PDA

View Full Version : Namba oval racing class changes ***



Darin Jordan
07-22-2016, 04:04 PM
[BORED AT WORK MODE:STIRRING UP $HIT MODE=TRUE]

NAMBA FE should be reduced to just two power levels of racing:


Up to 4S (0.1 to 16.92V)
Over 4S (17.0V to 42.3V)


All Hull types still, of course.

That would give you racing classes as follows:

P1 - Up to 4S (0.1 to 16.92V) - ANY SINGLE MOTOR. CATS are allowed to run TWINS

P1-Mono
P1-Cat
P1-Sport Hydro
P1-Hydro
P1-OPC
P1-Offshore

P2 - Over 4S (17.0V to 42.3V) - ANY SINGLE MOTOR. CATS are allowed to run TWINS


P2-Mono
P2-Cat
P2-Sport Hydro
P2-Hydro
P2-OPC
P2-Offshore


In addition, you could have "specialty" classes, like 1/10th Scale Unlimited (Classic and Modern), 1/8th Scale Unlimited, TWIN HYDRO, etc.

P-Limited, or "Spec" classes, would be club level only, rules and tech for these classes taken care of on a local club level only. And, perhaps re-evaluate Length Limits, either dropping them or opening them up slightly to give the 4S boats a little breathing room and/or to allow a larger 4S boat to put in 6S and go race in P2.

For NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP events, only official National NAMBA CLASSES would be eligible. Host clubs, could of course, include some "Exhibition" classes, announced ahead of time.

That's TWELVE regular classes, which would be run at a NATs in 2 or 3 Days, plus a few "Specialty Classes", and all the local racing with whatever local rules you want to run.

Done...

Are you seriously telling me that would NOT be enough racing for anyone out there, or that it would be somehow "not inclusive"??


OK... there... I said it. I feel better now... :tt2:

:hide:


[/BORED AT WORK MODE:STIRRING UP $HIT MODE=FALSE]

jaike5
07-22-2016, 07:17 PM
Your just trying to work in the HV batteries. The # 0ne man rule ... if it ain't broke don't fix it .
There I said it, :w00t:

Fluid
07-22-2016, 08:56 PM
Clearly it's broken when we need nearly a week to hold an event. To much strain on the host club (if you've never held a National event keep your fingers off the keyboard, you don't know), too much effort for many racers, too expensive in money and vacation time. It isn't supposed to be a competition to see how big of an event the Nats are, that's so juvenile. It should be about quality, not quantity. The real man rule #1 is: your unit is always bigger than the next guy's.

You go Darin!



.

ray schrauwen
07-22-2016, 09:13 PM
Ditto ∆∆∆∆∆

Darin Jordan
07-22-2016, 09:13 PM
Your just trying to work in the HV batteries. The # 0ne man rule ... if it ain't broke don't fix it .
There I said it, :w00t:

Ummmmm.... better think about that for a moment, then look again. Last time I checked (like 30 seconds ago), the P1 limits wouldn't allow for HV cells @4S...

I have ALWAYS advocated for fewer more inclusive classes, ever since Lipos were introduced and performance wasn't a function directly of cell counts.

jaike5
07-22-2016, 10:09 PM
Yes Nats are a mammoth under taking. I was at the Michigan nats so I get it . A huge job and helped out as much as possible with out getting in the way of their plan. Soooooo you reduce the number of classes but increase the number of heats you have to run so that every one can play, because everyone runs the same boats they always have. Unless the nats are for a few who think there s#@% don't stink.

T.S.Davis
07-22-2016, 10:39 PM
Are you running a fever?
You want to run say a 6s 36" mono against a 55" 10s mono.

This will only delete all 6s boats and classes. P2 will be 10s.

I've been CD for 2 Nat's and have hosted 3. All we need to do is remove classes that are uneccessary. There is no need for N1, N2, ECO or cracker box.

T.S.Davis
07-22-2016, 10:43 PM
That's 12 classes gone.

raptor347
07-23-2016, 01:54 PM
How about:
1. Get rid of the lower voltage limit for P (most current N2 power systems would be better used in P sized hulls anyway).
2. Keep Q and T.
3. Dump N1, N2, eco and crackerbox.

