Hence, the suggested starting point specs... :beerchug:

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 12:12 PM
you know you could throw away all the motors if you would just spec max RPM/v say 2200 and spec a prop. Like. a 445 or M445. Use any motor you want. Why would a NEU or Lehner or any other cheaper brand be any different with a max KV? Argument solved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RandyatBBY
08-21-2015, 12:29 PM
Howard this/your idea is a little too radical. but it would get a motor like this one if the length was expanded a little.
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__75373__Turnigy_XK_3665_2100KV_Brushless_Inrunner .html
and real cheap at $32.00

ray schrauwen
08-21-2015, 01:21 PM
Since we are going down the HK road. I like this: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19110__Turnigy_SK3_Fandrive_3659_1900kv_90mm_EDF _.html

It has skewed windings similar to a NEU or HET. Very smooth 4 pole motor. I have one and I should give it a go. People have pushed it on 6s and find it's pretty tough.

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 01:27 PM
Since we are going down the HK road. I like this: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19110__Turnigy_SK3_Fandrive_3659_1900kv_90mm_EDF _.html

It has skewed windings similar to a NEU or HET. Very smooth 4 pole motor. I have one and I should give it a go. People have pushed it on 6s and find it's pretty tough.

That definitely physically fits within the specs above.


Turnigy SK3 Fandrive - 3659-1900kv
Kv(rpm/v) 1900
Weight (g) 249
Length B (mm) 60
Diameter C (mm) 36
Can Length (mm) 35

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 01:47 PM
Howard this/your idea is a little too radical. but it would get a motor like this one if the length was expanded a little.
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__75373__Turnigy_XK_3665_2100KV_Brushless_Inrunner .html
and real cheap at $32.00

For reference in this discussion, here are the motor specs for Randy's suggestion:


Turnigy XK-3665 2100KV Brushless Inrunner

Kv(rpm/v) 2100
Weight (g) 275
Length B (mm) 65
Diameter C (mm) 36
Can Length (mm) 60

RaceMechaniX
08-21-2015, 02:33 PM
This is going to be a touchy subject. The biggest problem I see is no matter which motor you stick in the boat we are all going to push the motors to the limit and eventually to failure. In the non-limited classes you can go as wild as the hardware available will allow. The racer will find the best compromise between power, hull weight, set-up, prop, etc to make a combo work. I don't think anyone complains about someone having an unfair advantage in the non-limited classes.

I think we can all agree the motor is the limiting factor in the ltd classes. I would prefer to see current limiters used in line, say 75A and any motor/ESC combo allowed. This greatly reduces failures while allowing freedom to use different motors. I know this topic has been discussed at length previously.

TG

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 02:34 PM
Why Not a 1521 Neu/ its only 1860kv.... With a 445 you would never blow it up. Save you the cost of 3 AQ2030 Motors.
Wouldn't be my choice to Heavy. My choice would be.1515/1y....Never blow that up either with a 445...
A Leopard 4072/2200 or a Leopard 4082/2200...Would save tons of money over time. I know TP and Many others make 2200 and below KV Motors. Heck why not a Lehner 1950/6 or 7....Big Money but would last FOREVER!

I got out of the Spec game because it was costing a fortune in Bad Motors.....******Spec The Prop!*****

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 02:35 PM
This is going to be a touchy subject. The biggest problem I see is no matter which motor you stick in the boat we are all going to push the motors to the limit and eventually to failure. In the non-limited classes you can go as wild as the hardware available will allow. The racer will find the best compromise between power, hull weight, set-up, prop, etc to make a combo work. I don't think anyone complains about someone having an unfair advantage in the non-limited classes.

I think we can all agree the motor is the limiting factor in the ltd classes. I would prefer to see current limiters used in line, say 75A and any motor/ESC combo allowed. This greatly reduces failures while allowing freedom to use different motors. I know this topic has been discussed at length previously.

TG

No Motor failures if you limit the prop!

RaceMechaniX
08-21-2015, 02:38 PM
Howard,
Would you propose a specific spec prop like the 445 or any 45mm prop?

TG

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 02:40 PM
Easy to check too: All you need is a Tachometer. Any More than 30K at the prop on dry land and it is disqualified. (I am not sure what voltage to use for a charged 4s pack)

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 02:43 PM
Specific Prop and Pitch. Octura X445 or M445.... (only balanced no pitching an tweeking)
Octura x445
Diameter: 1.77"
Total Pitch: 1.4x1.77=2.478" (For guys that don't know a prop is like a gear. Every rotation is going to move the boat 2.478" approx. There is slip in there and that is were tuning comes in.)

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 03:02 PM
Specific Prop and Pitch. Octura X445 or M445.... (only balanced no pitching an tweeking)
Octura x445
Diameter: 1.77"
Total Pitch: 1.4x1.77=2.478" (For guys that don't know a prop is like a gear. Every rotation is going to move the boat 2.478" approx. There is slip in there and that is were tuning comes in.)

Only one prop allowed? Monos, Cats, Hydros, Sport Hydros, OPC Tunnels?? One prop?

Doby
08-21-2015, 04:30 PM
Notice the topic was P-Limited motors...now we are on to props....didn't take long to go down a different tangent...

T.S.Davis
08-21-2015, 04:31 PM
I have a question. Not an answer. Just food fer the nogg'n.

First a waltz down memory lane......haha

Anybody remember LSH or LSO?

Here's how it went..........we all already owned 700 motors. There were a variety available. We thought we had it figured out. We wanted to be inclusive and not committed to any one manufacturer. For fairness sake. We didn't want to exclude any suppliers or manufacturers. There were choices. All seemed good in the world. Group hug. Little kiss for the monkey. Then someone figured out how to have motors manufactured that were just a tick better. They looked just like 700 motors, smelled like em, sounded like em but not quite the same. Higher rpm with less heat. The SS1 wasn't the only choice but it was the only motor you could have if you wanted to win.

Then brushless RTR's came along. Guys started running them in their old LSH and LSO boats. And why not? They were faster, ran cooler, and were just more fun. But to get even close with a legal 700 motor you killed it. Those of us clinging to the 700's because they were in the book were ridiculed by the cool kids. About 2008 everyone was starting to do it. It was cool that an RTR guy could show and run. They absolutely did. No way around it. Our club is filled with them. By the end of summer 2008 the 700 was a mere memory. So the spec had to be burned into the book somehow. LSH and LSO were history. We had good intentions.

We thought we had it figured out. We wanted to be inclusive and not committed to any one manufacturer. For fairness sake. We didn't want to exclude any suppliers or manufacturers. There were choices. All seemed good in the world. Sensing a recurring theme? The spec attempted to include the two most popular sources for RTR motors. ProBoat and Aquacraft. For what ever reasons Proboat has moved on from their early offerings and Aquacraft has moved on from it's talent gene pool. The AQ line of motors is still available. Wild speculation for any of us to venture even a guess if that will always be the case.

My point is..........thought I'd never get there didn't ya.

All this effort we've put into not committing to a single motor has done jack for us. We ended up in the same damned spot. Motors in question again. Where are we going? Those motors suck why did we go with those? Everyone has a favorite they want included. Arguing about it for a year. Heck, friendships wrecked over it.

Sooooo.........What if?..... we just settled on a single motor and ran with it? A TP3630, or some Leopard, or even a Neu if the price was right? We ain't ROAR. We're not going to get a bunch of manufacturers attention and get them to produce what we want. We can't even get BOAT manufacturers to produce what they already make consistently. If we came up with a 10 motor list, who's to say the HK motor wont suddenly be made with bearing "x,y,z" because they got a hot deal on some ABEC 5's? They don't care about FE and care even less about our tiny racing niche.

Maybe if we went to a company like Neu and said......make us "this" and we'll buy a poop ton of them we could get a good motor that's comparable in performance to a 2030 that will last a decade. 36mmx60mm, 6 pole, 10 gauge wire, under $85 and tell him to expect to sell at least a 100 in the first batch. Keep allowing the current list but the as the old stuff disappears, what ever, we'll already for that next gen.

I just am tired of the bickering over them. A reliable source, quality motor, at a decent price.......done.

photohoward1
08-21-2015, 04:31 PM
Yep. One prop. The ultimate limiting factor. Evens the playing field. Obviously different motor have different watt ratings so limiting the RPM and. the pitch is the magic key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 05:13 PM
Maybe if we went to a company like Neu and said......make us "this" and we'll buy a poop ton of them we could get a good motor that's comparable in performance to a 2030 that will last a decade. 36mmx60mm, 6 pole, 10 gauge wire, under $85 and tell him to expect to sell at least a 100 in the first batch. Keep allowing the current list but the as the old stuff disappears, what ever, we'll already for that next gen.

I just am tired of the bickering over them. A reliable source, quality motor, at a decent price.......done.

That's how Classic Thunder has done their 1/10th Scales for years. They do their homework, select a motor to use, and that's the motor everyone uses. They have changed them from year to year (every couple of years or ???), but generally use the same stuff for a couple of seasons.

If NAMBA spec'd a single, quality, appropriately sized motor, and leave everything else alone (any hull, prop, etc.), that would appeal to me as a racer. Would definitely be a "Limited Spec Class"... :) Let's face it, we kind of have that concept right now (AQ2030)...

The motor offering could be revisited at such a time that supply dries up and another motor selected.

Something worth discussing.

If that would sustain or continue to grow the class, and would also keep us from beating the crap out of each other, I'm for it. I don't want to post... I want to race. But I want the racing to be fair and fun.

T.S.Davis
08-21-2015, 05:28 PM
If the motor had some sort of tamper resistant construction, teching them would become non existent.

JimClark
08-21-2015, 05:45 PM
Couldn't each club do that at the beginning of the year? You bring a motor in sealed box and put some kind sticker that would have to be damaged to tear the motor apart. you check each race to make sure the seal is not tampered with?


If the motor had some sort of tamper resistant construction, teching them would become non existent.

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 05:46 PM
Couldn't each club do that at the beginning of the year? You bring a motor in sealed box and put some kind sticker that would have to be damaged to tear the motor apart. you check each race to make sure the seal is not tampered with?

Jim,

How does Classic Thunder "tech" their motors, or do they even bother?

ray schrauwen
08-21-2015, 05:47 PM
The one I posted, 1900kv EDF motor is not a type of motor that you can disassemble easily at all. No screws anywhere. I found a cooler for mine and I'm going to solder it up, put it in my PTSS and see how it does vs Doby's Popeye powered by TP. We'll duke it out in a month at the Wellesley butter festival.... Those kinky Mennonites!! lol...


If the motor had some sort of tamper resistant construction, teching them would become non existent.

JimClark
08-21-2015, 05:52 PM
I don't think they do. They just spec out the exact motor to use

Jim,

How does Classic Thunder "tech" their motors, or do they even bother?

Heath M
08-21-2015, 06:11 PM
Here's what our rule for restricted/limited is
EA RESTRICTED MONO-
Hull--Mono (No Steps) as per AMPBA SECTION 7.2.2
Motor--700 brushed, Proboat A3630-1500 Part Number-(PRB3310)/(DYNM3835), Aquacraft L36/56 Part Number-(AQUG7000).(There is no rpm per volt rating after the motor identification numbers on this aquacraft motor).
Battery--up to 12 x Sub-C NiMH cells or 4S lipo (up to 650 grams maximum)
Speed Controller--Any brushed controller, Proboat Brushless 45 amp Part Number-(PRB3309), Aquacraft Marine Brushless 45 amp, Part Number-(AQUM7005 or AQUM7010).
These Motors and Speed Controllers are the only ones to be used in this class, if in doubt please ask the Committee for confirmation before purchasing.
Motor and Speed Controller are available for purchase from club.

raptor347
08-21-2015, 07:26 PM
Specs:
Can Measures: 36mm diameter x 60mm
Poles: 4 pole (perhaps allow 4 OR 6 Pole)
Weight: 252 Grams (That's without water jacket. Perhaps allow up to 260 Grams)
Max KV: 2050

I'd support this in a heartbeat. Run anything that fits those limits. One motor goes out of production or quality goes out the window and you're free to replace it with something else that fit the specs.

What's the heaviest water jacket that's commonly used?

DPeterson
08-21-2015, 09:35 PM
Bad mistake tying rules to Manufacturers. Short sighted. Short lived. Try and learn from this. Tried to express this many times.

It would be another mistake to tie rules to manufacturer specs. All this is, is a set of numbers on paper. Some are legit, some are just marketing, and there is no standard method of testing across the manufacturers.

Listen for once - Establish a 3 or 5 person Tech committee. Get representation from the East, West, Midwest etc. The motors have to be tested on the water with data logging. This is the only way to try and match up the performance as close as you can get it. All persons in the Tech committee must be independent of any suppler. The Tech committee then reports their findings on each motor requested to be analyzed for consideration. If the 3 or 5 person Tech committee shows that a particular motor is matched up with the current performance parameters we are looking for in a Spec boat it then can go to a vote. It's not rocket science. Us dumb cheese heads already done it.

I still think there is merit in a prop spec. Albeit diameter only. 45mm or 46mm max limit. Turn a pipe with an ID measurement. Easy to check. Your P-Limited prop had better fit into the pipe. This still allows tweeking of props that we all enjoy doing.

Take more time and try not to make more mistakes this time around. Cleaning up these messes are difficult once they happen.

Doug

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 10:42 PM
Returning to the threads topic, as I drove home today and thought of the options, I decided that the proper thing to do, in my opinion, is to define a dimensional limitation, and, if people feel it's necessary, an upper KV limit, and simplify the rules once and for all.

As I originally suggested above:

Proposed P-Limited Motor Specs:


MAX Motor Dimensions: 36mm Diameter x 60mm Length without water jacket
Maximum Weight: 260 Grams without water jacket (Include contacts??)
Poles: 4 or 6 poles allowed
Max KV: 2050
SENSORLESS, FIXED Timing motors only. No Sensored motors allowed.



Let me lay out my reasoning for this, and then I think I'll drop off this topic for awhile and let you all have your say.


1) The physical dimensions are EASILY verifiable with simple measuring equipment. Manufacturers specs would be for reference only.

2) These physical dimensions are WIDELY available from about every manufacturer, in all price ranges.

3) These physical dimensions are equivalent to the current P-LTD motors on the list.

4) Motors of this size would NOT make the current motors obsolete and would be equivalent in performance, protecting existing investments while allow an endless supply of available motors.

5) Maximum Weight is, again EASILY verified. by removing the water jacket and weighing. I would keep the water jacket out of the equation to prevent people from maximizing the motor weight by minimizing the water jacket in order to slip in a heavier motor.

6) This weight is, again, equivalent to the currently allowed motors.

7) The 4 or 6 Pole allowance makes available a wide range of motors.

8) The 4 or 6 Pole allowance keeps the performance of the motors similar, while allowing for options to help suit different setups.

9) The QUALITY of the motor and it's durability will no longer be a concern. It will become the responsibility of the competitor to decide how much quality they want. Cost won't be an issue, so if you want an inexpensive Chinese motor, that's your choice. If you want a better quality motor, that's an option as well. Performance of each will still be within an acceptable performance range, just like the current list of motors (PB1800 vs. AQ1800, for example).

10) Rules will NO LONGER be tied to MANUFACTUR'S or BRANDs. No part numbers need to be listed, quality won't be an issue, supply won't be an issue. Again, if will fall on the competitor to decide. If the motor fits the spec, it's allowed.

11) The Rules will NOT NEED TO BE REVISED AGAIN. Once you establish a spec, the discussion is OVER. Much like the Nitro engine rules, the dimensions are what they are. Go race! New motor comes out that fits the dimensions, there is no question as to it's legality if it fits the spec.

12) KV Upper Limit only will allow the racer to choose where the "sweet spot" is for their particular hull/motor combination. This also would be beneficial for Offshore setups, Hydros, etc., where one might work better on 1500KV, while the other works better at 2050KV.

13) Allowing any KV up to a limit protects people's current investments in hulls/hardware, etc., as, again, the competitor can choose the appropriate KV for their particular setup.

14) KV is easily verified with readily available KV checkers.



I'm sure there are other arguments for, and likely some against, defining the power system in this manner. It's all worth discussing.

At this point, unless someone can give me an argument against this type of motor specification, this is the direction I would support.

Thank you for considering my opinion. I'll look forward to hearing the thoughts of others.

Doby
08-21-2015, 11:10 PM
So does anyone really care to argue with the reasoning Darin has listed? It sounds just about a simple as it can get, excludes no manufactures and gives everyone options to tune their boats with.

Its about as common sense as it can be without overly complicating things.

Well stated Darin.

Darin Jordan
08-21-2015, 11:14 PM
I'm sorry, I forgot one more thing:


Proposed P-Limited Motor Specs:



MAX Motor Dimensions: 36mm Diameter x 60mm Length without water jacket
Maximum Weight: 260 Grams without water jacket (Include contacts??)
Poles: 4 or 6 poles allowed
Max KV: 2050
SENSORLESS, FIXED Timing motors only. No Sensored motors allowed.


I would NOT allow sensored motors or adjustable end-bell timing. Both, easily verified.

raptor347
08-21-2015, 11:31 PM
I'm in, who wants to write the proposal?

T.S.Davis
08-21-2015, 11:34 PM
We did this with N2 Sport at the club level. 2 pole, max kV, max can size. It worked. Sort of. Until some of us found Lehner motors that fit the spec. Tough to compete with a Lehner when youre running a $50 Fiegao. We just got tired of high amp boats that were hard to finish with.

I would love to know how this "intimidation" thing works and who the "NAMBA brass" is. Is that Robert Holland or maybe Fred? He's the only FE guy I know that sits on the BOD.

T.S.Davis
08-22-2015, 12:19 AM
Neither organization is built to make rules by commity. How would you choose the panel of experts? Appointment? Election? Straws?

I'll think on Darin's idea. Does it need an MSRP limit as well?

I do dread the thought of KV checking a 100 or more entries at a race.

raptor347
08-22-2015, 12:30 AM
I just like the fact that it silences the poor quality complaints and removes any manufacturer ties. Those are the two common complaints that have been the load stones of this debate.

The RTR manufacturers are beginning to install motors that fall outside the existing rules, so they may not be in the picture for long anyway.

Run what ever level of quality you want as long as it fits the specs. Motors can come in and out of production and it won't matter, move on to the next motor that's within spec. No seasonal debates, no changing part numbers, no board of motor experts.

raptor347
08-22-2015, 12:40 AM
Put a $150 cap on them. That keeps the Lehners, Neus, Hackers, Kontroniks, Megas etc. out of the mix but allows just about any asian alternative you'd care to run.

rayzerdesigns
08-22-2015, 02:33 AM
its funny that everyone has a different opinion on this subject.i do think there are variables to just havng a can size limit..though I do agree with being sensorless only...again its going to come down to the fact we are going to push the limits on any approved motor..dougs variable included..obviously there is a concern..but what happens when this comes up again because we are burning up those motors..some are going to be better than others..i don't agree at all with a spec prop..that wont work on every hull..and different limited classes..i agree with tyler on the fact that it can be limited through a amp draw,,say 75 amp..but that also has its drawbacks..i have been doing a lot of testing this year..and have stepped away from the 2030s..not that I didn't like them..but I have exclusively gone the way of the dynamite 1500s..and those that have seen my boats wont think they are slow..i have on average picked up 2 to 5 mph over my 2030 setups..and at nats this year had 2 boats thar came in repeatably over 150 degrees..no burnt wires or anything..but enough of that rant..i don't agree with a 150 dollar or even a 100 dollar price..we all need to maybe sit down and figure it out..and again..it will never change unless it is submitted and voted on..i myself have no problem with the current selection of approved motors..and yes..i have tested dougs tp suggestion..all of the bickering is killing and dividing us..lets remember these are a hobby and we are racing for fun and or trophies..except maybe the few who might make money doing this..that being said..hope to see you all at a pond someday..lets race

rayzerdesigns
08-22-2015, 02:36 AM
oh..and the kv limit..would that be rated..or tested..we all know the aq 2030 is no where near a 2030..ive never tested one over 1965..

Jeff
08-22-2015, 03:54 AM
In my opinion the KV needs to be lower. That is one of the reasons I think Darin could have helped testing the TP motor. The aquacrat motor is a lot lower then the 2030 it claims. The TP appears to be close to what is stated. The boats are on the edge now because of length limits. If you add another 1,000 rpm you will only separate the ready to run and new people even further. As it is now getting nitro cross overs is difficult because of the speed now. Doug got his p spec combined with nitro 40 to make a class run and he lapped them on a long course, they were not scrub racers either.

T.S.Davis
08-22-2015, 07:49 AM
KV tech on site. Ughhhhhhhhh.

Adding to Jeff's point......motors are rated different by each maker. Lehener rates under load. So when your looking for a motor to fit you have to make sure. Joe new guy will show up with some random, get it wrong, now he's pissed and the rule mongers are the problem.

Pretty sure Darin picked 2050 so that the 2030 could stay legal forever but if you checked it to fit for instance a 2k rating it would still be legal.

I'm not running any 2030 motors anymore either. All 1800's with bigger blades in the drink.

Ray, are you thinking lower $ threshold?

DPeterson
08-22-2015, 08:36 AM
It has been reported that the actual KV of the 2030 is between 1925 and 1965. The engineer at TP told me the 3630 1950 actual KV is 1950 +/- .25. Now you want to include motors with manufacturer "printed" KV specs of 2050. Good golly.

All you guy's thought the TP motor would upset the apple cart. Didn't happen. Won't happen. More Clubs are seeing the value.

Allowing a higher "actual KV" is a guaranteed train wreck. Have at it.

zooma
08-22-2015, 09:14 AM
How are you guys measuring actual kv? For example, I have used the "drill press" method to measure AC current and plug into a formula. I often get close to the manufacturer's rating, but not on the mark. I also have a Hobby King RPM/KV meter, but it is wildly inaccurate, off by hundreds, even when set for the correct number of poles.

So, what kind of method and equipment would produce accurate results?

BTW - The drill press method showed my AQ 2030 at 1979kv.

Doby
08-22-2015, 09:22 AM
People arguing about a few KV here and there...who cares....pretty sure Darin just picked the 2050 max as a suggestion for a good place to start for a max kv rating. People want to run a max KV allowable motor...go for it...better make sure your boat is set up and tuned for it ...if not ..boom...but again, if someone fries motors its a good way for them to learn that maybe higher kv doesn't always win races...I like the 1800 AQ motors (for now) in my cats and monos.. Beat a lot of 2030 motors at the Cup this year....just saying...just bragging...

Peterson...you should be happy, this thread actually shows promise of spec motors expanding to allow more selection...something you wanted all along...

Don't worry...be happy:banana:

Doby
08-22-2015, 09:23 AM
I also have a bit of a chuckle about the KV testers.....has anybody calibrated one of these to actually see if they are accurate??

ray schrauwen
08-22-2015, 09:56 AM
Not true. Neu as I've pointed out has had a 36mm x 58mm 1850 kv motor selling for $50 US for over a year. Falls within specs of other motors mentioned.

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




Put a $150 cap on them. That keeps the Lehners, Neus, Hackers, Kontroniks, Megas etc. out of the mix but allows just about any asian alternative you'd care to run.

photohoward1
08-22-2015, 10:27 AM
Ray probably to small. I would venture it would get to hot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fas
08-22-2015, 11:16 AM
ok my 2 cents


1) Doug send me one of the motors I will beat the dog snot out of it to help with the fact finding
2) I must of missed something last year between a few people
3) I like where this is going we need to come up with something
4) Davis with NAMBA you don't have to tech every motor only the ones that people file a protest on they need to put up they money or shut up, ask a few people who said something at the Nats we held. never got any money or heard a word from them again.
5) I am the only all FE guy that is on the BOD for NAMBA that I know of

to get it in the books we need to test more then just one motor that fall in the spec's that Darin has I like the idea, a few from across the US each takes a different motor and then one guy from each area get with the other and put it one paper and send it in

If you guys would like I would be willing to be the point of contact on this to put it on paper and get it in

Doug, Darin, Terry, Ray ,you guys up for this, who else could we use



I would like to know how to kind out the kv of a motor I am still in the dark age

Fred

Darin Jordan
08-22-2015, 12:59 PM
Just to clarify something for those of you fixated on KV....

Given 2 identical dimensioned motors, when you change KV you are only changing the "sweet spot", otherwise known as the point at which you can prop it for a given setup before overloading it. The two motors still put out similar "power". This is why Ray and Terry and Pags and I have had good success running 1800 and 1500 motors. You just have to know how to prop them.

Having a KV limit at all is really just a "feel good" insertion to the limits in my opinion. The KV max is really self limiting, given the physical limitations of the motor AND the hull size limits.

Is someone REALLY going to run a 33" mono on 4S with a 2400, 2600, 3000 KV motor? Not for long they won't, and certainly not with a prop that will make it competitive or faster than a more reasonable 1800 or similar setup.

It would come into play for records, so the KV limit makes sense there.

Anyhow, if you read the suggestion carefully, you'll see that all of the measurements are actual. Manufacturer's specs are for reference only. The onus is placed on the competitor to assure that their equipment is legal, JUST LIKE IN NITRO. If legality comes into question, actual measurements are used, again, JUST LIKE NITRO.

T.S.Davis
08-22-2015, 02:58 PM
Make it 2k then. Size and weight are the real limiting factors.

Surely somebody here knows how to engineer an accurate kV checker.

I'm willing to test something but I'm not sure its needed.

NativePaul
08-22-2015, 03:39 PM
Darin, what is your reasoning behind no sensored motors and no motors with adjustable timing? We do not need torque from a standstill like some cars do, and which is the only advantage for sensored systems. As I see it for our uses the sensors just take up space in the can, meaning a given can size will have a smaller rotor in it which is a disadvantage. With sensorless we have dynamic adjustable timing in the ESCs anyway, so why rule out another more basic way to adjust timing. Cars are the most popular form of RC racing so banning the types of motors they use seems like it would limit people crossing over for no reason.

I don't understand baring 2 pole motors either, as some of the cheapest motors available have 2 poles and have been for some time, there are probably plenty of people with otherwise legal Feiago motors sitting in draws. If you want to ban Lehners just ban them specifically, along with the other premium motors like Neu and Plettenberg.

DPeterson
08-22-2015, 11:01 PM
Fred - Cost me around 3 grand to get 100 TP motors sent out for evaluation. That's my limit. Pretty sure there are 4-5 TP motors already in the hands of your club members. I dropped my NAMBA membership so it would be improper for me to participate in your actual rule proposal development. There are a number of IMPBA clubs yet that are unwilling to do their own homework and just simply adopt NAMBA P-Limited rules for there use. This influence causes us to voice our opinion across the Association lines. Here in IMPBA D4 we have already addressed the motor issues and are experiencing success in expanding our guidelines into surrounding Districts and Clubs. Small piece of advice - proactive management always trumps reactive management.

For the record - It keeps being said that this is my motor. It's not. This motor was suggested by a fellow OSE forum member that it may be a good substitute for the AQ 2030. Turns out it was. That's it. As time goes on we are looking forward to testing other brands.

So now we are up to $125.00 MSRP and 2050 KV. Highend RC Typhoon anyone. This is up from an $80.00 motor with a true KV of around 1950. I guess if I was a SAW guy I would be licking my chops too. 1500 more rpm's to the prop. Slap a stock prop on and start writing your name in the P-limited record book. P-Limited records - another big a$$ mistake.

Other than physical specifications, there are no methods available to validate KV and performance of a motor other than data logging on the water. This is where it counts anyway. The eye opener for me was watching Sean Kewely do the Eagle Tree data logging comparison with 3 runs on the AQ 2030 and 3 runs on the TP 3630. The data shows the actual comparison on water without bias. He posted this for everyone to see. I am sure some of you missed this, some of you forgot it and some of you ignored it. The only thing that will convince me of any motor being compatible for P-Limited going forward will be this data logging. Do yourself a favor and find a techy person to show you this. No theories, no inflated or deflated manufacture numbers, just on the water performance facts. Find 3 tech guys from various parts of the Country to do this, compare the data and you have your Tech committee. Oh wait - too simple and fair.

ray schrauwen
08-22-2015, 11:46 PM
Larry Jaques has a physical rpm gauge that you touch the shaft with. His gauge is accurate but, I've never tried to use it on a motor, he has a while back in the SS1 motor days. I'll try to see if he still has that thing and check some motors.

T.S.Davis
08-23-2015, 07:23 AM
So now we are up to $125.00 MSRP and 2050 KV. Highend RC Typhoon anyone. This is up from an $80.00 motor with a true KV of around 1950. I guess if I was a SAW guy I would be licking my chops too. 1500 more rpm's to the prop. Slap a stock prop on and start writing your name in the P-limited record book. P-Limited records - another big a$$ mistake.

We aren't anywhere Doug. We're having a conversation. Tossing around ideas. Those of us that know you are catching your implication though.

The $ limit was suggested by me. I'm the guy that would prefer there to be ONE motor. Debate ends.

Doby
08-23-2015, 09:25 AM
For the record - It keeps being said that this is my motor. It's not.
.

Sorry Dougee, it is "your motor" as you were the one who pushed to get it out to the masses for testing etc..and don't take that the wrong way...its a great start, and needed to be done:thumbup1:

ray schrauwen
08-23-2015, 12:33 PM
The manufacturers' Kv ratings are often a joke. The actual Kv of the AQ2030 motor is closer to 1950, as you have found. With manufacturing tolerances and even different factories making the same model number motor, a motor's actual Kv will vary anyway. But Kv changes with voltage and load, the best way to measure the exact Kv of your motor is with a data logger on your setup.




.


Which data logger is the most accurate? How do we know how accurate it is?

Brushless55
08-23-2015, 05:30 PM
Since we are going down the HK road. I like this: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__19110__Turnigy_SK3_Fandrive_3659_1900kv_90mm_EDF _.html

It has skewed windings similar to a NEU or HET. Very smooth 4 pole motor. I have one and I should give it a go. People have pushed it on 6s and find it's pretty tough.

That is an interesting motor !
would fit like an AQ2030 :biggrin:

macace123
08-23-2015, 11:29 PM
WOW this is some good stuff y'all. FYI i was at the Nats 2 weeks ago. the only reason anyone was burning up AQ2030 is, one it was way to hot. 2 the pond was packed with algae and other blods of green goo. I however am a fan of just keeping the motors to a size or weight spec. KV is nothing to worry about i got chewed up by 1500kv motors the whole time i was there. Also had to prop down 3 sizes that was the biggest challenge.


I Feel there is going to be a Big change coming on this motor debacle.

rayzerdesigns
08-23-2015, 11:42 PM
WOW this is some good stuff y'all. FYI i was at the Nats 2 weeks ago. the only reason anyone was burning up AQ2030 is, one it was way to hot. 2 the pond was packed with algae and other blods of green goo. I however am a fan of just keeping the motors to a size or weight spec. KV is nothing to worry about i got chewed up by 1500kv motors the whole time i was there. Also had to prop down 3 sizes that was the biggest challenge.


I Feel there is going to be a Big change coming on this motor debacle.

wonder who would run a slow 1500..lol..cant wait for some cool water up there next year

Darin Jordan
08-23-2015, 11:56 PM
Sooooo....

On the thought of spec'ing a single motor for P-LTD :

Pros:
1) Cut and dried as far as which motor you'll use.
2) Can Select a motor with acceptable quality.
3) Can control cost to purchase.
4) Fairly easy to tech.
5) Everyone has the exact same motor.
Cons:
1) Ties supply to a single supplier
2) No guarantee of sustained quality
3) Single KV available, limits variation of suitable hulls
4) No guarantee of sustained supply.
5) Will require periodic if not frequent revisiting of motor selection.

Any other Pros/Cons you can think of?

Darin Jordan
08-23-2015, 11:59 PM
On the subject of NAMBA, via a "Tech Committee" putting a list of motors together, many of the same "Cons" listed above come to mind. Essentially that's what we have now. People just want more, or their own pet motors, added to the list.

I fear that conversation like just went on above will continue were we to continue with this formula.

rayzerdesigns
08-24-2015, 12:01 AM
there will always be discussion darin..but great points..i have no problem with the current selection of p limited motors

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 12:03 AM
On the subject of the original suggestion of simply providing a fixed set of specifications and opening up the allowance to anything that fits the spec, isn't this type of spec essentially how both of the other motor allowance options (single source and list by comittee) are being done in the first place?

Think about that for a moment.

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 12:10 AM
i have no problem with the current selection of p limited motors

Ray... like you, I've had great success running the other-than-AQ allowances. I ran a 1500 today in my new IM31 today and I don't think anyone would suggest it's slow.

But... I can assure you that the list is rapidly drying up. The Dynamite 1800 is no more and when existing supplies of 1500s are sold, that's it.

This list is rapidly running it's course and I think we, as NAMBA members, need to be proactive in getting a more permanent solution.

P-LTD has been a good thing for FE racing and I think we can keep it going if we can address this subject, perhaps more permanently.

raptor347
08-24-2015, 01:25 AM
I've given this some thought over the last couple days. Maybe P-ltd has run it's course.

We've had a good 8 year run with it up here in the PNW. I think the rest of the country has done pretty well too. We could just let it die and return to open motor racing nationally and let the local clubs run what they want. With the historical experience of LSH and P-ltd, another option is flush this rule set and come up with something a bit more stable/flexible using that past experience. What stable/flexible means is certainly open to interpretation.

Having watched and participated in these discussions for years now, it might be the most healthy move for the hobby. As a recipient of some of the mud slinging, it certainly makes me wonder if it's worth the continued effort to keep it alive.

Until someone sits down and writes up a rule proposal and it passes, it is what it is in NAMBA. At this point, I really don't care if the class continues or not. I will say that the manner in which these discussions carry on isn't good for the hobby in general.

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 07:26 AM
As a recipient of some of the mud slinging, it certainly makes me wonder if it's worth the continued effort to keep it alive.

I totally understand this sentiment, however, I think for the sake of the actual NAMBA members that are involved in this discussion, those who actually have a stake in this game, as well as the 90+ % of participants in the class that may read these discussions but choose not to participate, I'm willing to stick with it. I'm sticking to the subject, and will continue to press forward with open discussion.

If that means I need to take the majority of that mud, so be it. I know the truth, and so do those friends you and I have in this hobby, so I'm not worried about it.

I think the class has merit, so would like to see it continue it's already long run of participation.

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 09:35 AM
Darin

I think what you listed is a great place to start I know Terry said he would like one motor but I don't think that's a good idea as we will be back in the same boat lol in a few years if that long, give me a few days and I will look at motors that fall into the specs and make a list I think we need to include as much as possible and still keep the performance as close as we can

Thank You, Fred. That would be helpful.



by the way I suck at typing if you cant tell, but I know it


Fred

No worries there, Fred. I kind of suck at diplomacy. We all have our crutches... :biggrin:

rayzerdesigns
08-24-2015, 10:05 AM
Although I am totally okay with the motors on the list..The only one that seems to still be in production us the aq 2030..maybe Darin or someone at pro boat/dynamite can talk them into continuing to produce the 1500..or even bring back the 1800..I have no problem with a single motor approved if we do go that route..though I can see the side as why people would..I also agree that at every race I have attended..p limited are the biggest classes. .why would we want to change it to open?? I do like the idea of a single size motor..maybe different kvs..but I also think it would have to be a single manufacturer. .but that's my opinion..stock..or limited is supposed to create a tighter racing enviroment..better racing..look at car side..There are very strict rules that involve motor approval..and truth be told..it makes them pretty much all equal..I do think it needs to be addressed..but please guys..until it is..let's follow the rules we have in place and enjoy this fun hobby..

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 10:13 AM
maybe Darin or someone at pro boat/dynamite can talk them into continuing to produce the 1500..or even bring back the 1800..

I can assure you that isn't going to happen. I already begged. Those motors are not coming back, and the 1500's days are limited to inventory/stock on hand. Pro Boat is in the business of selling RTRs, and they have moved on from this size motor.

RandyatBBY
08-24-2015, 10:55 AM
Ok I have read 50% of this thread, When mud slinging happens it turns me off,.... I just skip it. Just as in everything else take the 25% of the cream off the top and forget the rest.
I was racing this weekend in NAMBA district 9 sanctioned races. The three class we run in P LTD are well represented by the members of D9 and some members D19 do come up to race us too. It is strong in D9 and will they be permanent classes this year due to the strength and care of the new District FE Chairman Joe Slaney. We did have problems with the motors this weekend and as allways I found my self in the middle of it. The current UL-1 motor in my boats IMO is a wimp that can run good in light setups with much care. If you put any stress on it the wires burn up and take the controller with it. The way the new rules are written the new Pro Boat motors would appear to be legal, at least that what Joe and Wilmer say. I have nothing to or no way of refuting that. If the class is not restructured as it stands it will always have problems. That is life anyway.
The basic idea of a speck class is to have fun, allow creativity. To have people with high skills help and encourage beginners to succeed.

ray schrauwen
08-24-2015, 11:10 AM
Well the thread is done now.

Thanks Fluid for trying to inject some intelligence into the conversation.

Thanks Ray for asking a stupid question.

Thanks Terry for calling out Jeff.

Thanks Jeff for responding to Terry's BS but it is thoroughly understood.

I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question but, I'm known for some, I'll admit that.

I haven't bothered with a SF esc with data logging since I've heard they aren't so hot. I'm still modding a Castle esc that has logging. Other than esc datalogging there is the Eagle Tree, kinda out of my budget. Besides, I rarely get much pond time in the last couple years, life...

ron1950
08-24-2015, 06:49 PM
I will not get into this other then to say whats the big problem? I don't have any problem getting all ready approved spec motors...is there a shortage where where u guys are>??

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 06:56 PM
Again, moving past the noise...

I need some information from people. Could you please measure the diameter of as many "36mm" motors as you have access to and report back to me either here or via IM what those measurements are? Need the Data.

For example, the AQ motor I have here is 36.25mm. The Dynamite 1500 is 36.3mm.

Need to find out what encompasses our current motors.

Thanks.

Doby
08-24-2015, 07:06 PM
Darin:
From my spare motor pile....

Original AQ blue motor...36.4mm
AQ 2030 gold generation 1:olleyes:...36.3mm
AQ 2030 gold generation 3:olleyes:...36.1mm
AQ 1800 gold generation whatever...36.2mm
PB 1800 grey motor...36.3mm
TP 1950 cheese-head special...36.1mm

ray schrauwen
08-24-2015, 08:30 PM
Again, moving past the noise...

I need some information from people. Could you please measure the diameter of as many "36mm" motors as you have access to and report back to me either here or via IM what those measurements are? Need the Data.