Keeping Q and T separate has merit.

raptor347
07-23-2016, 01:56 PM
Oh, allow any number of motors and keep the length limits as they are.

photohoward1
07-23-2016, 03:17 PM
N1. N2. Spec. And S. Leaves P. Q. and T. Done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rayzerdesigns
07-25-2016, 04:41 AM
No way smaller 6 s boats could compete against bigger hulls..especially in rough water.. I agree with getting rid of n1 n2 and s.. Though basically s/t can be combined.. I also think getting rid of offshore is s great idea.. Or at least change it to a 6 lap with different courses than what we have now for legal

Darin Jordan
07-25-2016, 08:39 AM
How about:
1. Get rid of the lower voltage limit for P (most current N2 power systems would be better used in P sized hulls anyway).
2. Keep Q and T.
3. Dump N1, N2, eco and crackerbox.

Keeping Q and T separate has merit.

Sounds reasonable... I'm convinced.

So, basically: "up to P", Q, and Open (10S Max), all with existing length restrictions.

A place for everyone to race, and more than enough classes to fill up at least 3-Days of National Championship competition.

T.S.Davis
07-25-2016, 09:07 AM
Then make the motor change for "limited" to 36x61? For a softer gentler version of P? Still fast enough to be fun but not 70 mph sport fast.

The lower voltage limit for P going away opens it up for guys that want to run 3s. No place for them now.

Get rid of the 1 cell classes too.

I would vote for all of that.

BTW, just because a class gets dumped from the rule book doesn't mean a club can't run it. The NAMBA brass always argues with me about running the class rules to be insured despite there being no text to that effect. The way around it is simply fitting boats into another power spec. A club that likes cracker-box is basically running P limited mono with additional club restrictions. The brass would have no issue with that.

Been thinking about the whole "try it for a year thing" too. When we adopted lithium polymer cells there was no club in the United States that was trial running every class in the book on lithium. So lithium was not test run for a year prior to proposal. A few classes in a few club was all that could be done. In fact looking back on it, if the brass had realized what were doing we likely would have been shut down. We may never have gotten lithium through the works. The same was true when brushless motors were included. There wasn't proof of concept in every class at every power level when that was proposed either. That change was massive too. Talk about hand wringing. Guys were birthing cows on that one.

Pointing being, there is precedence for making massive rule changes without first proving the concept.

Darin Jordan
07-25-2016, 09:12 AM
Get rid of the 1 cell classes too.


Hey... watch it! :thumbdown:

Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

NO need to get crazy here.

And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.

rayzerdesigns
07-27-2016, 11:16 AM
I'm going to implement the p lite motor thing this new year here in az .. We really don't have a big enough course for t yet.. But soon.. I'm not in favor of combining all the classes.. Just no way a smaller say q or p can compete in the waves created by a t boat

T.S.Davis
07-27-2016, 01:25 PM
Hey... watch it! :thumbdown:

Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

NO need to get crazy here.

And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.

Sadly there are guys that will read that as yet another conspiracy theory.

Darin Jordan
07-27-2016, 01:32 PM
Sadly there are guys that will read that as yet another conspiracy theory.

Whatever... all guys who don't show up in the first place, so they don't really know what they are referring too... SAW isn't "broke"... Oval, well, sort of is...

Darin Jordan
07-27-2016, 01:37 PM
I'm going to implement the p lite motor thing this new year here in az ..

I'm going to propose we implement it here in Washington next year as well. Some of the club I've talked to seems to be on board to try it.

Sweet deal is that it ELIMINATES NOTHING... just opens up the motor allowances to other similarly sized motors.

These are the drafts I put together to present to our club. Only two sections that need revision. This only addresses P-Limited. 1/10th Scale is going to have to deal with their motor rules separately.

Again, PLEASE NOTE: this is ONLY FOR OUR LOCAL CLUB, and ONLY a PROPOSAL for them, at the moment. The membership of our club has yet to vote/decide, or even really discuss this yet. That will happen in November/December at our Winter meeting. So, please just relax. Has nothing to do with NATIONAL rules...