For example, the AQ motor I have here is 36.25mm. The Dynamite 1500 is 36.3mm.

Need to find out what encompasses our current motors.

Thanks.

Turnigy EDF 1900kv silver motor, 35.8mm like a Feigao can. Not currently on the list.

ray schrauwen
08-24-2015, 08:31 PM
We could just use the motors the guys running 1/10th scale use and close the book.

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 08:38 PM
We could just use the motors the guys running 1/10th scale use and close the book.

... that won't work because over half that list are no longer available, or very soon won't be.

Im looking at the option that defines the spec once and and that doesn't need constant revision.

We define "spec" motors based loosely on a spec. Why not just make that spec the rule and have at it? Boom. Done.

Thanks for the diameter onfo. It's looking like 36.5mm might need to be the allowance do to variations in what manufacturers consider a "36mm" motor.

Darin Jordan
08-24-2015, 09:19 PM
So, everyone please take note of the path of this conversation to this point.

The aim of my involvement in this subject would be to have a set of motor rules that don't have to be revisited frequently, or, ideally, ever again.

RaceMechaniX
08-25-2015, 02:30 AM
Basic and 19 series Lehners and Castle 14 measure 16mm exactly. Neu 14 series measure 36.5mm

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 05:58 AM
Basic and 19 series Lehners and Castle 14 measure 16mm exactly. Neu 14 series measure 36.5mm

Thanks, Tyler. Are the Basic and 19-series 2 or 4-pole?

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 08:50 AM
Darin, I have some SSS motors to measure if you didn't get them. Have to pick up another set of calipers on the way home. Mine are oddly missing. They're supposed to be 36mm but I don't think so. Looks over at a glance. Think they're too heavy too. Gotta check.

Thanks, Terry.

It's looking like 36mm isn't going to cut it. Most are 36.3-36.5mm... Easy to adjust.

ray schrauwen
08-25-2015, 09:27 AM
Go too large in diameter and the Suppo out runners might try to climb aboard the list, lol....

They can take a beating!

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 09:44 AM
Go too large in diameter and the Suppo out runners might try to climb aboard the list, lol....

They can take a beating!

Usually, Outrunners likely have too many poles... Scorpions, for example, are 12-pole motors, I believe. Outside of the scope of the class in my opinion. "Keep it simple, stupid"...

Ken Haines
08-25-2015, 10:10 AM
there will always be discussion darin..but great points..i have no problem with the current selection of p limited motors



I too have no problem with the current motors on he list.

I run pretty quick set-ups and have not had motor P-Ltd failures at any Nat's since 2011.
No Michigan Cup P-Ltd motor failures either.
Pretty much have only blown P-Ltd motors while testing or not listening to Jason....lol.
KV.... 1800's are faster and more reliable than the 2030's.
Because of this experience in my equipment I am not worried too much about the KV limits.

I am however worried that allowing other motors could ruin club racing by pressuring
guys into added expenses. Must club racers do not have the means that I do and
especially with our club numbers down this year.....I worry about telling a newbie
that all he has to do is buy this RTR boat, lipo batteries, charger, and Btw and
bit better motor if he really wants to win. My point is that It will be very difficult to
find a different list of motors exactly equal to our current motors, So the topic really scares me.
As far as continuing the P-Ltd classes.....they are the most participated classes at
all events so it would be sad to see this end. I race almost everything, and enjoy
the variety. Please realize the P-Ltd connection to the local club racing is the key to
races working and directly effects the size of the events and attract new interest.
I commented yesterday that
"if its not broke...don't fix it"
This may have been better said ...Until it is broke.....don't fix it.
Would it make sense to get a proposal ready to go and then wait until we have word
that the current list is being discontinued ?
Just some of my thoughts today. I just finished up a long week of a Ryder Cup Style
golf tournament that ended Sunday and just heard about the topic yesterday.
We all need to keep our heads about this stuff. It has been many years since we had
all the major controversies and arguments. Lets make this constructive to our little hobby
and not destructive. I want to continue this for a long time and bring my new step-son
into the hobby too. Fred's son Landon and my Step-son Fede had great fun racing in the kids
classes at the last Michigan Cup maybe we should all be thinking of how we make things
better for their racing and the future which certainly includes the club level racing more so
than the big races and the Nat's.
Like Doug Smock said let's stay on topic take a breather if need be.
Just my 2 cents,
Reverend Ken :bounce:

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 11:19 AM
Ken, I follow and am concerned also. What, if, and when we make a change is still not fixed.

I personally don't want to see a proposal that makes everyone think they have to run out and buy new motors. A "motor of the day" trend has stung us before. That's bad for participation IMO.

Currently there are 3 of the 8 motors available from the approved list. The Himax at 1500kv. Very few run that. The source for the other two is 1 company. Aquacraft has nobody in house (as far as we know) that has much knowledge or even any interest in racing. Their decision making process will be based solely on the bottom line. Which is how it has to be really. If they want to stay in business at least. I'm not bagging on any company for catering to it's primary customers. Some of us want to be prepared for it though.

So if Aquacraft makes a change based on the numbers like PB has then we will be done with limited in the blink of an eye.

The inspiration for even having the conversation is an effort to be proactive instead of reactive. It's not based on dissatisfaction with the motors we're running.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 11:43 AM
Just for reference, here is the current Approved Motor List. Items struck out and in red are those that are no longer available.

136035

I'm checking now to confirm that the DYNM3835 is indeed discontinued, as the 1800 has been. That's what I was told originally. They are currently in stock, but the price was dropped down quite a bit, further indicating that Horizon is selling them out.

Based on this list, can we not agree that it's definitely time to be proactive on addressing this topic?

longballlumber
08-25-2015, 11:47 AM
Oh gawd… My brain keeps telling me to stay out of these conversations, but my desire to RACE boats AND HAVE FUN keeps me engaged. I haven’t been able to do both simultaneously for a while now, but that’s my problem not everyone else’s.

I have suggested this approach in the past, but it hasn’t gained much traction. We need to establish a problem statement, list pros – cons, the actual intent of a spec boat classes, and this will lead us to a NEW set of requirements for the class. Once requirements are established we need to prioritize those listed requirements. This will allow us to provided weighted scores to the suggested options.

#1 – I think we all have agreed in no uncertain terms that the Spec Motor Rules need discussing. However, there is still plenty of argument on WHY we are reacting: I only bring this up because this will be the root of many requirements.
• Lack of options based on the current written rules (one manufacturer)
• Lack of quality of current approved motors perceived by some, but not all (burnt motors)
• Cost – motor prices of approved motors have gone up since its inception ($60 to $80)
• One motor having more performance than others (2030 vs. the others)
• Sustainability – writing in rules that will allow technology advancements, unannounced manufacturing changes/updates, and obsolescence out of our control.

#2 – I also think we need to come to a common understanding what the ACTUAL INTENT of a spec motor class is for the organization as a whole. What was the original intent starting with LSH and LSO? What was the original intent with P-Limited? What is the intent now? Has it changed or stayed the same?
• Cost? (demands on motors , controllers, and batteries)
• Performance equality?
• Flatter learning curve for newcomers (building membership across the Org)?
• Easily accessible parts (RTR’s from the LHS)?
• Compatibility – does motor “A” work with controller “B” (adjustable timing)

#3 – Several answers from the above will help drive a set of technical requirements (again weighted) for the motors that fit inside of the weighted responses above.

This is only a suggested start of the process. There are many more bullet points that could be added in each category. There has also been a good start on filling in SOME of the blanks in this and other threads. However, I think there are still some tough questions that will need to be answered before we can move forward with a viable solution. Of these tough questions, many of them will end up being compromises.

So lets ask; What was/is the intent of P-Limited (previously LSH/O)? Certainly we can come to a common ground on that; right?

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 12:09 PM
Some positive news.

I just had it confirmed that the DYNM3835 1500KV Marine Motor WILL continue to be available, at least for the near future. Directly from Horizon:



"At this point in time, there is nothing in place that says that the motor is going to be discontinued.
We will continue to order when the current stock is running short.
Once we see demand drop to a certain threshold, we would then consider discontinuing and no re-orders."



So, we actually still have 4 motors available for now, in theory.

136036

RandyatBBY
08-25-2015, 12:27 PM
I've given this some thought over the last couple days. Maybe P-ltd has run it's course.

We've had a good 8 year run with it up here in the PNW. I think the rest of the country has done pretty well too. We could just let it die and return to open motor racing nationally and let the local clubs run what they want. With the historical experience of LSH and P-ltd, another option is flush this rule set and come up with something a bit more stable/flexible using that past experience. What stable/flexible means is certainly open to interpretation.

Having watched and participated in these discussions for years now, it might be the most healthy move for the hobby. As a recipient of some of the mud slinging, it certainly makes me wonder if it's worth the continued effort to keep it alive.

Until someone sits down and writes up a rule proposal and it passes, it is what it is in NAMBA. At this point, I really don't care if the class continues or not. I will say that the manner in which these discussions carry on isn't good for the hobby in general.

I have to agree with you on these points..... I also like the idea of a dollar cap though it should be more in the $100.range



So, everyone please take note of the path of this conversation to this point.

The aim of my involvement in this subject would be to have a set of motor rules that don't have to be revisited frequently, or, ideally, ever again.

This also is a good path.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 12:35 PM
So lets ask; What was/is the intent of P-Limited (previously LSH/O)? Certainly we can come to a common ground on that; right?

My cut at that question:

The intent of the P-Limited class is to provide a lower powered and lower cost alternative to the regular "P" class by restricting the number of motors allowed to a single motor and restricting the allowable motor size to a specific maximum set of dimensions and RPM. This class will provide a place for amateurs to gain experience, and for everyone to enjoy a lower cost, more evenly balanced competitive class of racing.


That's my simple take on it, at least at this evolution of the game.

RaceMechaniX
08-25-2015, 12:48 PM
Darin, I believe all the Lehner Basic motors are 2 pole as well.
TG

raptor347
08-25-2015, 01:13 PM
The AQUG7000 motor is still available as well.

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 01:15 PM
So lets ask; What was/is the intent of P-Limited (previously LSH/O)?

This will be a tough question. There aren't many that will recall the inception of LSH and LSO. That's where it all started. I think Randy actually proposed it back in 2002 or 2003. It was prior to brushless.

LSH was basically a response to a setup we were seeing over and over that worked. I was only a year or so into racing so I don't know all the details but my understanding is that the intent was parity at minimal investment. But honestly, it's what guys were already running. So it was more a response to a developed concept. We had a TON of fun with these too.

Then LSO was an extension of what we all thought was working pretty well in sport hydro. That was cooked up around 2004 maybe.

The 700 motors were great but to get to the front you needed to prep them. There were all kinds of crazy things guys would do to them. Tab coolers. Under water break in's for hours at low voltage. They worked but required attention to really get the most from them.

Then when the SV27 came along and it was basically a 12 cell brushless combo that could be had for about the same cost as a decent speedo and 700 motor. The motors lasted longer, were faster, and required no prep. Multiple clubs were putting them in the LSH and LSO boats. Then PB came out with some RTR motors that worked too. Then there was the 2030 in the UL. Clubs were running it and expanding with RTR's and scratchies racing together. So again the organization responded. Or I should say, some took it upon themselves to put on paper what was being run and go through the motions.

Some will argue but since I was in on the text and submitted it at the club, district, and national level, I can tell you that the intent was to capture what some clubs were already finding success with. That was the combination of the RTR's and the guys willing to assemble racing on the cheap. None of those three stands alone. Not if you want to expand your participation. That's my opinion based on what we saw here in MI. We would still be 5 guys just chasing national events without the RTR offerings.

So for my efforts I would like to see us end up with:

Parity
Cost control
Ease of entry

Not sure about that order. Some don't want the RTR guys but I think ignoring them is a mistake. Shy of driving it for them we want it to be as easy as possible for someone to get into racing and be in the ball park speed wise.

For the record, the only right way to move on to a "next" phase is for a club or two to pick up the spec (what ever it is) and run it for a season. Someone is going to have to bite the bullet and make it happen if we decide there needs to be a "next"......... So in my eyes we're actually talking about a 2016 season proof of concept span for a potential vote in 2017.

Every iteration of limited thus far has been in response to what clubs were already doing and were not a dictate from the organization. That may seem crazy but that's historically how rules have been changed. IMPBA has a one year trial rules too if I remember.

See why I was pushing us to at least talk about it now and not when the supply dries up? We're down to 50% of the motors gone now.

longballlumber
08-25-2015, 01:16 PM
My cut at that question:

The intent of the P-Limited class is to provide a lower powered and lower cost alternative to the regular "P" class by restricting the number of motors allowed to a single motor and restricting the allowable motor size to a specific maximum set of dimensions and RPM. This class will provide a place for amateurs to gain experience, and for everyone to enjoy a lower cost, more evenly balanced competitive class of racing.


That's my simple take on it, at least at this evolution of the game.

Thanks Darin

Wasn't this touted as a class designed to allow those with RTR boats purchased from their LHS a place to "fit in"? After all, that is where the motor list came from... Do we think RTR offerings will be included in future "intent"? IMO the answer to that question will have drastic results as we move forward. Given the current skill set at each Art Box manufacturer, I am not sure what the answer is. I feel the intrust in designing new products that fit within the NAMBA/IMPBA hull guidelines is minimal at best.

INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills
- Balanced Competition
- ????Capture RTR offerings the best we can????

If you feel I have missed anything please let me know... Anyone Else?

rayzerdesigns
08-25-2015, 01:17 PM
I think a $100 cap might be too much..as for the himax..I have tested those..against the dynamite 1500..they are def not a 1500kv..little higher..and I have burnt up every one I have tried..but that's me..i really think if we are going to try and make it as fair and even as possible we need one manufacturer..too many variables if not..i think one manufacturer say like tp..or leopard..just keep a max kv and size..say 36x56..max kv 2000..you could use less kv..but not more..just a thought..yes..it would probably not make certain people happy..and for the record..i have no problem with current selection..just my opinion if we go this route..i say pick a manufacturer..a size and kv limit..and def a lower cost..im not sure what a leopard or tp would cost for a 36x56..but probably cheaper than a aq2030 which is usually 79 retail..the dynamite is 60 I believe..just my 2 cents..im liking the positive vibe now

rayzerdesigns
08-25-2015, 01:22 PM
just looked on here..tp motors a little more expensive..but steve sells the leopards f.or 56.99 with a water jacket..36x50..again just a thought..but like hearing different options..and im still ok with current selection of p limited motors

longballlumber
08-25-2015, 01:27 PM
INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control)
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills
- Balanced Competition (Parity)
- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)????
- ????Single Source of Supply????

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 01:36 PM
Do we think RTR offerings will be included in future "intent"? IMO the answer to that question will have drastic results as we move forward.

My take on RTRs, being sort of close to that industry...

I can only speak for Pro Boat, but their current and future RTRs are offering power systems that are so FAR beyond these power systems that it would not be prudent to even consider including them.

For example, the IM31 V3 comes with a 4072 1750KV motor. I run the thing in P-Mono and can compete, it's that fast.

Pro Boat, from a power system standpoint, isn't targeting "spec racing" classes. The hulls can fit, but the power systems never will again, based on current specs.

I also know that AquaCraft is going through a transition. Mike Z is gone. I'm not sure which direction they are heading.


The way I defined the initial discussion proposed specs above, You can still take, say, an IM31 and swap in a legal motor and go race.

I think trying to define a class around a constantly fluctuating, and dynamic market, like the RTR industry, is going to cause constant flux.


I would like to see this spec be inclusive, but NOT attached to, ANY manufacturer or supply chain. That is in impetus for my part of this discussion. Nitro, for example, isn't having to constantly evolve it's motor rules. They define max dimensions, and they go race. I'd like to see NAMBA P-LTD head in that direction.

GixerGuy1978
08-25-2015, 01:39 PM
just looked on here..tp motors a little more expensive..but steve sells the leopards f.or 56.99 with a water jacket..36x50..again just a thought..but like hearing different options..and im still ok with current selection of p limited motors

The problem with this is that really your only adding one more motor to the list. We need to think bigger and long term solutions. I do like the trying to limit kv, dimensions, poles, sensor/less etc, but I also believe a $$$ motor cap needs to be in place also. This $$$ cap would limit any motor manufacture from creating a superior motor and as technology advances and/or price to make a motor drops in the future. All future offerings would essentially be shared amongst manufacturers.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 01:42 PM
I think a $100 cap might be too much..

I'm going to need someone to SHOW me specifically how a price cap is going to help, or specifically, what the fears are.

If someone wants to buy a Castle or a Neu or even a Lehner, that physically fits the legal specs and is of the appropriate KV, exactly WHERE is their advantage.

ALSO, when you limit the class allowance to only "cheap Chinese motors", you retain the issues we have today with quality, supply chain, varying specs, etc...

Are you saving the class money by forcing people to run cheaper motors that may fail more often than a bit more expensive equivalent?

HOW do you tech it? MSRP? That's always inflated, hard to verify, etc., especially when you are ordering from overseas, etc.

In my experience, the price cap is simply a feel good measure. Especially with the quality of many of the available mid-priced motors today.

Personally, I'm not in a position to build a fleet of Neu powered boats, but I feel very comfortable that, given the spec, it wouldn't be necessary. I could compete with my 1500 Pro Boat, or with a 110.00 TP, or ???

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 01:52 PM
A spec people may be not considering as much as they should: Motor Weight.

Motor Weight is really the great equalizer here. "Better" motors have a higher mass (=MORE COPPER). That all comes at a weight cost.

With the weight limit in place, it severely limits just how much "better" one motor can be than another. Improvements ALWAYS involve mass, even stator magnet angle changes. Bigger wire, more copper, stronger magnets... all have more weight.

It really is the REAL cap here...

Steven Vaccaro
08-25-2015, 02:03 PM
A few years ago, someone could argue that if this was to happen the rich guys would dominate by buying neu motors. I believe that's just not the case any longer. These days there are plenty of good motors that are inexpensive and would only be a couple of clicks efficiency wise behind a neu motor. Sure the neu or lehner guy would have an advantage, but we all know that there is far more involved in racing than 3% more efficiency in a motor.

https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

GixerGuy1978
08-25-2015, 02:06 PM
Great thanks Darin, that answers my question regarding price cap. I would like to change my price cap to weight then. Lol i guess my train of thought was related to how much someone could 'push' the limits with a more expensive/better withstanding heat motor do to the higher cost motors. Mucho better bringing the weight spec in. Is actually including that with my above comment 'etc'. Nicely done.

RandyatBBY
08-25-2015, 02:15 PM
This will be a tough question. There aren't many that will recall the inception of LSH and LSO. That's where it all started. I think Randy actually proposed it back in 2002 or 2003. It was prior to brushless.

LSH was basically a response to a setup we were seeing over and over that worked. I was only a year or so into racing so I don't know all the details but my understanding is that the intent was parity at minimal investment. But honestly, it's what guys were already running. So it was more a response to a developed concept. We had a TON of fun with these too.


It was Andy Kunz, Dan Chase and my self that in visioned and started LSH. The current Idea was started by me at the 2008 NAMBA Nats in Minden CA. Then others ran with the Idea and took it another step to what we have today. I will reply more if asked to.

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 02:20 PM
I would like to see this spec be inclusive, but NOT attached to, ANY manufacturer or supply chain.

That's where I'm at too.