144734 144735

properchopper
07-27-2016, 02:09 PM
Hey... watch it! :thumbdown:

Hahahaha... Actually, that class is SAW/2-LAP only. This discussion is only for OVAL racing classes.

NO need to get crazy here.

And, I'd suggest that the Time-Trial stuff just get left alone. Doesn't affect overall participation anyhow, and the more the merrier there, in my opinion.

:thumbup1:

T.S.Davis
07-27-2016, 02:49 PM
Not saying we do or don't but does there need to be a dollar MSRP cap on this? I don't have a feel either way but is there a risk of someone going all Lehner at the club levels? I'm not sure there's a real advantage to doing that. There are so many great cheap options right now it's almost giggle worthy. Leopard, TP, HET, Turnigy all on the cheap.

Some of us talked about it informally after our race Sunday. I haven't found anyone saying they thought it was a bad idea. Not sure what to make of it. Maybe we're headed down the right path.

Brings me to my earlier observation.....let's not wait. What we have is working (limited) but I think we all want to open the flood gates to more options. Why are we clinging to this old school notion that we have to prove the concept for a year? I read it again........it ain't in the book. That "one year proof" thing isn't in there. It's been perpetuated by dinosaurs (myself included) when it's simply not in there. :doh:

It's not like we're deleting anyone's gear or making them run out for new stuff over night. We'll also no longer be catering to any particular manufacturer which was a major sticking point for some way back when Dave wrote it and I proposed it.

If we could make this fly I would be willing to bet its finally a spec that IMPBA could get behind too. Easy to tech and wold hold up for years. If we could get it on the books for both orgs it would get us all on a similar page. More of us doing the same things makes for more potential racers regardless of geography. More goodder....ness.

Am I being too optimistic?

For ovals and offshore

Get rid of N1,N2, cracker, ECO
Get rid of the min voltage for P
Make T 7s+
Change the limited spec to just motor size

Done?

Darin Jordan
07-27-2016, 03:52 PM
Not saying we do or don't but does there need to be a dollar MSRP cap on this?

Simple Question: CAN IT BE TECH'D??

ANSWER: NOPE....

Problem addressed and solved.

Seriously, if someone thinks they need to spend $300.00 to compete in a LTD class, then let them have at it... won't change the balance of competition...

longballlumber
07-27-2016, 05:56 PM
cheap vs. expensive.... You guys don't think manufacturing quality and tolerances will come into play? Isn't/wasn't that one of the major complaints that got us to this point?

T.S.Davis
07-27-2016, 10:24 PM
There were a number of complaints. In no particular order:
No choices
Poor quality/inconsistent quality
Catering to two manufacturers (conspiracy theorists)
"We weren't consulted"
My favorite "the rules were written to protect certain racers"

With the quality and tolerance potential this would be different in that if a manufacturers quality slipped we as racers can choose something else. The old way, if a motor batch was off say 5% resulting in failures we had few options. We ordered more motors that couldn't run the setups they were replacing.

I think Mike's point is that quality gets better as you lay out more cash. This is an undeniable truth. Is it a big enough truth to muddy the water? IDK

longballlumber
07-28-2016, 07:52 AM
With the quality and tolerance potential this would be different in that if a manufacturers quality slipped we as racers can choose something else. The old way, if a motor batch was off say 5% resulting in failures we had few options. We ordered more motors that couldn't run the setups they were replacing.

I understand you point, that scenario wasn't immediately in the forefront of my brain but it makes sense.


I think Mike's point is that quality gets better as you lay out more cash. This is an undeniable truth. Is it a big enough truth to muddy the water? IDK

I guess I am not sold that a $300 motor is going to perform "the same" as a $80 motor. I don't think the performance difference will be large, but it will be there. In the right hands/boat it can skew the perception that a Leopard can keep up with a Lehner. Perception is what I am trying to protect, for the new boaters; i guess. Rules/Classes that help get new racers involved is my motivation.

Performance in these classes are SO close already, that any improvement in the right hands is going to upset the apple cart. It's inevitable, i guess.

Darin Jordan
07-28-2016, 09:11 AM
1) CAN IT BE TECH'D??

2) Nobody is worrying about the cost of motors in ANY OTHER CLASS...

3) Are we trying to limit cost, or performance? JUST like the other classes, there is going to be a balance point that is reached.

4) The physical size limitations will ultimately determine the power available.

5) CAN IT BE TECH'D??

Doby
07-28-2016, 09:45 AM
1 & 5...you're repeating yourself.:tongue_smilie:

Darin Jordan
07-28-2016, 10:02 AM
1 & 5...you're repeating yourself.:tongue_smilie:

PRECISELY! :glare:

Doby
07-28-2016, 10:27 AM
Go Tech yourself!!!!:laugh:

longballlumber
07-28-2016, 10:51 AM
Then i am still confused what the INTENT is... The "goal" of reconfiguring P-Limited the class still escapes me. I think we all know how we got here, but I am not sure everyone agrees where we are going.


There's been too many iterations of these discussions; Does this new 36X61 motor have a KV restriction?

Another question; Other than time trials, When was the last time ANYONE set up and followed through a FORMAL tech process at an FE race? Other than Terry checking voltages at the MI Cup 2 years ago (which was very informal), I have never been "TECH'D"

Darin Jordan
07-28-2016, 12:10 PM
Another question; Other than time trials, When was the last time ANYONE set up and followed through a FORMAL tech process at an FE race? Other than Terry checking voltages at the MI Cup 2 years ago (which was very informal), I have never been "TECH'D"

I'm going to ask the question again (at the risk of coming off as kind of an A$$)... CAN IT BE TECH'd??

You can't have a formal Tech Process if the rules aren't tech-able.

Can someone describe to me how you'd accurately tech a present P-LTD motor?? (Rhetorical... I already know the answer).

I'm ready to just leave P-LTD exactly like it is and it WILL die off in 2-3 years, just do to present motor supplies. I suppose my intent would be to keep the class going with a techable set of rules, using an endless supply of motors that automatically refreshes itself without having to revisit the rules, and to keep the power available under a certain maximum standard.

The effect: A LIMITED power (maximum sized motors) 4-Cell ("P) class that provides a reasonable level of parity (you're only going to get SO much power out of this limited size of motor) and isn't beholden to the offerings of any ONE, or two, or ?? motor suppliers. If you find a motor that fits the dimensional limits that will run on 4S, It's legal.

longballlumber
07-28-2016, 12:45 PM
The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference? Do you really think you'll get the same participation numbers (or better) by having those classes vs. a more refined limited (spec) class? Is the perception the class will be bring in new racers?

I get your tech-able soap box, but I am not sure why it's a priority all of a sudden. We have been running for years on the honor system; and it's worked for the most part (i think).

Darin Jordan
07-28-2016, 01:17 PM
The only thing separating P-Lite from P is about $15-$30 (motor cost) and a small performance difference?

I disagree with this premise... REAL P-Boats are allowed twins (or ANY number of motors)... motors are unlimited ( 1515's, 1527's, 1530's etc...), boats are full 34", 4S2P 10,000mAh, 200+Amp ESCs... It's not accurate to say "small performance difference", just because the majority aren't running there. And it's REALLY not accurate to say small cost difference.

Honestly, I don't care what happens here one-way or the other, as far as official NATIONAL NAMBA rules go. We can just avoid the discussions and let P-LTD run it's course. Participation if fine. It's the biggest class going.

But, what I DO KNOW, is that motor supplies ARE going to fall by the wayside. It's already happening. Get those 1500KV Dynamites now, while you still can. 1800's are back... are they, or will they be the same? Who knows. Anything new from AQ lately? Hopefully??

Some of my local club members approached me at several of our recent Nats planning meetings and we've discussed this issue and that's part of why this has come up. It's a LOCAL issue for us, as a club of over 30 people, and every class is P-LTD. And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.

Why did I post it here? Because I wanted to see what other clubs thought. That's it. It's always nice to hear other opinions and see options/concerns that we may not have considered.