On the price thing, it may come down to perception to a degree. A guy that gets beat by a Neu or even a TP is going to think to himself "I'm getting beat by a better motor". Never realizing that the guy that beat him spent 4 hours tweaking his drive line and twice as long working on the ride surfaces of his boat. Especially at the entry level.

The weight seems like an equalizer but what about better bearings? Not sure that's a game changer though. How about a carbon fiber can and use the weight savings to build more copper or rotor in?

Verifying an MSRP would be a bugger if you had to do it on race day. Plus, if a vendor/supplier really wanted to they could buy a bunch of something and move them at cost. Make the MSRP just enough to cover the shipping. Then you call to get one and "as long as I got ya on the phone". This happened to us with the 700 motors. Motors designed to make the phone ring. Worked too.

RandyatBBY
08-25-2015, 02:22 PM
I'm going to need someone to SHOW me specifically how a price cap is going to help, or specifically, what the fears are.


It stops the I have to go you and buy the next best thing and making it a $$$ war. If like at the beginning I had a set of motors and props for each class and they lasted 6 years before being wore out and finding the current line of motors will not pull those props ever.

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 02:26 PM
Oh and.......we're all amateurs here. None of us are getting paid to race.

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 02:29 PM
It stops the I have to go you and buy the next best thing and making it a $$$ war. .

That's that perception thing. Guys buy stuff thinking they gotta have this, then gotta have that, no gotta have that one, over and over.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 02:54 PM
IThe current Idea was started by me at the 2008 NAMBA Nats in Minden CA.

Randy... we ran the P-LTD idea at the 2007 NATs in Monroe. ;)

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 03:00 PM
That's that perception thing. Guys buy stuff thinking they gotta have this, then gotta have that, no gotta have that one, over and over.

Much the same way that people think they HAVE to have higher KV (AQ2030) to be fast...

The "cost" thing is one of those "what if's" that simply doesn't ever really come to fruition.

D. Newland
08-25-2015, 03:01 PM
I'm a little late to the party. Just chewing on the MSRP and Kv aspect of a spec. Neu 1409's will fit the current measurement spec's, but they seem to be around $185. And notice the increase in ave amp draw regarding the different windings/Kv's. There may be better motors, but this one is good enough for illustration purposes.


Neu 1409 $185

..................1.5y............2y
Kv (rpm/V) 2400...........1820
Max Power (W) 1600W 1600W
Max Amp (15sec) 100A.....75A
Max Efficiency 90% 90%
Motor Diameter 36.5mm 36.5mm
Motor Length 55mm 55mm
Motor Weight 210g 210g
Poles (Rotor/Stator) 4/12 4/12


You're easily getting into P-hydro (and P-Sport) territory with a 1409 1.5Y. Maybe not as strong as what many of us run (1415 1Y's), but we're not even breaking a sweat with a 1415 in that class...meaning a smaller version will probably do as good a job...in P.

With that said, I think this illustrates that some sort of Kv cap needs to be there.

MSRP..? Not sure about that one. If a racer loads all of his P-Ltd boats with Neu 1409's...what do the newer guys say in his club that have gone the Chinese route?


And for those taking notes. Here we are, August, 2015 and 4 of the motors are still available, and 1 of them (I'm guessing) 70% of us use. We need to discuss options, yes, but I don't see us being in any sort of emergency. We don't need to be hasty. Shoot, the quickest we can get anything to NAMBA would be the April, 2016 Propwash, which means a proposal has to pass in a district approximately January, 2016.

And, I don't even know if that is such a good idea having a proposal like this so close to a Nat's that has already been announced. I'd feel better that a P-Ltd proposal hit the Sept/Oct 2016 Propwash...but that's just me.

RaceMechaniX
08-25-2015, 03:04 PM
I would also be in favor of a maximum weight limit and geometric size maximum. For every motor there is a copper/silicone/magnet ratio that work. A dense Lehner or Neu would need to step down to a smaller diameter or length to meet the mass target compared to a TP/AQ/PB motor. Yes there may be some wizard who comes up with a carbon can, full ceramic bearings and a titanium motor shaft to squeeze every gram of weight. There still is not a big advantage here compared to the magnetic group. We can also put a simple clause in saying the motor can must be aluminum or steel. Bearings and lighter shafts will make a minimal difference.

Motor mass plus basic dimensions are also very easy to tech. Kv may be a little more tricky, but is still very doable although there is a lot of room to fudge the numbers.

TG

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 03:28 PM
We need to discuss options, yes, but I don't see us being in any sort of emergency.

Dude... if we drag this out too long, none of us will be speaking to the each other. :bash: :tongue_smilie:

On a serious note, I agree, but something really should be done. I think the ball was brought back to the court with the comments from the "other" thread regarding motors "burning up" at the 2015 NATs...



With that said, I think this illustrates that some sort of Kv cap needs to be there.

The thought that started this discussion proposed a 2050KV Limit, just to get the conversation started. Still seems like a reasonable limit... 2000-ish KV.


ON a personal note... GLAD to hear from you! Hope all is well!

Steven Vaccaro
08-25-2015, 03:45 PM
"Open question for Steve. Really? This is the way it is? Is this a forum for all boaters or is this a NAMBA forum."

Doug Im not going to get into this on this thread. If you would like to start a new thread in the namba area have at it.

Doby
08-25-2015, 03:48 PM
Reality check time....

Interesting how lots of people worry about a Lehner (Neu...whatever high dollar motor) providing a competitive edge to the masses who can afford them...

OMG...that driver has a few more KV than me....:doh:

Anybody ever consider the reason people lose races is their lack of driving abilities?

Motors are not the be all and end all to winning races.

I'm all for supporting the current approved motors and finding suitable ones to supplement them, but when it comes down to it, boat set up and driving skills are way more important than a brand name and a few KV.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 04:07 PM
We can also put a simple clause in saying the motor can must be aluminum or steel.

We could do that, certainly.

I was going to suggest that we could also specify "only neodymium magnets", or something like that, but am not clear at all how one would tech such a thing.

Brushless/Sensorless/Inrunner being specified was another though. (Actually, I think I already covered the "Sensorless part")...

Trying ONLY to list those specs that really matter.

T.S.Davis
08-25-2015, 04:21 PM
Dave, I don't know what anyone else has planned but my intent is for a spec to get run at some club capacity over the 2016 season and then propose something only if it's working. How to do that without pissing off club racers I'm not sure yet. I suspect what we'll need to do is have a handful running experimental motors for no points. Maybe one guy in each of our classes tinkering? IDK yet. It's a sacrifice some of us are willing to make.

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 05:00 PM
I took a moment and starting just doing some targeted searches for motors that would fit within the dimensional and weight specs so people could get a visual of potential motors to choose from. Here is a chart that shows them:

136056

These are the manufacture's listed specs, in most cases, so obviously it would be up to the competitor to make sure their motor actually measured to the correct specs.

If you have additional motors that you think would fit, please post links to them or IM me with the information. I'll add them to the chart.

Helps a lot to get a good picture of exactly what the motors are that we are discussing.

NOTE: These are motors that meet the maximum of the rules. Smaller diameter, length, or lighter motors would obviously fit within the spec. Omitting smaller offerings from the list shows you just how worried I am about someone showing up with a 28mmx60mm 2050KV motor...

Doug Smock
08-25-2015, 06:20 PM
Dimensions, kv, weight, poles, magnets, etc. No mention of wattage in this thread?



On another note. We have cleaned up this thread.:Shame_on_You:
Any reference to the 2014 Nats was moved to that thread. :wink:
A new thread was started with the prop question.:thumbup1:

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 07:00 PM
No mention of wattage in this thread.

1) How does one clearly test or determine that?
2) How does one easily and accurately tech that?
3) Given a whole mess of motors that all fall under a specific set of dimensions, can the wattage really vary that much?

Doug Smock
08-25-2015, 07:31 PM
1) How does one clearly test or determine that?
2) How does one easily and accurately tech that?
3) Given a whole mess of motors that all fall under a specific set of dimensions, can the wattage really vary that much?

1 and 2 good questions. Not looking for trouble but, you know.:wink:

3. I have no idea. But there are records on the books. You can't stray too far from what you have (approx.900w?)without archiving them can you? Or would they have to be archived anyway when you add motors to the list? I don't know that's why I'm inquiring. Good question no?

Not trying to derail the thread at all, just throwing it out there fellas.

dethow
08-25-2015, 07:48 PM
As a newbie in the hobby running up here in Michigan with MMEU... I really don't understand the continued use of the limited motors. I've seen what's been said here and I get the theories that I won't reiterate but I think these things could be accomplished for new people by just plainly having a couple classes for specific off the shelf boats with limits to all aspects of what modifications, props, and batteries that can be used.

I'm not sure how many other clubs run an SV27 class like we do, but that is the best thing for new guys if that standard was set for some other boats that can compete with each other off the shelf. For example... a stock mono class for the Impulse and Revolt. A cat class for the Blackjack, Motley, Lucas and Geico. And now maybe a class for the Spartan and Voracity. Keep them to stock motor and esc that comes in the boat and limit the prop size and battery discharge rate. Make it so these boats won’t burn up and keep them all competitive. Example being is that if a certain cat comes stock with an 1800kv motor while another comes with a 2000kv... allow a larger prop on the 1800kv boat so it can compete with the 2000kv boat while both being within design limits so they don't burn up.

At this year’s Michigan Cup I burnt up a motor in my SV27. No reason for it… it was just it’s time I guess. You know how many people couldn’t believe a motor went out??? Everyone I told. Nobody had ever heard of an SV burning a motor in that class because the rules are set to not push the boat’s limits.

Now that’s fun for new people. Give them a class that they can run race after race without burning motors and testing props to be more competitive.

I know I don’t know or understand all the history into these things but I’m just saying that the limited motor idea itself is old and should be abolished all together. Just provide a couple classes for new people to get involved, which if done like our SV27 class would be more fun. New people getting into this hobby can burn a lot of money finding the right prop and batteries to compete with the guys that have been doing it for years.

And last… the limitations on boat size and battery voltage is enough. You can only make a 34” boat go so fast before you can’t finish a race without flipping over. If someone wants to go put a high kv motor in an oval race boat let em’. Just one more DFN to drive around for those who set up their boat and drive within its size limits.

In a newbie's opinion... that should be the "next thing".

dethow
08-25-2015, 08:18 PM
And one more idea for the "new thing"... Get rid of the word "Limited" all together. Call them "P-Mono Iroc", "P-Cat Iroc", "P-Offshore Iroc" and Q-Mono Iroc" for the Spartan and Voracity. The whole word "Limited" is belittling.

I guarantee you'd get more new people involved if they could ACTUALLY just go buy a boat, look up the battery and prop rules and be running the same thing as everyone else on the water with no worry of burning up money every weekend they race because the don't have the time to test and setup like the advanced guys do.

As they race and have fun they will see and learn what the faster unlimited racers are doing. If they choose to spend the money and time they too could then move up to faster boats.

This system of limiting advanced users so that newbies can compete with them is counter productive. The advanced guys will always be faster anyway because of prop, setup and driving knowledge. Meantime you are causing the newbie to burn motors and ecs's (money) in an attempt to compete with the advanced guys. And all this talk of having a new list of motors makes things even more complicated for newbies. So now a new person goes and buys a brand new boat and has to pull the stock motor and start testing to even consider being competitive. You've just turned what should be a fun new hobby into a chore. And if that newbie doesn't take it as a chore to learn fast??? They will not be competitive and thus no fun. No fun equals no show to next race. End result... less and less new people involved.

If some want a limited motor class to showcase their tuning capabilities, that's fine. But it shouldn't be masked with a theory of making it easier for new people to get involved in the hobby. The easiest thing for a new person would be to have spec class boats.

rayzerdesigns
08-25-2015, 09:24 PM
darin as to reference motors blowing up at 2015 nats..it wasn't limited to p limited motors..i pretty much talked to everyone in attendance and consensus was everyone was down 2 to 3 prop sizes..water was dense..warm and full of algae..but enough of that...my fear if we go to a size and or weight limit..i just think it will be too much..too many choices..but again just my opinion..i like the idea of keeping it simple..maybe 4 or 5 motor choices period..and I don't think we need a 185 dollar motor..my idea of p limited is to keep it affordable..and easy for the beginners..as well as others..i prefer to run the limited classes because I don't have to have huge batteries..expensive motors..but again that's my opinion..

Darin Jordan
08-25-2015, 10:29 PM
Or would they have to be archived anyway when you add motors to the list?


Honestly, Doug, my goal would be to NOT have a list.

Publish the allowed Maximum dimensions, KV, weight, etc. , and put the onus on the racer to select legal equipment. Just like the do for fuel engine classes.

jaike5
08-26-2015, 07:26 AM
Now that Darin has pretty well nailed the motor issue. now the other problem is the esc. Go with the stock Aqua craft/proboat they are a great little esc's, and water proof! The motors only became an issue when the 120, 180, 200, 220, 300 amp esc's with massive cap banks that allow that much current to the motor with highly modified props that should never make it on a limited/spec boat.

MMEU has got it right with the SV27 class , follow that model. As stated earlier leave all the rtr out of the box as stock classes with no mod's to the motor/esc.

If you want to go fast, grow some stones and run Q-hydro, open mono, open cat ! Then go wild with all the mod's you want. Leave the rtr's for the new guy's and gals to enjoy and get hooked, and let the hobby flourish

Cheers, Jay.

T.S.Davis
08-26-2015, 08:37 AM
I'm not for stock speedos myself but understand the thinking.


High points is totally a drivers thing. Its based on the average number entries for every racer at the event. We use that to determine the number of classes to include in the high points. So let's say the average is 8. Racers then accumulate points from the 8 most heavily attended classes. Those are always the limited classes. Every time. Then maybe a P mono slipped in if its popular that year.

So if you attend one of these, the guys that run all the less popular classes like T hydro, T mono, Q sport aren't doing so in their quest for high points. You aren't standing around watching them chase high points. They just dig those classes.

Steven Vaccaro
08-26-2015, 09:07 AM
I think adding a limit on wattage is tough to tech. Also limiting the rest of the parameters, should also be a limiting factor on wattage.

Please add to the list leopard 3650 1840kv 4y

Steven Vaccaro
08-26-2015, 09:13 AM
Now that Darin has pretty well nailed the motor issue. now the other problem is the esc. Go with the stock Aqua craft/proboat they are a great little esc's, and water proof! The motors only became an issue when the 120, 180, 200, 220, 300 amp esc's with massive cap banks that allow that much current to the motor with highly modified props that should never make it on a limited/spec boat.

MMEU has got it right with the SV27 class , follow that model. As stated earlier leave all the rtr out of the box as stock classes with no mod's to the motor/esc.

If you want to go fast, grow some stones and run Q-hydro, open mono, open cat ! Then go wild with all the mod's you want. Leave the rtr's for the new guy's and gals to enjoy and get hooked, and let the hobby flourish

Cheers, Jay.

Jay I see your point. but limiting to aqua and proboat is a no different than the current problem with limiting motors from the same companies. Id say a 120 amps should be more than enough.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 09:37 AM
Jay I see your point. but limiting to aqua and proboat is a no different than the current problem with limiting motors from the same companies. Id say a 120 amps should be more than enough.


Well... and that, again, ties you to single-stream suppliers with varying availability and definitely NO stability in the supply. Pro Boat, for example, is now selling there RTRs with 120A, programmable ESCs... I'm not sure that's really "limiting" anything, especially when we are "pretty sure" that these are similar to the 150A Hobbywing ESCs that many of you use.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 09:45 AM
Please add to the list leopard 3650 1840kv 4y

Thanks, Steven, I'll add that. I found a few others as well, and Brian has a couple to add also.

People, I would like to challenge you to something: Take the specifications I've listed, and go out and TRY to find motors that fit the spec. Post them here and I'll add them to the list.


You are going to find out that the limits we're talking about make that search PRETTY darned narrow already. The list of suitable motors turns out to be pretty small, unless you go SMALLER on one or more of the dimensions, in which case you are drastically lowering the power of the motor (watts).

Actually doing this exercise reinforces my personal opinion that we do NOT need to have NAMBA maintain a list of motors, and that defining these specs is the way to go. Most, if not all of these "fears" are just not really going to come to fruition, and wouldn't matter much in regards to competitiveness, if they did.

T.S.Davis
08-26-2015, 10:10 AM
Darin, my SSS motors were 36.02mm. Pretty close.

Interesting to me is how small the rotor is inside the can. It's like they didn't use the space they had.

Steven Vaccaro
08-26-2015, 10:16 AM
Well... and that, again, ties you to single-stream suppliers with varying availability and definitely NO stability in the supply. Pro Boat, for example, is now selling there RTRs with 120A, programmable ESCs... I'm not sure that's really "limiting" anything, especially when we are "pretty sure" that these are similar to the 150A Hobbywing ESCs that many of you use.

Are you saying you agree that only aqua and proboat esc's should be used?

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 10:36 AM
Are you saying you agree that only aqua and proboat esc's should be used?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! :ThumbsDown01:

I'm saying it doesn't make sense to tie the ESC to a manufacturer or supply stream. You just can't count on them being available or consistent.

Don't spec ANYTHING you don't have to... That's my default position. :thumbup1:

dethow
08-26-2015, 10:41 AM
Guys, I'm just not getting the logic here. It seems like we all want better motors to be included in the limited class so we can run faster. Isn't that already defined by the open (unlimited) classes? You're talking about using motors in the limited class that one could use in the open class and be competitive.

An example of this is that I witnessed a TFL Pursuit with a TP 3630 1950kv motor and a X447/3 prop run with P-Sport Hydros and keep up with them. That Pursuit had to be running between 55 to 60mph.... If a new person gets involved and brings their Revolt with stock motor and esc to the pond that does 45mph they can not compete. And if you expect a newbie to upgrade that revolt to a TP motor... okay fine. But will that Revolt even handle those speeds??? And what about the cats??? How is a Motley, Lucas or Geico going to handle that extra 10mph? A lot of blow overs is all that's going to happen. So now to actually be competitive in the limited classes one will need to buy a better hull. (Cleared up a mis-understanding below. This was actually a TP4060 motor. Sorry)

I just feel that this change to limited class motors is making the boats run at open (unlimited) class speeds and more or less cutting out the off the shelf hulls.

Don't get me wrong here... I'd love to get a better motor in my Pursuit and run faster. But that desire leans more towards wishing MMEU ran more open classes and less limited classes. I have also seen new people come around and I think it gets over whelming for them to think they could actually get involved in this hobby. That's why I think a different direction altogether is warranted.

Provide a few spec boat classes for beginners to run their off the shelf boats and abolish the limited motors altogether. The SV27 class that MMEU runs is a lot of fun and there are several experienced guys that continue to race it. I think you'd see the same reaction for a more defined spec class for larger mono and cats. I for one would go buy something to compete in an other spec class. I enjoy my SV27. I have minimal investment into it and don't have to wrench on it all the time.

My thought is that... using us at MMEU as an example... we currently race the following: MMEU SV27, P-Limited Mono, P-Limited Cat, P-Limited Sport Hydro, P-Limited Offshore, P-Sport Hydro, Q-Sport Hydro and sometimes a couple scale classes. So, that's 8 to 9 classes on a typical Sunday.