Coug90
07-29-2016, 01:45 AM
Love this discussion. I've been asking the same questions in regards to 1:10 Scale racing. The idea of getting away from any particular motors and trying to set a group of spec limitations instead had come up in our club. It's too frustrating to keep losing motor options when supplies run out or quality in production changes. I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow. The more I hear, the more I've come to agree. I'll be interested to see how this issue turns out with our club and on a national level.

Darin Jordan
07-29-2016, 08:37 AM
I think the only thing you can do if you want to get off this ride is to set you open it up to a defined range of specs and let the options flow.

Mine is just one opinion, but after playing with this stuff for a few years, and literally investing nearly $1000.00 in JUST testing all these motors, I've come to the conclusion that we really only have two viable options:

1) LIMIT the motor options to just ONE CHOICE. Revisit the choice and the rules each year or two, depending on supply. Deal with the tech issues, etc.

2) LIMIT the motor options by physical size. Never have to revisit the rules again. Make a go/no-go gauge for tech. Go racing.

Those can both be considered very "fair" options, depending on your views. (I won't go political on this, but I EASILY could! :bounce: )

One makes everyone the same, stringent, and clearly defined "choice" of motor, and leaves everyone to have to deal with the numerous tech and supply issues that go with that choice. It also puts a heavy burden on the Club, as this motor definition will have to be revisited as supply issues occur, and it also leaves the user beholden to the ONE supplier.

The other one provides everyone an equal opportunity at success, but leaves it up to the individual to decide and choose, within some defined but VERY easy to follow dimensional parameters. Some will choose wisely, others perhaps not so much, but all would be fair given that there is nothing locking you into your choice if you happened to choose wrong the first time around. When one finds a better way, others can follow and enjoy that success as well. Power levels will naturally be held to a clear limit, because, well, size matters.

Clearly, I choose option 2.

ray schrauwen
07-29-2016, 09:19 AM
Option 2 is cool because it's more inclusive. The slight advantages of any spec motor by size will usually get negated by race conditions and other things that happen in a race.

T.S.Davis
07-29-2016, 10:21 AM
And all WE are talking about is perhaps running this type of rule locally. Let's face it, people aren't traveling to National Events these days, so what the National allowances are really isn't the primary concern.

This is why I keep coming back to my "why wait?" stance. Consider those that actually are willing to travel. I recognize it's a tiny group and a bit self serving on my part to be concerned about it but I could see the list of travelers getting even smaller.

If our local gang opted for this new idea and I field oh let's say 10 limited boats with motors x,y,z to meet the size spec.....................and I then decide to travel too. Pick any race really. I need to have legal stuff per their rules when I get there. For instance if I went to the Vegas NATS I would have to come up with additional motors based on the old spec. Then an extra or two for the inevitable hiccup. Every boat has to be re-calibrated in regards to props, struts, CG. Maybe. Who knows. Months of testing to get that right if I'm already racing based on the new potential size spec. Ugh. Guess which races I wont be traveling to? Any clinging to the old spec.

I "could" just run the old spec as it will still be legal but up here this new idea is going to need me on board. Not trying to be a weeny (it's a gift). That's just the way it is.

If local clubs go with this new idea to see how it pans but we wait to get it in the book there wont be any travelers in 2017. Just a hunch.

T.S.Davis
07-29-2016, 10:22 AM
BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

Doby
07-29-2016, 10:26 AM
BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

Did you just burst into flames when you wrote this?????:scared:

T.S.Davis
07-29-2016, 10:31 AM
haha More like a smolder.

I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?

Doby
07-29-2016, 10:38 AM
haha More like a smolder.

I have a 2200. Maybe I'll try that with a tiny prop instead. How about an SSS 3660/1920kv? That better?

It matters not to me..as long as the current batch of motors are still OK....

I still think that motors are the least of the worries when racing...a few KV here or there, a few mm difference make no difference.....proper set up and driving are much bigger factors.

Hard to finish a race if the boats un-drivable and upside-down.

raptor347
07-29-2016, 01:44 PM
BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.

T.S.Davis
07-29-2016, 02:22 PM
Didn't think of that.

We had a pretty nasty collision at our last race. I was running the carbon PayPak on loan. Todd spun in front of me with the Winston lobster. Before the CD could say "sp.." I hit him wide open. Never even saw him. Add a few mph and we would have needed a pool skimmer.

Coug90
07-29-2016, 02:22 PM
Not much without some other changes to the hull rules. It would just cause more carnage in vintage. The handling on those boats is generally so poor they can't handle the speed they have or hold a lane in the corners. The last thing they need is to go faster.
He's absolutely right. The hull limitations cap the performance. That is why our club opted for a motor that would slow our vintage class down by about 5 mph a few years back. An appropriate set of motor specs could be made separately for modern boats, but either way, within a few years, you will see speeds return to what you had originally due to guys getting used to the spec and setups and using better props and battery options that improve all the time. We'll always be chasing a moving target. The problem is how to manage that based on the goals set for the class. You can limit spec on all of the gear, but at some point it gets to be a detriment to managing. The more you isolate spec, the more you potentially have to tech if you don't want to rely on the buddy system as much. Motors are the most difficult piece to tech and to manage long term. Seems reasonable to go in a direction that would make motor tech and class longevity planning easier to deal with.

Ronbo
07-29-2016, 04:46 PM
Regarding 1/10th scale, the proposed motor dimensions should work fine in modern, but as stated previously vintage would be interesting. Moving away from scale in vintage defeats the purpose of scale, otherwise its just a sport hydro class. The current motors just aren't built well enough (mostly the power wires, wth??) I run a Leopard 3674 2200kv in my Oberto, and heat isn't a factor (our water temps are generally cooler here). I haven't run anything like a AQ2030 kv size motor, so I don't know what the motors in the 36x61mm range would do at higher than 1500-1700kv like we currently use.

Has anyone looked at outrunner specs for the proposed classes?

We use a smaller kv outrunner in vintage here (Coug90 and myself club) with a comparable outrunner with himax and proboat in classic modern. But as mentioned, we have to revisit the motor spec rules every so often as supply changes. This keeps the speeds at a certain level for the hulls and keeps it competitive.

Not sure what 1/8th scale does.

ray schrauwen
07-29-2016, 05:04 PM
Regarding 1/10th scale, the proposed motor dimensions should work fine in modern, but as stated previously vintage would be interesting. Moving away from scale in vintage defeats the purpose of scale, otherwise its just a sport hydro class. The current motors just aren't built well enough (mostly the power wires, wth??) I run a Leopard 3674 2200kv in my Oberto, and heat isn't a factor (our water temps are generally cooler here). I haven't run anything like a AQ2030 kv size motor, so I don't know what the motors in the 36x61mm range would do at higher than 1500-1700kv like we currently use.



Has anyone looked at outrunner specs for the proposed classes?

We use a smaller kv outrunner in vintage here (Coug90 and myself club) with a comparable outrunner with himax and proboat in classic modern. But as mentioned, we have to revisit the motor spec rules every so often as supply changes. This keeps the speeds at a certain level for the hulls and keeps it competitive.

Not sure what 1/8th scale does.

I really like the Suppo outrunner available here:
http://justgorc.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=56

Just 1.3mm too much diameter. You get a lot for $21.00. They make a 2200kv version and shorter ones too. Hobbyking used to sell them and fightercat.

dethow
07-30-2016, 01:14 PM
This is why I keep coming back to my "why wait?" stance. Consider those that actually are willing to travel. I recognize it's a tiny group and a bit self serving on my part to be concerned about it but I could see the list of travelers getting even smaller.

If our local gang opted for this new idea and I field oh let's say 10 limited boats with motors x,y,z to meet the size spec.....................and I then decide to travel too. Pick any race really. I need to have legal stuff per their rules when I get there. For instance if I went to the Vegas NATS I would have to come up with additional motors based on the old spec. Then an extra or two for the inevitable hiccup. Every boat has to be re-calibrated in regards to props, struts, CG. Maybe. Who knows. Months of testing to get that right if I'm already racing based on the new potential size spec. Ugh. Guess which races I wont be traveling to? Any clinging to the old spec.