We could change that to the following: P-Mono Iroc (Spec), P-Cat Iroc (Spec), P-Offshore Iroc (Spec), P-Mono, P-Cat, P-Offshore, P-Sport Hydro, Q-Sport Hydro and maybe one scale class. Making the same 8 to 9 classes.

jaike5
08-26-2015, 10:48 AM
Darin, there is No stability in the market in any of the esc's we use. Hydra HV comes to mind. I was just going with what comes out of the box . We have logged those wee little aqua esc's holding there own at 90 amps in the corners. If you start poring cash into the rtr's the newbie gets bummed out and his/ her boat sits on the shelf collecting dust and there out.

Cheers, Jay

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 10:51 AM
Darin, there is No stability in the market in any of the esc's we use. Hydra HV comes to mind. I was just going with what comes out of the box . We have logged those wee little aqua esc's holding there own at 90 amps in the corners. If you start poring cash into the rtr's the newbie gets bummed out and his/ her boat sits on the shelf collecting dust and there out.

Cheers, Jay

Jay, I understand what you are saying, which is EXACTLY why I do NOT want NAMBA rules in the business of having to document part numbers or defining that level of specifics. That's where we are now, and it ONLY works while the parts are available. I would think we'd want to get to a point where we did NOT have to revisit the rules every time there is a change in technology.

Just my opinion. We'll have to keep discussing it.

RandyatBBY
08-26-2015, 11:15 AM
Darin I think we are getting it narrowed down to what it needs to be. Are you going to write the new proposal? From what I am reading coming from you I like it.

T.S.Davis
08-26-2015, 11:20 AM
An example of this is that I witnessed a TFL Pursuit with a TP 3630 1950kv motor and a X447/3 prop run with P-Sport Hydros and keep up with them. That Pursuit had to be running between 55 to 60mph.... .

Dave, that was a 4060 1950kv. It's a ton more motor than a 3630 is. I don't have a TP3630. I have an SSS motor that's close I think.

The idea here is NOT to add more powerful motors to limited at all. That would totally screw up what's working. It's to write a spec that only allows motors that are close in performance to what we've been running since 2008.

I'm not for singling out stock boat guys. They need to be included and not placed at a separate table like the little kids at thanks giving dinner. Plus that just further divides the numbers. An SV or even a Revolt stocker class is fine but not IMO for the everyone.

Jay, we have a LOT of P limited boats in our club. Some with AQ speedo, some with PB, some with Seaking, some with Castle. Makes no difference. The motor is the week link. In fact, some of our classes were won by guys with AQ Revolts in stock form. I don't think my boats are slow and still those guy won so I think the speedos don't do a thing for me.

With the dim and weight limits I think that will still be the case.

I'm still worried about the max cost thing. I know we could "what if" this to death. I worry that some manufacturer will find some superior unobtainium winding material and then we all gotta have em. Rotor wrapped in Irukandji tentacles.

Ken Haines
08-26-2015, 11:28 AM
[QUOTE=dethow;639463]Guys, I'm just not getting the logic here. It seems like we all want better motors to be included in the limited class so we can run faster. Isn't that already defined by the open (unlimited) classes? You're talking about using motors in the limited class that one could use in the open class and be competitive.

No No No................I will be openly opposed to motors that are added to the list that
end up changing the speeds of the limited classes. That would mean all racers at club,
big race or national levels would have to buy all new motors to stay competitive.
Again this is why I am foot dragging on this topic. We do currently have a list of motors
that is still available and the class is working just the way it is. So lets not invent a new crisis
here. Darin I respect you immensely, but not sure of the reason for a rush on this.
Our sport is fragile enough at least in our area and at the large race level as observed by the
drop in race attendance at all venues even gas and nitro this entire year.
Not to start a hornets nest but some Aquacraft failures are do to the lead wires shorting as
the enter the can. This is something we all know. I also know this had been beaten to death
before, but maybe should we have allowed simple lead wire insulation addition like 1 piece of
shrink on the middle lead wire. Please lets discuss like gentlemen as I know this issue got real
ugly some time ago.

I would also add that I hope the renewed interest in racing rules here is also an indication of
renewed interest in racing that will show up as an increase in attendance.

RandyatBBY
08-26-2015, 11:29 AM
Dave, that was a 4060 1950kv. It's a ton more motor than a 3630 is. I don't have a TP3630. I have an SSS motor that's close I think.

The idea here is NOT to add more powerful motors to limited at all. That would totally screw up what's working. It's to write a spec that only allows motors that are close in performance to what we've been running since 2008.

I'm not for singling out stock boat guys. They need to be included and not placed at a separate table like the little kids at thanks giving dinner. Plus that just further divides the numbers. An SV or even a Revolt stocker class is fine but not IMO for the everyone.

Jay, we have a LOT of P limited boats in our club. Some with AQ speedo, some with PB, some with Seaking, some with Castle. Makes no difference. The motor is the week link. In fact, some of our classes were won by guys with AQ Revolts in stock form. I don't think my boats are slow and still those guy won so I think the speedos don't do a thing for me.

With the dim and weight limits I think that will still be the case.

I'm still worried about the max cost thing. I know we could "what if" this to death. I worry that some manufacturer will find some superior unobtainium winding material and then we all gotta have em. Rotor wrapped in Irukandji tentacles.

What is this world coming to...... you are making good sense! I like it when a thread is constructive.:thumbup1:

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 11:36 AM
Darin I respect you immensely, but not sure of the reason for a rush on this.


Ken... Just to be clear... I'm not rushing anything. Just discussing the issue.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 11:38 AM
Another thing that people might want to take note of...


That TP motor that so many of you keep saying is "on par" with the UL-1 motor...

Looking at it's specs, it's CLEARLY a superior motor. "Faster", if you will... Want a clue why? Look at it's mass...

dethow
08-26-2015, 11:47 AM
Understood Terry... I defiantly misunderstood what you were running in that boat.

You guys all have much more experience with these different motors and my opinions were based on a mis-understanding of what I thought you were running in that. So I will bow down to your knowledge and trust whatever you guys do will be the best for the hobby. I just hate to see things get harder and harder for new people to get involved.

I guess I just see that a stronger motor option will lead to people pushing the props more and being able to run a 2000kv motor with a larger X447 or M545 prop. This will lead to a speed gain that a stock AQ can not achieve without burning up.

I understand you saying you don't want to put new guys at the kids table, but IMO these stronger limited motors will set new people as none competitive unless they too upgrade their motor, esc, connectors and prop. Are we possibly expecting to much from new guys??? Will new people want to make those kind of investments and learning process before they've even had a chance to have some fun in the hobby with a minimal investment? Yeah they can come out an put a stock AQ or PB on the water and race with the big dogs.... but loosing isn't fun.

RandyatBBY
08-26-2015, 11:49 AM
Please add to the list leopard 3650 1840kv 4y

Will you be getting the motor with a 5MM shaft?

T.S.Davis
08-26-2015, 11:52 AM
I understand you saying you don't want to put new guys at the kids table, but IMO these stronger limited motors will set new people as none competitive unless they too upgrade their motor, esc, connectors and prop. Are we possibly expecting to much from new guys??? Will new people want to make those kind of investments and learning process before they've even had a chance to have some fun in the hobby with a minimal investment? Yeah they can come out an put a stock AQ or PB on the water and race with the big dogs.... but loosing isn't fun.

This is what we're trying to avoid. We don't want to open the door to motors that make the existing stuff junk. It's a touchy thing that will require proof of concept.

Doby
08-26-2015, 12:10 PM
Understood Terry... I defiantly misunderstood what you were running in that boat.

You guys all have much more experience with these different motors and my opinions were based on a mis-understanding of what I thought you were running in that. So I will bow down to your knowledge and trust whatever you guys do will be the best for the hobby. I just hate to see things get harder and harder for new people to get involved.

I guess I just see that a stronger motor option will lead to people pushing the props more and being able to run a 2000kv motor with a larger X447 or M545 prop. This will lead to a speed gain that a stock AQ can not achieve without burning up.

I understand you saying you don't want to put new guys at the kids table, but IMO these stronger limited motors will set new people as none competitive unless they too upgrade their motor, esc, connectors and prop. Are we possibly expecting to much from new guys??? Will new people want to make those kind of investments and learning process before they've even had a chance to have some fun in the hobby with a minimal investment? Yeah they can come out an put a stock AQ or PB on the water and race with the big dogs.... but loosing isn't fun.

You need to get away from the "stronger motor" mentality...just more motor options to supplement the current ones.
Lets face it, you could limit the kv to 1000 and people will still burn motors trying to get the max out of them. Max kv does not automatically mean you have the fastest boat and will win. If people constantly burn up the 2030s, then either check your setups or go with an 1800 kv motor.

Ken Haines
08-26-2015, 12:10 PM
Ken... Just to be clear... I'm not rushing anything. Just discussing the issue.
Perfect.....I may have just misunderstood
Thanks :bounce:

Doby
08-26-2015, 12:18 PM
Yeah they can come out an put a stock AQ or PB on the water and race with the big dogs.... but loosing isn't fun.

FYI the Revolt I used to win the P-Limited Offshore at the Cup this year was bone stock (1800 kv) except for a dinged up m445.
FYI, The Motley Crew I used to win the P-Limited Cat at the Cup this year was bone stock (1800 kv) except for a 40 dollar HK ESC and a prop.

No need to spend a lot of money.....just time on the water.

You can be competitive right out of the box...but you need to tune your boats.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 12:23 PM
Perfect.....I may have just misunderstood
Thanks :bounce:

No worries! It's a LOT to read through!

Just be assured... my moto, generally for all of life, is "Do it once, do it RIGHT!"... Or "Do it RIGHT, do it once"... Or something to that effect. :beerchug:

RaceMechaniX
08-26-2015, 12:28 PM
Darin,
I have some exact weights for you. The 1930 motors are 262g, the 1940 which we will likely exclude are 316g.

TG

jaike5
08-26-2015, 12:31 PM
Terry, the stock esc's just help keep the playing field level. Look how even the SV27 class is in your club, was fun to watch even more fun to race in, think I'm going to get me one of those . The newbies can race with experienced guys and learn a lot and have a good chance of winning. Food for thought.... Cracker Box Q size P power. remember Pete running open mono in a cracker box w 3060 10s 2p whatah scream! ..... sorry for the off topic !

Darin, with evolving technologies we are going to have to continue rewriting the rules .... can't wait for the new generation batteries to shake things up. Open dialog with out bashing and name calling is what is needed to make it as seem less and wallet friendly as possible.

Steve, Thanks man, for keeping on top of it all for us to be able to play boats.

Cheers, Jay. race on:rockon2:

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 12:41 PM
arin, with evolving technologies we are going to have to continue rewriting the rules .... can't wait for the new generation batteries to shake things up.

Perhaps, but we aren't focusing on batteries right now. That's another subject for another time.

With motors, if this is done correctly, there would NOT be a reason to address it again. Period.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 12:45 PM
Darin,
I have some exact weights for you. The 1930 motors are 262g, the 1940 which we will likely exclude are 316g.

TG

Tyler, on the 1930's, is that actual weight?

I ask because the ones currently on my list (1930 CarLine) are LISTED as 230g....

dethow
08-26-2015, 12:53 PM
FYI the Revolt I used to win the P-Limited Offshore at the Cup this year was bone stock (1800 kv) except for a dinged up m445.
FYI, The Motley Crew I used to win the P-Limited Cat at the Cup this year was bone stock (1800 kv) except for a 40 dollar HK ESC and a prop.

No need to spend a lot of money.....just time on the water.

You can be competitive right out of the box...but you need to tune your boats.

I do understand that is how it currently works and know that stock boats are competitive. I guess I just got the impression that part of the reason to expand the list of limited motors was to get some more dependable choices in the mix. More dependable to me... means stronger. And I didn't know if this would have an adverse effect on the use of existing limited motors.

But, as I previously said... I'm going to bow out of this and trust in you guys that know far more then I about this subject and also listen to the fact that this process will involve testing. So those making the decisions will see if there are advantages to other motors and in turn adversely affecting the existing limited motors.

Last thing for me on the subject is just that I still think that providing a spec boat class would be the best way to get more new people involved. And I don't think this would single out the newbie and not have them included. There would be 3 classes for them to run and I think many experienced racers would run in them as well. Just as many run the MMEU SV27 class.

But again... I should just bow out because I understand you guys have more experience in these matters and know best.

Doby
08-26-2015, 12:56 PM
Not more dependable choices...just dependable supplies :beerchug:

D. Newland
08-26-2015, 01:27 PM
...
Don't get me wrong here... I'd love to get a better motor in my Pursuit and run faster. But that desire leans more towards wishing MMEU ran more open classes and less limited classes. I have also seen new people come around and I think it gets over whelming for them to think they could actually get involved in this hobby. That's why I think a different direction altogether is warranted.

Provide a few spec boat classes for beginners to run their off the shelf boats and abolish the limited motors altogether...

D-Thanks for your involvement in this thread! We need your perspective and you bring up some good points. We kind of created this monster called P-Ltd and, maybe to a fault, tried to get it to encompass too much. But, the current result is that more than 50% of the boats on the water at any given sanctioned race is P-Ltd powered. Or more. That's a good thing.

I still don't know where I stand regarding experienced racers getting out of P-Ltd classes, or not. It obviously has most of the competition and experienced involvement has a ton of upside, but we then tend to possibly influence it incorrectly (and possibly subconsciously). If I were staying in the hobby, I would be out of P-Ltd racing, at the same time try to preserve the magic for others. New/upcoming racers, really. Budget oriented. Equal performance. Tuning focused.

As far as offering an RTR within a national rule set, that just won't happen within either organization IMO. It's more appropriate for clubs to set up RTR classes because they can act faster to changes than NAMBA/IMPBA, as well as adjust to what best fits their group. The RTR market changes too fast for a national rule set to keep up, and the discussions that would go on about how/when to change RTR rules once a boat becomes obsolete or a better RTR comes from another manufacturer would be frequent...and I'm afraid epic.


Darin and others. Thank you! Great work on this so far. We're getting somewhere. I will say that I like the "one and done" attitude with the rule direction, but I'll be honest...I like even more the control, focus and simplicity of actually listing motors in the rule rather than listing a spec. Heck, list 6 more motors (once tested).

dethow
08-26-2015, 01:55 PM
As far as offering an RTR within a national rule set, that just won't happen within either organization IMO. It's more appropriate for clubs to set up RTR classes because they can act faster to changes than NAMBA/IMPBA, as well as adjust to what best fits their group. The RTR market changes too fast for a national rule set to keep up, and the discussions that would go on about how/when to change RTR rules once a boat becomes obsolete or a better RTR comes from another manufacturer would be frequent...and I'm afraid epic.

Understood and makes perfect sense. Thanks

Steven Vaccaro
08-26-2015, 03:07 PM
Will you be getting the motor with a 5MM shaft?

Yes in the next batch.

Steven Vaccaro
08-26-2015, 03:49 PM
Wow, I never paid much attention to the comparison, but the tp motor is over an ounce heavier. It better outperform a Aquacraft motor!!!

GixerGuy1978
08-26-2015, 04:12 PM
I'm liking the way this thread has become constructive now! And everyone is starting to have constructive criticism, hence the purpose! We almost need to condense all the constructive info (concerns/ideas/etc) into one entry so that new people just joining in don't have to read 6 pages of some of the earlier crap that happened, to get the required latest info to the forefront.
That being said, Dethow.... You make some concerning points that many of us have on this subject. All good! As you, myself included and others will see and come to learn and discover from the ideas presented by the people involved in its fruition. I, for one, have all the trust in these guru's to make this class fair for everyone, especially newbies. This topic obviously will help the hobby in all ways. I really look forward to coming to a final fair conclusion all around that makes sense to everyone.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 04:46 PM
OK, Gang... Thanks to input from several people, as well as a bunch of searching myself, I've an updated list of motors that fall within the suggested specifications.

Remember, once again, that I am NOT advocating that NAMBA actually maintain such a list in the rulebook. I'm simply putting a list of motors together that all of you might find out there that meet what would be the published specs.

Look this list over and I want you to think VERY clearly and analytically about how all these motors compare. If you see a motor(s) on the list that concern you, I want you to be able to answer the following question:

WHAT about this motor makes you worry that it'll "ruin the class", or otherwise be more competitive than the others. SPECIFICALLY, not based on speculation, but rather on real data, WHY is this motor concerning you?

Also, looking at the list myself, I can't imagine WHY some might want to get that TP-3630-10D included... :blink: Is it not OBVIOUS WHY the TP motor runs cooler than the AQ2030?? Nothing to see here... :olleyes:

Anyhow, here is the list thus far. Think it over.


136112

dethow
08-26-2015, 05:29 PM
So to be clear... you guys are looking at placing spec limits to motors instead of defining a specific list of legal motors?
And anything that fits within these limits would be legal?

Based on this list the maximums are as follows:
Max Diameter: 36.3mm
Max Length: 60.0mm
Max Weight: 252g
Max KV: 2050

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 05:33 PM
Something to think about regarding our current motor supply...

Pro Boat has literally LAID down the GAUNTLET regarding RTR motors and boat performance. IM31, Voracity, and things yet to be revealed... All are running 40mm+ motors... The days of the Pro Boat 36-series motors coming in 4S+ RTRs are done.

Assuming that Aquacraft is planning on replacing Mike Z and Russ Williamson and continuing their AQ development, HOW do you think they might respond to the current market, especially to their closest rival, whose headquarters is only a few blocks away?? Do they want to compete? Can they do that with an AQ2030 or AQ1800??

Pro Boat's 40mm motor program is a reality. People have them in their hands. The boats are literally coming out of the boxes an approaching, and exceeding, 50+mph. Are people still going to want that 40mph Revolt?

You'll see why I'm not nearly as concerned about matching up perfectly with the existing supply of motors. We'll have them around for awhile, but the availability and supply are GOING to wain eventually. I'd rather match our specs to be close to those, but leave enough room to be INCLUSIVE of the range of motors that are ACTUALLY available on a large scale.

Just food for thought.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 05:39 PM
So to be clear... you guys are looking at placing spec limits to motors instead of defining a specific list of legal motors?
And anything that fits within these limits would be legal?

Based on this list the maximums are as follows:
Max Diameter: 36.5mm
Max Length: 61.0mm
Max Weight: 260g
Max KV: 2050

I don't know if I'd say "you guys" are looking to do this... Maybe... but, to be clear, it's ME that has been advocating this direction in this conversation. I'm the one who thinks it's the way to move forward down the road. I'm not sure what others think, other than the thoughts in this thread.

I guess that's why we are here to read... ;)

And, I agree with the sentiments above... PLEASE don't NOT participate because you think you are a "newbie" or don't know enough... some of us DO have more experience, but this conversation should address the thoughts of all. Otherwise, how can we get 'new blood' into the hobby! More racers = MORE FUN!

JimClark
08-26-2015, 06:04 PM
Something like the talked about spec would help me ( a very low budget racer) find a motor that would be legal and in my miniscule racing budget

RaceMechaniX
08-26-2015, 06:15 PM
Tyler, on the 1930's, is that actual weight?

I ask because the ones currently on my list (1930 CarLine) are LISTED as 230g....

The standard 1930 is a little heavier due to the longer leads.

TG

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 06:32 PM
The standard 1930 is a little heavier due to the longer leads.