I "could" just run the old spec as it will still be legal but up here this new idea is going to need me on board. Not trying to be a weeny (it's a gift). That's just the way it is.

If local clubs go with this new idea to see how it pans but we wait to get it in the book there wont be any travelers in 2017. Just a hunch.

Agreed... and what about our MI Cup???
So if we as a club (MMEU) decide to go with new size spec... it is going to be difficult to get travelers that still follow NAMBA spec. They will most likely not be able to compete in the limited classes and won't want to travel just to get beat.
That is unless you are Doby with the perfect boat setups and you're the best driver at the pond... :sarcasm1: :hug1:

Doby
07-30-2016, 01:38 PM
I think its time to start "teching" the drivers.

One other thing I forgot to mention that's even more important than setup/driving......LUCK.

dethow
07-30-2016, 01:43 PM
I guess I am not sold that a $300 motor is going to perform "the same" as a $80 motor. I don't think the performance difference will be large, but it will be there. In the right hands/boat it can skew the perception that a Leopard can keep up with a Lehner. Perception is what I am trying to protect, for the new boaters; i guess. Rules/Classes that help get new racers involved is my motivation.

I get what you are saying here Mike, but there's another side you are missing. There are RTR or ARTR boats being produced and bought by new guys which have motors that would fit the 36x61 size specs. But instead of just buying and running at the club... they are told they need to go buy a different motor, solder new connectors, and run their boat slightly slower then it was stock. We're loosing new racers due to the current limited motor rules.

Here is the best ARTR p-mono on the market (IMO) which comes with an SSS 3660 motor. Can't run it in limited class... That's wrong.
http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-80250-1106-2b

And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-80250-1131-yel

And lets not forget that the new V3 Geico and Blackjack no longer fit. They need a new motor as well. MMEU has been allowing the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv 36x61mm (DYNM3910), but it's not in the rules... Not without the CD giving the discretion if a motor fits within the 5% rule. But do we really know if the new Proboat/Dynamite motors fit within the 5% increase in max constant amp rating? They don't list that spec anywhere I can see. Aquacraft motors are 50a max constant. And the SSS motors are used in 'ARTR' not the 'RTR' boats discussed within the CD discretion area of the rules.

So pretty sure that the only boats that can currently be bought RTR or ARTR and run stock without invoking CD discretion are Aquacrafts. I don't feel it's fair for NAMBA to basically promote a single manufacturer with it's rules.

The rule worked 5 years ago... but it doesn't anymore. Time to move forward and write a new rule that will stand the test of time and move along with ALL manufactures.

longballlumber
07-30-2016, 03:50 PM
I get what you are saying here Mike, but there's another side you are missing. There are RTR or ARTR boats being produced and bought by new guys which have motors that would fit the 36x61 size specs. But instead of just buying and running at the club... they are told they need to go buy a different motor, solder new connectors, and run their boat slightly slower then it was stock. We're loosing new racers due to the current limited motor rules.

Here is the best ARTR p-mono on the market (IMO) which comes with an SSS 3660 motor. Can't run it in limited class... That's wrong.
http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-80250-1106-2b

And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-80250-1131-yel

And here is an ARTR p-hydro which really doesn't exist in the market other than a UL-1. But can't run it... gotta change that motor
Popeye is a nice stable boat for LSH. I took 3rd at this years MI Cup with mine. A lot better than a UL-1...
http://www.offshoreelectrics.com/proddetail.php?prod=ose-80250-1131-yel

And lets not forget that the new V3 Geico and Blackjack no longer fit. They need a new motor as well. MMEU has been allowing the Proboat/Dynamite 3660 2000kv, but it's not in the rules... Not without the CD giving the discretion if a motor fits within the 5% rule.

But do we really know if the new Proboat/Dynamite motors fit within the 5% increase in max constant amp rating? They don't list that spec anywhere I can see. Aquacraft motors are 50a max constant current. But than again, the SSS motors are used in 'ARTR' not the 'RTR' boats discussed within the CD discretion area of the rule.