TG

Are the ones you are measuring the 6-wire or the standard 3? What are the shaft sizes?

trigger
08-26-2015, 06:33 PM
We have run with Darin's proposal for about a season now in our Indy Admirals club races, in short we don't want to turn away new people that are "close" to the approved motor listing. It helps people join into the hobby with their particular boat, and to be honest we have not noticed any radical speed freaks. If its close to the approved spec we let people join in. obviously seasoned members know the rules and as new members become hooked, they migrate to either approved kit or other classes that best suit them. Personally speaking, I'm for a spec of sorts as described, and agree that the market of RTR's will somewhat dictate the future of where people enter into the hobby. There are plenty of other classes for the die-hard pro's to fight it out on the water.

dethow
08-26-2015, 07:03 PM
And, I agree with the sentiments above... PLEASE don't NOT participate because you think you are a "newbie" or don't know enough... some of us DO have more experience, but this conversation should address the thoughts of all. Otherwise, how can we get 'new blood' into the hobby! More racers = MORE FUN!

Thank you.... I've always felt welcomed into this hobby and this just continues the understanding and patients of the more knowledgeable individuals. To be honest I was reluctant to say anything as I knew "you guys" have your reasons. But the patient explanations are appreciated.

Even as a "newbie" I'm following the existing situations, potential future problems and rational for making this more of a spec guideline rather then naming specific motor brands/types. I actually think this is a good idea and am getting excited for the possibilities.

I was looking on eBay for what a Leopard 3660 2050kv would cost. I couldn't find one on there but I did see several other Chinese made motors in the $40 area that would fit the above mentioned specs.

My big curiosity is... will there be an obvious speed difference going from a Turnigy to an Aquacraft to a TP and ultimately an expensive Neu 1409???
I'd have to believe that a $200 Neu motor would have to preform better and take more abuse then a $50 Turnigy.

But, Darin, based on what you said about PB being all 40mm and the possibility that AQ may end up going down that road to compete... Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about keeping all motors in the limited class equal to a current AQ or PB 36mm. After all, if someone buys a new IM31 with a 40mm motor that does 50mph... they are going to want a good 36mm replacement to run in limited classes that can still push their boat 50mph.

Are we going to run into an issue 5 years from now that most off the shelf boats are running 40mm motors? I'm guessing the answer is yes that may happen and NAMBA rules may have to be changed again to increase spec limits to allow for those stock motors' use in limited classes. Is that a correct assumption?

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 07:42 PM
Are we going to run into an issue 5 years from now that most off the shelf boats are running 40mm motors?

Those boats/power systems already have a place to race... "P"... 4S, any motor(s)...

dethow
08-26-2015, 07:45 PM
Those boats/power systems already have a place to race... "P"... 4S, any motor(s)...

Ahhh... yeah! See I forget about that because MMEU doesn't run enough open "P" classes.

T.S.Davis
08-26-2015, 08:50 PM
MMEU guys won't build P boats for some reason. I suspect its a dough thing. p sport seems to be consconsistent this season though. That class is a scream. Love me some P mono too. Q sport is a little much for our puddle.

We all need to remember too. We're not racing to make a this change. By the time we get this test period under our belts the market may have dictated a direction weather we like it or not.

As Darin mentioned, PB's run man sized motors now. AQ is selling a less powerful setup. They may have no choice but to respond.

Darin Jordan
08-26-2015, 08:54 PM
Thinking pragmatically about this, we could discuss this, get a general direction figured out, and submit it for a vote AND... we COULD make part of the proposal to be to define an implementation date. Target January 2017?

Just a thought. Guys would then have plenty of time to adjust.

dethow
08-26-2015, 09:37 PM
Darin... I assume you are looking for some approval from people to proceed with the process of submitting for a vote.

Your idea seems to make the most sense. I don't think adding spec for wattage or max amps is a good idea since these would be hard to verify and some manufactures don't even list those specs. Some being Chinese stuff sold on eBay. I'm sure if one did more research on any manufacture the data could be found but I think it over complicates things for the new people like me that don't really have an understanding of what all those things mean.

But I can... and I think everyone can follow dimensions, weight and kv.

I also like the idea of an implementation date.

longballlumber
08-26-2015, 10:36 PM
Thinking out loud:
By my count there are roughly 37ish motors on "the list” I am failing to see how 37 different motors supports the INTENT that was previously discussed?

INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control)
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills
- Balanced Competition (Parity)
- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)????

Cost Control – low priority?

Amateur’s – Dos a list of 37 help or hurt this??? (hint: look at balanced competition)

Balanced Competition - Do you really think all 37 motors are going to provide BALANCED performance based on the package dimensions?

Ease of Entry – while RTR motors are included do you think they will be “balanced” with some or all of the motors listed?

Simply input…

Later,
Ball

Quietlee
08-27-2015, 12:18 AM
I typically just sit back and take in all of the information. So far I think it's all been moving along pretty good. There's a couple things that I've seen on the thread that I'd like to put my thoughts on. I will say that I do like the thought of opening up and trying a few different motors for a while before anything is decided. We may find issues with some of the motors, while others may surprise or confuse us.
I've mainly been running AQ and PB motors over the years. Trial and error have lead to a few hot motors, but I've only had one failure. That motor had been used quite a bit anyway and I knew it's time was limited. I wanted to try something different after seeing all the chatter about motors so I picked up a couple of the TP's. We''ve had a pretty poor summer here so I haven't had as much opportunity to run them. We did get a chance to do some testing and was able to gather some data. For the concern about it being heavier than others, there wasn't that much difference in performance. I was surprised, but confused by the difference. ML Sport hydro was used to run three different props, then the motors were swapped and the same three props were used. The only thing that was changed was the timing on the ESC. Radar gun was used to capture speeds and temps were taken after four laps were recorded. Props were all detounged. Batteries charged after each run.

AQ 2030 kv
prop speed motor ESC
445 45 120 129
545 49 118 129
645 52 110 129
TP 1950 kv
445 50 110 130
545 47 117 140
645 47 129 115

Not exactly the kind of results we would expect. I have picked up an Eagle Tree in the last couple weeks. Really looking forward to getting that set up and running some more tests, but that could take some time with the water conditions here now. I'm also thinking of picking up something else from the "list" just to see what it'll do.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 07:51 AM
I am failing to see how 37 different motors supports the INTENT that was previously discussed?


Mike, EXCELLENT Questions. Thank you for participating! I was hoping some more would.

Since no one is answering you and I seem to be the one driving this idea, here are my thoughts:




- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control)




1) How does one tech this, or limit it? How do you right a rule to regulate this?
2) For the VERY FEW $200.00 motors on this list, there are a multitude of much lower cost options. Prices range from $35.00 on EBAY to $230.00 from Lehner. Does this not provide the opportunity for lower cost? The average motor on the list, runs in the $75.00 to $125.00 range.
3) P-LTD already lowers the cost of entry over P

a) Single Motor Only
b) Lower cost motors in general
c) Less Battery required (4000-6000mAh vs. 10,000)
d) Less ESC Required




- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills



1) Are the individual clubs not able to provide and "amateur class" on their own, that suits their areas needs?
2) Should a National Set of Rules, which really only count towards the ONE National event every year, and a few SAW races, be written to include essentially "training" classes?
3) Has this REALLY been a problem in the past? Individual clubs ALWAYS seem to include local classes to encompass this requirement. Here it was "Spec-SV27", in MMEU I believe they have a restricted N2 Sport Hydro Class, etc.


I would think that, just like happens to day, each club would bring along their members in a way conducive to getting them "up to speed". You can do that by simply offering a "run-what-you-brung" class or a "box-stock-RTR" class locally, and let them have at it. I'm not sure any of that fits in a set of National rules. It's not there for Gas or Nitro.




- Balanced Competition (Parity)



EVERY motor on this list, and any potential motors that would fit these specs, is going to be "on-par" with any other motor on this list. It has at LEAST as much parity as we have now. With the inclusion of the apparently popular idea of using the TP-3630-1950KV motor, it has INCREASED the upper threshold a bit, but overall, most of the motors listed have about the same performance potential. Some will be more efficient than others, but not by much, and those that are lower tend to be the ones that people wouldn't use anyhow. Those in the sweet spot regarding price-range are all in the 85% or higher efficiency. LOTs of options there.

There is only so much power you can get out of a motor of this size, with these dimensions, and under this KV restriction, on 4S. It's still all going to come down to the person setting up and racing the boat. Some will struggle, some will flourish, and a lot will run somewhere in between. Just like we do now.

Can you explain further your concerns with "parity", with the motors are all limited in max size, etc.??



- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)????



1) On a National level set of rules, is including RTRs, where the market is continually changing and improving and growing faster and more powerful, really the goal?
2) Would this not be handled better by individual clubs?
3) How would you effectively write rules that were flexible enough to allow WHATEVER might come down the pike, yet meet your other criteria (Balance, cost control, etc.)?


These are just some questions that come to mind when I consider the concerns, and the "goal" of the rule set.

Thoughts?

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 08:10 AM
Ease of Entry – while RTR motors are included do you think they will be “balanced” with some or all of the motors listed?



I wanted to address this thought a bit further, and the thoughts above about trying to manage a set of rules to absorb and keep on "parity" with RTR offerings today, and in the future.

Please take a look at this photo:

136134

I took this photo this morning.

Motors 3 and 4 represent the Dynamite (Pro Boat) and the AquaCraft P-LTD Legal motors we currently run. (sorry, NO WAY was I going to try to get that P.O.S. AQ Water jacket off and then back on again, just for a photo! :frusty: )

Motor 2 is the current RTR Pro Boat BlackJack 29 v3 2000KV motor. It's not currently legal in P-LTD, but represents the very MAXIMUM physical size for the motors meeting the specification rule being discussed.

Motor 5 is a Castle/Neu 1406. This, and the 1409, which is slightly longer, represent the "feared" "expensive" Neu offerings that would also fit the spec.

Do any of these motors scare anyhow yet?? Would other motors in this same size range worry you? Please explain why?



Now... MOTOR #1 is the motor that is currently being delivered in the RTR Pro Boat Impulse 31 v3. It's 40x68mm, weighs over 400g (with water jacket I think. So well over 300g), and puts out a HUGE amount of power.

THIS is the direction that the RTR market is likely heading. Pro Boat is one of the largest suppliers of quality RTRs, and they've already gone there. I would expect to see more of this from Pro Boat, and I would expect to see a response to it from AQ and others.

HOW do you write a set of National Rules that can encompass this wide range of power options and still maintain the criteria noted above?

It is because of this that I am a strong supporter of the idea of letting the individual clubs LOCALLY define rules that would allow this kind of RTR to come play, but defining a more concise and solid set of rules Nationally.


Thoughts? Concerns? Rants? Anyhow ready to stab me yet?? :doh:

RayR
08-27-2015, 08:19 AM
I wish the view counter worked for this thread.

ron1950
08-27-2015, 08:24 AM
there are only about 5 people that even care about all this crap...everyone ive talked to said if it came to a vote they will vote to keep existing rule as is on motors....

RandyatBBY
08-27-2015, 08:42 AM
Something like the talked about spec would help me ( a very low budget racer) find a motor that would be legal and in my miniscule racing budget

This is where the $100.00 cap and not having a mile long list of motors will help.

RandyatBBY
08-27-2015, 08:47 AM
there are only about 5 people that even care about all this crap...everyone ive talked to said if it came to a vote they will vote to keep existing rule as is on motors....

Not true, if it does not happen racers will drop out and race what appears to be more affordable classes. IE Gas classes.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 08:59 AM
This is where the $100.00 cap and not having a mile long list of motors will help.

Randy...

1) HOW do you enforce that?
2) HOW does that help with the "Quality" issue?
3) WHAT is it solving?

Remember, my idea here is to NOT have a Motor List... Racers should be able to think for themselves.

RandyatBBY
08-27-2015, 09:14 AM
Randy...

1) HOW do you enforce that?
2) HOW does that help with the "Quality" issue?
3) WHAT is it solving?

Remember, my idea here is to NOT have a Motor List... Racers should be able to think for themselves.

A shorter list of motors after testing by high level panel of racers. (for lack of better name) I am for the list just want to help keep it from being a $$$war. That is good for suppliers, bad for the sport/P LTD racers.

LuckyDuc
08-27-2015, 09:20 AM
I personally will be looking to build P power class boats going forward... Maybe a Q for giggles. I will keep my Ltd boats around to support my local club level racing, but like Howard and Dave N., I will be looking to other power classes in the future.

Sean

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 09:52 AM
there are only about 5 people that even care about all this crap...

I'm sure that's not the case...



I personally will be looking to build P power class boats going forward... Maybe a Q for giggles. I will keep my Ltd boats around to support my local club level racing, but like Howard and Dave N., I will be looking to other power classes in the future.

Sean

I talk to Brian regularly and we've talked about doing the same thing, especially since my involvement in anything P-LTD seems to raise so many people's hackle feathers....

But, it keeps coming back to one simple fact: You HAVE to have people in that class to race with. One or two others racing in P-Hydro doesn't make it that much fun. And, it cost a LOT more money to race those classes. So....

rightturnonly
08-27-2015, 10:04 AM
Here's my two cents..

While I understand about not having a motor list. I think we should look at it from the new boater point of view. When I got back into boating a couple of years ago I had experience from the 70's on the nitro side but had no clue on anything electric. Having the motor list helped when looking at what was legal. Maybe we could have a list of motors but more of an information list of what fits the parameters set in the rules. Something that could be updated as needed..the NAMBA web site is something we could/should use to our advantage. We're on the right track...

John

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 10:06 AM
Ron, sure keep it the same. Then when/if AQ goes the direction that PB is with more power the source for the existing spec will vanish. Those guys will just quit racing I guess.

Whiiiiich has just made a new problem occurr to me.

The direction of the RTR market. The success of the P limited classes has piggy backed off the success of the RTR market. Again, subject to debate but I think the vast majority agree on that.

With this potential motor spec we've been discussing we're trying to encompass the existing motors so that everyone can keep running what they have. Additionally, the thinking being that a RTR guy could run what he bought at the LHS. Accept...........that's not going to happen. The new spec will receive no benefit from the RTR market or the local hobby shops. Not if all the RTR's are now 10 mph faster running 40mm motors. So now we'll have tell new guy that just spent X dollars on his boat that if he wants to race he has to drop down 10mph and run a less powerful motor. To which he's going to say "eh, sounds like a snore. Never mind".

Not sure where to go from here.

LuckyDuc
08-27-2015, 10:22 AM
Ron, sure keep it the same. Then when/if AQ goes the direction that PB is with more power the source for the existing spec will vanish. Those guys will just quit racing I guess.

Whiiiiich has just made a new problem occurr to me.

The direction of the RTR market. The success of the P limited classes has piggy backed off the success of the RTR market. Again, subject to debate but I think the vast majority agree on that.

With this potential motor spec we've been discussing we're trying to encompass the existing motors so that everyone can keep running what they have. Additionally, the thinking being that a RTR guy could run what he bought at the LHS. Accept...........that's not going to happen. The new spec will receive no benefit from the RTR market or the local hobby shops. Not if all the RTR's are now 10 mph faster running 40mm motors. So now we'll have tell new guy that just spent X dollars on his boat that if he wants to race he has to drop down 10mph and run a less powerful motor. To which he's going to say "eh, sounds like a snore. Never mind".

Not sure where to go from here.

Assuming the "new" RTRs are 4 cell lipo and the hull dimensions are within the allowable measurements... The P class is where they should be directed.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 10:25 AM
Maybe we could have a list of motors but more of an information list of what fits the parameters

I think I mentioned above (WAY above??) the concept of the rule being defined by the specs, but a separate, semi-official list be provided that listed all of the known motors that fit the specs. That would be an excellent way to move forward. A very nice "compromise", if you will.

Again, IF you list it in the rules, you HAVE to have a way to tech it... IF you make an official motor list, you HAVE to have a way to verify that those are the motors being used.

AND, you are at the behest of the suppliers, bringing in availability, quality, and all the other issues that have been complained about and are associated with such.

AND you have to revisit the rules regularly as supplies change or sources change.

Just seems like a lot of extra work for no real benefit.

If racers want to be TOLD what to run, don't their local club members already do that??

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 10:27 AM
Not sure where to go from here.

RTR "Run-What-Ya-Brung" beginners class... Local Rules, only the novices, only said RTR style boats. Give-em a trophy at the end of the day. If they are serious about racing, they'll soon move that direction.

WHO really leaves there RTR and RTR anyhow??

dethow
08-27-2015, 11:03 AM
With this potential motor spec we've been discussing we're trying to encompass the existing motors so that everyone can keep running what they have. Additionally, the thinking being that a RTR guy could run what he bought at the LHS. Accept...........that's not going to happen. The new spec will receive no benefit from the RTR market or the local hobby shops. Not if all the RTR's are now 10 mph faster running 40mm motors. So now we'll have tell new guy that just spent X dollars on his boat that if he wants to race he has to drop down 10mph and run a less powerful motor. To which he's going to say "eh, sounds like a snore. Never mind".

And I think this is where I do question why even go through this change. Maybe the answer is to just run P-Limited like it is until it becomes a snore because the RTR boats are running faster and people lost interest in limited. It seems that based on where RTR appears to be heading there will be a nature progression as follows:

1.) As more RTR versions with 40mm motors are bought by both new people and experienced racers the local clubs will start to run more P classes to include them.

2.) As more guys see these run they may choose to pick up a new RTR version 40mm motor to throw in their existing boat they have been running in P-Limited. I assume these new RTR 40mm motors won't end up costing much more then the existing 36mm motors. Maybe a jump from $75-80 to $90-100.

3.) The existing supply of defined Limited motors will dry up and P-Limited classes will become less and less run at clubs.

4.) As P classes get more competitive and clubs have guys spending the bigger dollars on motors, the RTR 40mm motors may not be able to compete.

5.) At the point we have more RTR 40mm motors available the Limited class rules get changed to a defined list of 40mm RTR versions so these people still have a place to race and be competitive.

Meanwhile... clubs will manage on there own to make sure there are any RTR classes necessary for their local beginners to get out and have fun.

Final thought is based on Terry's idea of things being a snore... Won't the P-Limited class get boring once more of these faster RTR boats hit the market? Why would someone take a 40mm motor out of a 50mph boat and drop to 45mph to run a limited class? And at the same time, that person doesn't have the money to compete with the expensive motors and speedos in the P class. This issue WILL have to be addressed in 3 to 4 years. Maybe as soon as 2 years.
Are we keeping something alive that is just going to naturally go away anyway? I said earlier that P-Limited should just be abolished but I think that will happen on its own. If we want to save P-Limited I think patients may be the way to go until the 40mm RTR become more prevalent and we need to change the limited class to include them so that they have a place to run without having to compete with $300 to $400 Neu motors with massive amp speedos.

LuckyDuc
08-27-2015, 11:11 AM
This brings us full circle back to Mike Ball's original question... "What is the intent of the P-Ltd class"?

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 11:21 AM
Yeah I know but it comes back around to that ease of entry thing. I'm afraid we're veering to far away from that.

We've gained participation by making it as easy as possible for a guy to go race. We wrote the spec trying to tap into the RTR market. It was a perfect storm. We were running the gear and it was working for the most part. The RTR's fit right in and were in the ball park speed wise. Took some tweaking but they were competitive. They even win. MCup results are proof.

The new rtr's could run in a novice class but I'm not sure that's the best approach. I know our little club is just one of many but it's not uncommon for a newer racer to be out on the pond with 3 of the top 10 nationals points guys. Then when they beat those guys in a heat......priceless. That's enough to make them realize....."hey, any fool can do this stuff". It's part of the appeal of the classes I think. They're hooked. They want more of that!

We could direct them to P as Sean mentioned but that's provided you already have P running.

Am I alone on my tangential peninsula here? It's almost feeling like if AQ moves away from 36mm motors then the relationship between RTR's and "limited" the way we think of it is over. Easy entry from RTR's ends. We're officially on our own at that point. Could be okay I guess but is that what we want?

I'm really struggling with this.

We're gearing up for a potential change. Part of the change is revolving around the existing offerings and keeping them viable. Namely those RTR setups that made the class what it is. But those very RTR's are evolving right out from under the spec. The influx we experience from the "off the shelf" boats wont happen if the off the shelf boats are faster than what we're running. The new/next generation RTR's (what ever that means) will be the real draw and we'll be having this debate again. "Put me in the newb class, the boats are faster"

Is it time for us all to put on our big boy pants and run P? Somebody talk me down here please. hahaha

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 11:23 AM
Dang Dave, like you squeezed that right out of my head. Our heads were traveling down the same path there.

dethow
08-27-2015, 11:28 AM
Is it time for us all to put on our big boy pants and run P? Somebody talk me down here please. hahaha

I think there will be a transition period where clubs will need to run more P to include the new RTR boats until enough 40mm RTR options exist that the limited rules change to upgrade from a list of 36mm motors to 40mm motors so that this new upcoming fleet of RTR boats will have a place to race without having to compete with the high end motors and speedo some will be running in the P class.

LuckyDuc
08-27-2015, 11:42 AM
Depending on the club... It only takes 3 boats to have a "P" class on any given race day.

For me, the P-Ltd class was appealing because that was where the masses and talent pool happened to be at that time. The speeds were about right... Low to mid 50's, you could flip, hit a bouy, rub another boat, and not completely destroy your boats in the process.

RayR
08-27-2015, 11:52 AM
Full P makes sense based upon the prevalence of budget motors and speedo's, but then brings the 34" length limit into question. What good does it do to have a boat that spends most of it's time upside down.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 11:53 AM
For me, the P-Ltd class was appealing because that was where the masses and talent pool happened to be at that time. The speeds were about right... Low to mid 50's, you could flip, hit a bouy, rub another boat, and not completely destroy your boats in the process.

I'm curious as to what you think has changed, or what you think will change?

dethow
08-27-2015, 11:55 AM
Depending on the club... It only takes 3 boats to have a "P" class on any given race day.

For me, the P-Ltd class was appealing because that was where the masses and talent pool happened to be at that time. The speeds were about right... Low to mid 50's, you could flip, hit a bouy, rub another boat, and not completely destroy your boats in the process.

I'm not sure where those speed numbers are coming from but my P-Limited boats are running 45 to 47mph based on several GPS tests. I'm running right along with most other boats. There are a couple faster on the water in our club that may be pushing close to 50mph but they are well setup and very efficient boats.

I just don't think a low to mid 50's is a realistic number and thus making it sound like these existing limited motors will be able to push a new 40mm RTR boat as fast as the 50mph out-of-box they are/will be advertising. Thus... we won't have people WANTING to pull their 40mm motors to replace with a limited 36mm motor.

Full disclosure... I'm not saying you are wrong about the speeds. You boats may be very well setup and accomplishing that. But a 50mph p-limited boat is not the predominant from what I've experienced.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 12:00 PM
People talking about just "transitioning" to full-P maybe don't understand exactly what full-P is??

ANY Motor(s) (2 motors in Cats, etc...)
4S 2P batteries (TWICE the number of cells... TWO 4S packs as opposed to 1)
Heavier duty drivelines (.187 cable, Heavier hardware, etc.)
Heavier Duty boats (A light-weight RTR in full P will destroy itself in the first flip.


The point was to keep this reasonably priced to do. Now you guys want to just throw the doors back open?

I'm not seeing the need, on a NATIONAL level, to even attach this to RTRs any-longer.

That made sense when the RTRs fit the profile, but they don't, or won't, as time goes on.

Also... WHO really runs RTR boats, or even just the hulls, at a National event? A few Revolts raced by the locals putting on the event, maybe a BJ29 or MG... Even in our club, which is really one of the center-points for all-things P-LTD, Revolts are giving way to Pursuits, and MG29's are giving way to Sprint Cats...

I think we need to take a very honest look at the RTR industry, and just HOW much it's actually feeding, or NOT feeding, our racing classes.

I, personally, believe it's a VERY small part of the equation. One that should be handled on the CLUB level.

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 12:03 PM
Dave, Sean is a sport hydro guy. One of the fastest to be honest. Low 50's isn't crazy.

The 34" is still a limiter on it's own. My P mono is proof of that. Finally had to ditch the beast motor because finishing was nearly impossible. Now I have a $120 TP motor......and the MSRP on a AQ2030 is......$119.99. Interesting ain't it?

LuckyDuc
08-27-2015, 12:11 PM
I'm curious as to what you think has changed, or what you think will change?
The RTR market offering is what I think has/will continue to change. I'm just trying to gauge where the masses and talent pool will go so I have boats ready for it.


I'm not sure where those speed numbers are coming from but my P-Limited boats are running 45 to 47mph based on several GPS tests. I'm running right along with most other boats. There are a couple faster on the water in our club that may be pushing close to 50mph but they are well setup and very efficient boats.

I just don't think a low to mid 50's is a realistic number and thus making it sound like these existing limited motors will be able to push a new 40mm RTR boat as fast as the 50mph out-of-box they are/will be advertising. Thus... we won't have people WANTING to pull their 40mm motors to replace with a limited 36mm motor.

Full disclosure... I'm not saying you are wrong about the speeds. You boats may be very well setup and accomplishing that. But a 50mph p-limited boat is not the predominant from what I've experienced.

Just from my own personal experience, but these numbers will obviously vary based on wind, water, and temperature conditions, etc: http://forums.offshoreelectrics.com/showthread.php?48833-TP-3630-1950-Test-Reports&p=595268#post595268

RayR
08-27-2015, 12:12 PM
Or maybe 4S is dead, and 6S is the new normal. Lower amp draw, limited it to 1P, it becomes very cost effective.

dethow
08-27-2015, 12:20 PM
Darin, I completely follow what you are saying and questioning. But at some level we have to include the RTR market or we are looking at blocking out new people entering. Where does a new IM31 with the 40mm motor race? And what about the other future RTR that may come out to complete with that? Are we saying that no one can get in this and have a place to run at national events unless they want to run slower then what off-the shelf boats are running OR they want to start building $1500+ boats to compete in P or Q?

As of right now... our club doesn't run full P classes for mono or cat. So for us we could either put these guys into the P class and start running them or, yes, our local club makes a special class just for them. But then they still have no place to compete at national events.

It's understood that these RTR 40mm P boats will not be able to complete with the high-end boats. And that's why I believe over time the limited class will have to change to upgrade to 40mm motors.

For the existing situation your resolution makes complete sense and its a great idea. Just bringing up the thought that if we change to specs in limited this will not be the end of it. There are other future issues that are going to require more change to limited class. And since these 40mm boats are already being sold and more may be coming.... are we jumping the gun on making this change? Maybe patients would be served here and wait to see what happens with the RTR so that any changes made to limited will provide a place for them to race at national events.

Again... I follow some of your logic on why even consider what the RTR market is doing. But to be inclusive and cost effective we have to consider them.

I see the point that most guys at national events are not running RTR. As you say only the local guys putting on the event bring RTR stuff. So the local club guys that help put on a national event will not be able to participate in the national event because they only run RTR that their club has special classes for??? I see some hurt feelings that those guys won't be included in a big event that may only come around to them locally once every 5 years or so.

Newbie talking here... but I don't think that on a national level we should be heading down a road of either running slower then RTR or run with the big dogs and spend $$$$ to be included.

dethow
08-27-2015, 12:23 PM
Dave, Sean is a sport hydro guy. One of the fastest to be honest. Low 50's isn't crazy.

Ohhh.... okay, I wasn't think about sport hydro. Yes I fully agree they are moving at those speeds. My head was in mono and cat as I'm thinking about how these new RTR 40mm motors will run with limited 36mm motors in them.

D. Newland
08-27-2015, 12:30 PM
People talking about just "transitioning" to full-P maybe don't understand exactly what full-P is??

ANY Motor(s) (2 motors in Cats, etc...)
4S 2P batteries (TWICE the number of cells... TWO 4S packs as opposed to 1)
Heavier duty drivelines (.187 cable, Heavier hardware, etc.)
Heavier Duty boats (A light-weight RTR in full P will destroy itself in the first flip.





Darin-that is NOT what is powering the majority of national P Hydro, P-Sport Hydro, P-OPC or even P-Cat boats. That's another part of this conundrum. I can do all of those classes with a 1415 Neu and 1P. In fact, my P-Ltd Mono had a (kind of) obscure battery selection (a pair of 4S 3700's) to clear an offshore run. That boat is (was) more $$ than any of the others I just listed...

This discussion is really getting the thoughts down on paper, so to speak. I know it's frustrating that we sometimes spin in circles, but I'm sure a direction will appear.

If anyone is in contact with Aquacraft, it would sure help to know if they plan on supporting their current cat offerings, and possibly the UL-1 parts supply. If so, for how long, etc.

If both AQ and ProBoat move up the motor chain, then the only reason to update the P-Ltd rule is to keep the current hulls on the water. The Nitro A sized hulls.

Ken Haines
08-27-2015, 12:36 PM
Also... WHO really runs RTR boats, or even just the hulls, at a National event? A few Revolts raced by the locals putting on the event, maybe a BJ29 or MG... Even in our club, which is really one of the center-points for all-things P-LTD, Revolts are giving way to Pursuits, and MG29's are giving way to Sprint Cats...



One exception !!!
Most of the P-Ltd Cats are RTR's as far as I know.
In my case the Lucas Oil set up correctly is certainly capable of winning a Nat's.,
or at least it was in 2014.
Again, no disrespect just my experience in that class.
The other P-Ltd classes you are more correct however
the idea of those classes was to have a limited power system
like you pretty much say is way less current draw power and less money.
Good point on the "Full P" Class description.
you are very correct in pointing out the fact that most winning P class
boats need big horsepower, heavy duty drivelines, etc. if they want to win at a big event.

longballlumber
08-27-2015, 01:01 PM
If anyone is in contact with Aquacraft, it would sure help to know if they plan on supporting their current cat offerings, and possibly the UL-1 parts supply. If so, for how long, etc.

This is my own personal opinion (meaning I don't have any insider info), but I wouldn't put much faith into AquaCraft's future with respect to P-Limited Racing. EVEN IF they fill the currently open position, I HIGHLY doubt they will have a good barometer for the "state of the hobby". Their bottom line is $$$$ and has little to no interest what NAMBA or IMPBA is doing for the future. I have been wrong before, I hope I am this time. Even if they do fill the position, I won’t be betting my pay check that it will be like the “old days”.

Does anyone want to move to the middle of a corn field and know how to use Solidworks?

The wife wants to move closer to her family eventually (Chicago burbs). Champagne is just a little too far to make it work.

Steven Vaccaro
08-27-2015, 01:09 PM
I see lots of talk about 40mm motors taking over. I dont see it happening(not to soon anyways). Maybe in larger boats like the spartan or Voracity, but not the smaller boats that fit the p class.

dethow
08-27-2015, 01:35 PM
I see lots of talk about 40mm motors taking over. I dont see it happening(not to soon anyways). Maybe in larger boats like the spartan or Voracity, but not the smaller boats that fit the p class.

Curiosity... I took a look at the new IM31.
http://www.proboatmodels.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdId=PRB08008

So this is a 1750kv motor meant for 6S and advertised as 45+ mph. With some tuning and prop upgrades this will probably be in the 55 mph area on 6S.
But 6S doesn't fit P class. So these isn't really a threat... and if others (AQ) try to compete they will probably go down the same road of 6S.
One could put 4S in this boat with a M545 prop and it'd probably be running similar speeds as current p-limited boats.

My head is spinning... Now more then ever I get Darin's point of not thinking about what RTR is doing.

Only thing I'd like to ask based on this... would it make any sense to include some testing on these 40mm motors that come in these boats to see if along with the specs for the 36mm motors, there would be a limited list of certain 40mm motors that would also be allowed in p-limited. If these RTR boats are meant for 6S with slightly lower KV there may not be any real advantage when on 4S and could still be included in the class. Just a question...

Steven Vaccaro
08-27-2015, 01:47 PM
Dam, I didnt know the impulse went to a 40x68. Dam thats going to be a winner of an rtr.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 01:49 PM
My head is spinning... Now more then ever I get Darin's point of not thinking about what RTR is doing.

Yup...

RTR got this started. I don't see it sustaining it.

If we like this powere level and boat size for racing, then we detach from RTR and do something like has been suggested.

If we don't care, we let it die off naturally through time and attrition.

I love the power level and size. I'd like to keep it going.

dethow
08-27-2015, 01:50 PM
Dam, I didnt know the impulse went to a 40x68. Dam thats going to be a winner of an rtr.

Yeah... but the cost of that boat ($430) and cost of the (2) 3S batteries needed are much higher.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 01:51 PM
Dam, I didnt know the impulse went to a 40x68. Dam thats going to be a winner of an rtr.

Yup. I ran that motor on 4S in full P-mono in am IM31 with a real prop last year. It was easily into the 50+ range.

Motor is a beast.

RaceMechaniX
08-27-2015, 01:54 PM
Are the ones you are measuring the 6-wire or the standard 3? What are the shaft sizes?

3-wire with 5mm shaft. There is negligible weight difference between 3-wire and 6-wire versions.

dethow
08-27-2015, 01:57 PM
Yup. I ran that motor on 4S in full P-mono in am IM31 with a real prop last year. It was easily into the 50+ range.

Motor is a beast.

Okay... no point in including some testing, you've already done it and sounds like it WILL be an advantage over 36mm motors.

dethow
08-27-2015, 02:25 PM
Is it possible that the answer to this exists in just putting a cap on the KV and also prop dia. and pitch for P-limited?
Maybe:
1700-1899kv motors have a max prop of 45mm and 1.5 pitch
1900-2100kv motors have a max prop of 45mm and 1.4 pitch

Would someone that wants to spend $$$ on a 2050kv Neu motor really have a speed advantage on someone running an AQ2030 if they are both limited by the prop size? Might that guy running a more expensive motor only get a better durability/longevity over the cheaper motors?

I understand that may be a dumb question and the obvious answer to you experienced guys will be YES, a Neu 1515 2D (2050kv) will be much faster then an AQ 2030 even if they have the same prop. But I wanted to ask.

But if the answer was NO... I LOVE the possibilities. I could run a Neu 1515 with a limited prop and qualify for P-limited but then change props to go compete in open P with the same boat. And that guy who buys a new IM31 could put 4S in it, run a M545 and still fit within the P-limited class.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 02:55 PM
3-wire with 5mm shaft. There is negligible weight difference between 3-wire and 6-wire versions.

Thanks Tyler. I'll keep that in mind.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 02:57 PM
I could run a Neu 1515 with a limited prop and qualify for P-limited but then change props to go compete in open P with the same boat. And that guy who buys a new IM31 could put 4S in it, run a M545 and still fit within the P-limited class.

A 1515 is too large in diameter and in weight...

dethow
08-27-2015, 03:03 PM
A 1515 is too large in diameter and in weight...

My question was... what if we don't limit the size and weight, but instead limit the kv and prop sizes?

Theoretically... a 40x80mm motor turning 2000kv shouldn't push a boat any faster then a 36x60mm motor turning 2000kv if they are both limited to the same M445 prop.

That's my question... if that theory is correct then this method would fit the intent for P-limited.
INTENT
- Cost Effectiveness (Cost Control) (One could run an AQ2030 and still compete)
- Provide Amateur's a class to improve their skills (Speeds would be reduced for people to learn)
- Balanced Competition (Parity) (Speeds would be similar no matter what motor size because kv and prop is capped)
- ????Easy Entry (Think RTR's)???? (Existing boats AND new boats with 40mm motors would fit and be competitive)

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 03:15 PM
Theoretically... a 40x80mm motor turning 2000kv shouldn't push a boat any faster then a 36x60mm motor turning 2000kv if they are both limited to the same M445 prop.


You are WAY too fixated on KV...

Think of it this way...

Two motors... Two cars... Both 400cid, both the same weight, both with 400hp and both with 4.11:1 gearing...

One motor is a Big Block Chevy, the other is a Small Block Chevy...

Which one accelerates faster??

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 03:23 PM
RTR got this started. I don't see it sustaining it.

This is the part that worries me. The limited classes would not have had the participation it has without the influx of guys buying stuff at the the local hobby shop or from guys like Steve. They bought to play and found racing after the purchase. At least up here that's the case. Will these classes thrive or even survive without that? I just don't have a feel for that.

I'm certain that if the local guys are buying something they have to change to race they simply wont race. Newbies typically don't even know how to solder. No offense to any newer guys. Just something many have to be taught.

So they buy an RTR and can run in some sort of rooky class around 50ish mph. Then when they get good enough they can graduate to slower boats they have to build themselves. we.............hoo...........

dethow
08-27-2015, 03:28 PM
You are WAY too fixated on KV...

Think of it this way...

Two motors... Two cars... Both 400cid, both the same weight, both with 400hp and both with 4.11:1 gearing...

One motor is a Big Block Chevy, the other is a Small Block Chevy...

Which one accelerates faster??

Well... Automatically the big block car should weigh more but assuming they are the same the big block should accelerate faster due to a torque increase. However, a big block typically has a higher cid which would cause the higher torque. In the case of them being the same cid, I guess I'm not really sure which would accelerate faster. I do know if was building a car and I could choose either a big block or small block what both have the same cid and HP... I go with the small block all day. The car would weigh less and thus be faster.

I'm not sure that analogy went were you wanted it to. Are you saying the larger motor will have more torque so it will have an advantage even if using a smaller prop then the max it could handle? So it's top end speed may not be greater but it's acceleration through and out of the turns will be better.

Okay... so a similar cid and HP big block verses small block... I'd still take the small block because the weight would offset any additional torque provided by the big block. Relating that back to boats... a 40mm motor will have more torque/acceleration out of a turn but the 36mm motor will have a lighter weight and thus may not need that extra torque to get up to speed.

I guess a simple yes or no would be good. Because that analogy still has to many factors I could pro and con.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 03:34 PM
I guess a simple yes or no would be good. Because that analogy still has to many factors I could pro and con.

You are overthinking this...

The motor with more torque is going to load up LESS under load, therefore spinning the prop up faster.

RPMs are great... How fast the motor is able to GET to those RPMs determines acceleration rate. The larger motor (the one with MORE TORQUE) wins...

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 03:38 PM
So they buy an RTR and can run in some sort of rooky class around 50ish mph. Then when they get good enough they can graduate to slower boats they have to build themselves. we.............hoo...........

Well EEXXXXUUUUUSSSSSEEEE MEEEEEEE for helping to build such HIGH QUALITY RTRs! :tt2:

The local solution is simple... RTR Class... ANY RTR, you pay your money, you take your chances...

Nationally... Isn't any way that, on a National Scale, with the motor allowances per these specs, that a purpose built race boat is going to lose very often to an off-the-shelf RTR, I don't care how big of a motor they put in it. If they can, more power to them.

We can't keep NOT doing things just because of what MIGHT be... Unless it just doesn't matter anymore.

If that's the case, why have any classes or restrictions?

dethow
08-27-2015, 03:53 PM
You are overthinking this...

The motor with more torque is going to load up LESS under load, therefore spinning the prop up faster.

RPMs are great... How fast the motor is able to GET to those RPMs determines acceleration rate. The larger motor (the one with MORE TORQUE) wins...

So what if we reduced the prop sizes even further so the smaller motor was not over loaded and it could accelerate similar to a larger motor?

Yes, this may slow down the boats a couple mph but this would bring longevity to the class and also make it so guys learning how to tune a boat for max speed are not burning up motors and speedos on a regular basis.
There's a guy in our club that fried a motor in one boat and an esc in another boat a couple months back. He fixed those items.. came out last month fried another motor in the same boat he just put a new esc in. He runs modified RTR hulls in P-limited. And he's not a newbie. I don't know exactly how long he's been doing this but I assume at least 3 years.
Myself, as a newbie... (first season doing this) I have burned up 3 motors this season trying to push the limits of my AQ2030. Speedos are fine because I went overkill with SK180's. I'm not rich but I have the funds and desire to stick it out. But I could see how other newbies may get frustrated trying to keep up with the faster boats and just get sick of speeding the money on new motors and speedos.

I'm just throwing out some possible ways around this so that all motors and thus all RTR boats (both existing and in the future) could fit the class. While at the same time add some dependability to the motors we're using so guys aren't burning them up all the time.
My concern is much like Terry's
"So they buy an RTR and can run in some sort of rooky class around 50ish mph. Then when they get good enough they can graduate to slower boats they have to build themselves. we.............hoo........... "

Or, that RTR guy wants to go faster but doesn't have the $$$ to go open P. And that RTR guy has no place to race at a national event.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 04:28 PM
So, I'm not interested in discussing limiting props. There are WAY too many reasons why I think it's a terrible idea, and frankly, it's not what this thread is about. This thread is about figuring out what, if, how, when, etc., to address the Motors offered for the P-LTD class. Limiting props is GREAT when you have a "one-hull/one-power-system" style class (Like Spec-SV27), or where EVERYTHING is very similar. Otherwise, it's a mess.

People are freaking out over adding more 36mm motors, and now we are trying to stuff motors almost twice that size in...??? It doesn't make any sense.

I'm interested in simplicity, as few rules as possible, as easy tech'ing as possible, and a very narrow range of performance differences between the $ motors and the $$$ motors.

If we start adding a bunch of other arbitrary rules and restrictions, etc., the classes won't be any fun, and won't be well subscribed.

To me, the spec I've listed here, once it's honed in to be JUST inclusive enough, is the way to do this. That's just what I think.

raptor347
08-27-2015, 04:50 PM
So, my first thought was let the class die a natural death. On further reflection I had another thought.

Just stick a band-aid on it and ignore it. Add the TP motor to the current list.

Here are the advantages:
1. It will buy us a couple more years with the current rules.
2. Allows time to see what direction RTR's go.
3. Keeps choices easy for the average racer building boats.
3. Holds with our tradition of reactive rule making.
4. Steven gets to sell a bunch of TP motors.

Disadvantages:
1. We get to do this again in 2 years.
2. We get to do this again in 4 years, etc.
3. Still doesn't address where the new gen RTR's fit.

It almost wouldn't be FE without the biennial rule debates.

I may get some interesting phone calls tonight over this post.



BTW. I agree with Mike B. Don't expect a bunch of support for P-ltd from AQ in the future.

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 05:07 PM
HAHAHA I sure am enjoying your responses guys. Darin, just tell PB to knock it the heck off. Then we can back to doing serious racing on not so serious power plants.

Brian may be on to something. Buy some time and/or let it croke on it's own.

We touched on this briefly at our winter club meeting. We have an SV class. Some didn't realize you couldn't buy a fresh one off the shelf anymore. Unless you stumbled on to one or what ever. Consensus was run it till we can't find em or can't get parts. Then move on.

How about we just make it TP and nutt'n else? Didn't I say something like this about 30 posts ago? Screw all this hand wringing and run that till the supply beefs.

dethow
08-27-2015, 05:14 PM
No one is freaking out about adding more 36mm motors. On topic of motors ONLY it's a good idea.

I think this thread did get de-railing a bit leaning towards the discussion of where the future of P-limited is heading.

Currently there is no need to add those other motors because we have supply of what we need. But you are making this proposal because the future does not look good for them and you want to be ahead of that. What I'm saying is that by the time there is actually such a big problem we actually need this new list of motors, there MAY be other issues that will exist within the P-Limited format.

The biggest being 'ease of entry'. If these existing 36mm motors dry up and/or the RTR boats they come in dry up... We will be left with a new class of RTR which will have no place to run in NAMBA without making significant changes to your new RTR boat. And it's not like these required changes will make that boat faster. They will actually slow it down. So ease of entry is shot and potential for promoting the hobby to new people is shot.

I'm discussing this and any other potential changes to P-Limited (such as prop limits) in an effort to understand if there is more then just a list of motors that will need change within the next 3 to 4 years in order to keep the intent of this class.

To me... to just put together a list of motors that fixes potential future problem for those already in the hobby is great. But what about addressing the new guys that will be buying RTR. Right now it seems the only response to that is, that we shouldn't concern ourselves with what's going on in the RTR market. If we go down that road then we're basically saying we shouldn't concern ourselves with getting new racers in the hobby and thus should do nothing to accommodate them.

Doby
08-27-2015, 05:25 PM
Lets get rid of P-limited classes....wait a minute, than lets get rid of the majority of the boats at past events.

FE Racing ends.

Sigh.....:ohmy:

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 05:39 PM
How about we just make it TP and nutt'n else?

If we add the TP, that's basically what we've done...

I'm about ready to just jump on Brian's boat and say screw it.


OK, If we are going to add ONE TP, why not add 4... AT LEAST give people KV Options...


TP TP-3630-10D 10D 1950
TP TP-3630-5Y 5Y 1870
TP TP-3630-6Y 6Y 1750
TP TP-3630-7Y 7Y 1500

longballlumber
08-27-2015, 06:19 PM
I am still confused what this INTENT is.

I hear performance equality (parity)
I hear cost control
I hear "protect the RTR entry level boaters"

But we keep talking about a class that is a speedcontrol away from full P. Many of the motors listed, from a cost standpoint, would only take a few more $$$ to get you the correct motor wind and size for full P power. As a matter of fact there are plenty of successfull full P set up's using TP, Lepoard, Typhoon budget motors that cost the same or near the same on the current list.

Parity, Spec, Stock (call it whatever you want) in other racing formats comes with a Rule Book "This Thick" (think of any imaginary thickness). Let's face it you can’t have "unlimited" (or 37) motor options and have parity. Only a few motors will rise to the top. Only it’s going to take longer to find out the more motors we have on the list. We saw with the current (successful) rule set. A majority (not all) of the racers in P-limited run AquaCraft branded motors, even in there ProBoat hulls. Of those using the AquaCraft branded motors, I would be willing to bet the 2030 version was used 2:1 (maybe more) compared to the 1800kv. Point is there might be 5%??? of the motors on that list that will actually be “close” when using all three INTENT criteria; performance, quality, and cost.

I would also like to add that NO class should be called a “beginners” class. In many forms of racing (including RC boats), Stock or Spec racing is a tuners/drivers class. I does quite the opposite from what most people think of “stock” IMO.

As for RTR’s - The power system showed up before we started the class. NOW we have a structured class and new RTR’s that are being released without any concern with NAMBA’s P-Limited classes. That’s a what came first; chicken or egg scenario. It was a stroke of luck that we had to competing manufacturers that supplied off the shelf equipment that was “close”. I don’t think we can expect that in the future. The manufactures are no longer in touch with racing; Darin stated that about ProBoat and we all know that Mike Z is no longer at AquaCraft. I don’t think it’s something the NAMBA org (us racers) are going to be able to benefit from.

raptor347
08-27-2015, 06:31 PM
If we add the TP, that's basically what we've done...

I'm about ready to just jump on Brian's boat and say screw it.


OK, If we are going to add ONE TP, why not add 4... AT LEAST give people KV Options...


TP TP-3630-10D 10D 1950
TP TP-3630-5Y 5Y 1870
TP TP-3630-6Y 6Y 1750
TP TP-3630-7Y 7Y 1500

Covers all the existing applications that are slowly disappearing. The 5Y is listed at 2070kV though. How about the 10D, 7y and 6y?

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 06:36 PM
I am still confused what this INTENT is.

I hear performance equality (parity)
I hear cost control
I hear "protect the RTR entry level boaters"



Mike, I'm actually getting unclear about that myself. I know what I think it is, but I'm hearing all the same mixture of thoughts you are.

I'll add one to the list.


4) ARE we considering this for a NATIONAL class? A Class that does 1, 2, and 3, above, and also gets run at a National event?

1, 2, and 3 can be taken care of at the CLUB level, without any special inclusion into the rules. "Club-RTR", etc. No brain-er.

4... If you answer that question "YES", then we that's a whole new can of worms. HOW exactly would one do that with all the current, and imminent future variations?

You'll never satisfy all of these on a National level. You show up with a Revolt and I show up with an IM31 V3... who do you think has the distinct advantage?? How excited are you going to think racing is then? How can you POSSIBLY anticipate what RTR manufacturers are going to do? WHY do we care at a Nats?

I don't know ANYONE who starts out racing an RTR that, if they catch the bug, ONLY sticks to racing RTRs... Give them a club class where they can race locally and CATCH that bug. Then, they can build towards a structured class if they want to compete at one of the Nats events.

I'll go back to my original intent statement:

The intent of the P-Limited class is:


1) To provide a lower powered and lower cost alternative to the regular "P" class by:

a) restricting the number of motors allowed to a single motor
b) restricting the allowable motor size to a specific maximum set of dimensions and RPM

2) This class will provide a place for amateurs to gain experience, and for everyone to enjoy a lower cost, more evenly balanced competitive class of racing.


Maybe I'm over-thinking this. LORD knows I'm over posting about it... (sorry guys! :hide: )

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 06:40 PM
Covers all the existing applications that are slowly disappearing. The 5Y is listed at 2070kV though.

Ooops... my bad...



How about the 10D, 7y and 6y?



TP TP-3630-10D 10D 1950
TP TP-3630-6Y 6Y 1750
TP TP-3630-7Y 7Y 1500

What the heck... Why not... Would probably put the nail in the other motors, but that will happen eventually anyhow.

Heck, Even Peterson may approve??

Pros and Cons??

80mac
08-27-2015, 07:23 PM
Dave, I don't know what anyone else has planned but my intent is for a spec to get run at some club capacity over the 2016 season and then propose something only if it's working. How to do that without pissing off club racers I'm not sure yet. I suspect what we'll need to do is have a handful running experimental motors for no points. Maybe one guy in each of our classes tinkering? IDK yet. It's a sacrifice some of us are willing to make.

Terry, I have 2 of the TP 3630 motors that I purchased before the season started. I would be up for running the TP motor in either my P Limited Cat or P Limited Sport Hydro for next season if that will help out. Since I am still new to FE boats anyway it might be a good learning tool.... Just a thought.. Bill

dethow
08-27-2015, 07:23 PM
TP TP-3630-10D 10D 1950
TP TP-3630-6Y 6Y 1750
TP TP-3630-7Y 7Y 1500


I like the band-aid idea and like the simple addition of a few extra choices. :thumbup:

I think Mike B. is right that of all the choices which will become available from the defined specs there will be a couple that will rise to the top and become the top pick of racers. It will just take time and money spent to figure out which those are.

From the long list you have going I was personally excited about the TP3630 and the Neu1409. But I think the Neu is a stretch to put in that list of possible motors just because it hits the spec requirements. My gut says it will rise to the top and then we're asking people to spend big money on a limited class motor to compete. As Mike said... might as well just upgrade the esc and spend an extra $50 on a motor that can compete in full P.

And I'd think if you just go with these additions it could be implemented sooner then later. Maybe for next years' (2016) race season??

Can you tell I already own two of these TPs :rockon2: and sick of burning up AQs??:frusty:

D. Newland
08-27-2015, 07:37 PM
TP TP-3630-10D 10D 1950
TP TP-3630-6Y 6Y 1750
TP TP-3630-7Y 7Y 1500

Pros and Cons??



With proper testing this next season, if we do this with 2 more manufacturers, we're good well into the next decade with P-Ltd. I'm still falling on the side of actually listing motors. And if P-Ltd is that important to FE, it deserves our continued time and discussion. Just like we have been doing. I know this discussion had it's downs and ups, but the last P-Ltd proposal to add the Dynamite motors was as smooth as can be. That may be apples and oranges, but it does show that P-Ltd can have change discussions and proposals go smoothly.

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 08:48 PM
I'm still falling on the side of actually listing motors.

At this point, I'm would concede that point and just enhance the existing list.

Are you saying you'd want two more manufacturer options? So an additional 6 motors, 9 more total, assuming all three KVs?

I'll work on putting that list together. Typhoon and Leopard come to mind. Maybe TFL SSS?

rayzerdesigns
08-27-2015, 09:38 PM
Thanks, Steven, I'll add that. I found a few others as well, and Brian has a couple to add also.

People, I would like to challenge you to something: Take the specifications I've listed, and go out and TRY to find motors that fit the spec. Post them here and I'll add them to the list.


You are going to find out that the limits we're talking about make that search PRETTY darned narrow already. The list of suitable motors turns out to be pretty small, unless you go SMALLER on one or more of the dimensions, in which case you are drastically lowering the power of the motor (watts).

Actually doing this exercise reinforces my personal opinion that we do NOT need to have NAMBA maintain a list of motors, and that defining these specs is the way to go. Most, if not all of these "fears" are just not really going to come to fruition, and wouldn't matter much in regards to competitiveness, if they did.
I like the leopard 36x50 motors..they also have a 2090 I think..and a 1600kv..

T.S.Davis
08-27-2015, 09:49 PM
If we do something like a TP or a Leopard, let's stick to kV that are closer to or below what we already know the 2030 delivers. Let's stay 1950 ish and lower.

I know we're all over the place on this but I think that's because there are too many factors. Trying to anticipate and include the RTR markets potential is clearly impossible. My dream of continuing to enjoy all the RTR's having a drop in home seems to be just that.......a dream.

So what to do ?............I am stuck on bandaid cuz bandaid's stuck on me!

rayzerdesigns
08-27-2015, 09:50 PM
OK, Gang... Thanks to input from several people, as well as a bunch of searching myself, I've an updated list of motors that fall within the suggested specifications.

Remember, once again, that I am NOT advocating that NAMBA actually maintain such a list in the rulebook. I'm simply putting a list of motors together that all of you might find out there that meet what would be the published specs.

Look this list over and I want you to think VERY clearly and analytically about how all these motors compare. If you see a motor(s) on the list that concern you, I want you to be able to answer the following question:

WHAT about this motor makes you worry that it'll "ruin the class", or otherwise be more competitive than the others. SPECIFICALLY, not based on speculation, but rather on real data, WHY is this motor concerning you?

Also, looking at the list myself, I can't imagine WHY some might want to get that TP-3630-10D included... :blink: Is it not OBVIOUS WHY the TP motor runs cooler than the AQ2030?? Nothing to see here... :olleyes:

Anyhow, here is the list thus far. Think it over.


136112

im digging the leopards..i have run them..they are great motors..they can get hot and not short out the wires..and price wise on ose..with a water jacket..these might be my recommendation..but I still like the current legal motors

rayzerdesigns
08-27-2015, 09:55 PM
People talking about just "transitioning" to full-P maybe don't understand exactly what full-P is??

ANY Motor(s) (2 motors in Cats, etc...)
4S 2P batteries (TWICE the number of cells... TWO 4S packs as opposed to 1)
Heavier duty drivelines (.187 cable, Heavier hardware, etc.)
Heavier Duty boats (A light-weight RTR in full P will destroy itself in the first flip.


The point was to keep this reasonably priced to do. Now you guys want to just throw the doors back open?

I'm not seeing the need, on a NATIONAL level, to even attach this to RTRs any-longer.

That made sense when the RTRs fit the profile, but they don't, or won't, as time goes on.

Also... WHO really runs RTR boats, or even just the hulls, at a National event? A few Revolts raced by the locals putting on the event, maybe a BJ29 or MG... Even in our club, which is really one of the center-points for all-things P-LTD, Revolts are giving way to Pursuits, and MG29's are giving way to Sprint Cats...

I think we need to take a very honest look at the RTR industry, and just HOW much it's actually feeding, or NOT feeding, our racing classes.

I, personally, believe it's a VERY small part of the equation. One that should be handled on the CLUB level.

I love the fact limited classes are cheaper..0nly 2 2s packs..smaller speedos..i will race these classes as long as available..do I like the faster classes..yes..but expense goes way up

rayzerdesigns
08-27-2015, 10:17 PM
With proper testing this next season, if we do this with 2 more manufacturers, we're good well into the next decade with P-Ltd. I'm still falling on the side of actually listing motors. And if P-Ltd is that important to FE, it deserves our continued time and discussion. Just like we have been doing. I know this discussion had it's downs and ups, but the last P-Ltd proposal to add the Dynamite motors was as smooth as can be. That may be apples and oranges, but it does show that P-Ltd can have change discussions and proposals go smoothly.
so add the leopards..much cheaper in cost..and very durable..there are a few that would fit in the paramaters

dethow
08-27-2015, 11:18 PM
I'd think the TPs and Leopards are the way to go. Good options and easily available from several suppliers.
So I'd propose:

TP3630 7Y 1500kv
TP3630 6Y 1750kv
TP3630 10D 1950kv

LBP3660 3.5Y 1480kv
LBP3660 3Y 1720kv
LBP3660 5D 1900kv

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 11:35 PM
I'd think the TPs and Leopards are the way to go. Good options and easily available from several suppliers.
So I'd propose:

TP3630 7Y 1500kv
TP3630 6Y 1750kv
TP3630 10D 1950kv

LBP3660 3.5Y 1480kv
LBP3660 3Y 1720kv
LBP3660 5D 1900kv

I was just about to post those...

OK... So... per David N. who suggested three manufacturers, how about one more set... a LITTLE bit more money, but still "only" $115.00. Really good quality and readily available:




LBP3660 3.5Y 1480kv
LBP3660 3Y 1720kv
LBP3660 5D 1900kv

TP3630 7Y 1500kv
TP3630 6Y 1750kv
TP3630 10D 1950kv

Typhoon 650-58-1480
Typhoon 650-58-1760
Typhoon 650-58-1970

That's 9 motors, all in the same KV ranges, all 4-Pole, all of them either 36x58 or 36x60 (within the range of the existing motors), all decent quality, all of them between 240-260g, all having long runs of being available, giving users lots of options and supporting lots of hull types.

Approximate quality is similar.

Cost range from $60.00 to $115.00.

Would provide a definitive list of motors, satisfying THAT segment of the group that needs a list.

Relative performance to those currently on the list may be a tad better, but I think we can all agree that the current list is no going to be sustained anyhow?

Given the opportunity, with an official implementation date of January 1, 2017 to give people time to prepare, I'd vote on this tomorrow. Local clubs could start running the rules immediately and if any issues are discovered (NOT likely, in my opinion), they would have time to address them.

What do you think? Is THIS the direction we in NAMBA want to go??

Darin Jordan
08-27-2015, 11:54 PM
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.