So pretty sure that the only boats that can currently be bought RTR or ARTR and run stock without invoking CD discretion are Aquacrafts. I don't feel it's fair for NAMBA to basically promote a single manufacturer with it's rules.

The rule worked 5 years ago... but it doesn't anymore. Time to move forward and write a new rule that will stand the test of time and move along with ALL manufactures.


Dave, I am not arguing that we don't need a change. I understand we need something. However, having a limited, lite, restricted, spec, however you want to call it class with the ONLY restriction is physical motor size doesn't seem it will provide the same level of performance equalization we are currently experiencing.

Give Terry Davis a $300 top of the line motor against a new guy with a RTR (pick one)? We all know what is going to happen. The key thing I am focusing on is PERCEPTION. Does the new guy think his limited experience is the factor or doe the new guy realize Mr. Davis has a super cool kick a$$ motor/controller combo. What is the FIRST upgrade you see all over this forum??? bigger, faster, more KV motor. Restrictions for a "Limited" class is good.

Don't know, just would like to see cost's controlled, amp draw controlled, and minimize guys burning stuff up. Sometimes I feel like we are working to preserve this to benefit our existing racers rather than working on a rule set that is going to benefit NAMBA membership by INCREASTING the number of racers. MORE racers doesn't seem to be part of this objective. Manufacturers of RTR's are going to do whatever makes them more money. Conforming to the new RTR's is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Next year, they will have different motors with different sizes. just my 2 pennies.

Later,
Ball

dethow
07-30-2016, 04:34 PM
Dave, I am not arguing that we don't need a change. I understand we need something. However, having a limited, lite, restricted, spec, however you want to call it class with the ONLY restriction is physical motor size doesn't seem it will provide the same level of performance equalization we are currently experiencing.

Give Terry Davis a $300 top of the line motor against a new guy with a RTR (pick one)? We all know what is going to happen. The key thing I am focusing on is PERCEPTION. Does the new guy think his limited experience is the factor or doe the new guy realize Mr. Davis has a super cool kick a$$ motor/controller combo. What is the FIRST upgrade you see all over this forum??? bigger, faster, more KV motor. Restrictions for a "Limited" class is good.

Don't know, just would like to see cost's controlled, amp draw controlled, and minimize guys burning stuff up. Sometimes I feel like we are working to preserve this to benefit our existing racers rather than working on a rule set that is going to benefit NAMBA membership by INCREASTING the number of racers. MORE racers doesn't seem to be part of this objective. Manufacturers of RTR's are going to do whatever makes them more money. Conforming to the new RTR's is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Next year, they will have different motors with different sizes. just my 2 pennies.

Later,
Ball

1st: Same that happens now... with both Terry and Tom (at least in P-Limited-Mono). Their boats are noticeably faster due to much time testing and setting up. So new guy knows they have the same motor and resigns to the fact that they to will have to spend almost every Wednesday and Saturday at the pond to compete with them.

2nd: Perception now is that you can only go buy an Aquacraft boat to come race in NAMBA without having to dive into buying and replacing motors.

3rd: New guy will realize he/she is new and come out and have some fun with their new boat and maybe take a few 2nd and 3rd places due to flip overs. New guy will get his feet wet with his RTR boat and decide later if he/she wants to invest in a new motor... Instead of being forced to either buy an Aquacraft or invest in a new motor before they've turned a single lap.

4th: This size spec is getting away from confirming to the new RTR. RTR will have to confirm to us. Keep their RTR motor to 36x61 max size if you want used in NAMBA limited class. Will they...? Some will and some won't... who cares?

5th: You're speculation that a Terry Davis will go spend $300 on a limited class motor is unjustified. Terry Davis is currently spending $120 on TP motors for P classes and winning races over Neu and Lahner motors. And so is Tom. Terry, Tom and Tyler took the cup this year without using high dollar motors.

I have a lot of respect for you Mike and I concede you have a lot more knowledge and experience then I... but I feel you are off base here. Anything outside of doing size specs is either not able to be specd... or we would be going back to a specific list of motors again which will just have to be changed again in ??? years. And that method would be the ultimate in confirming to RTR.

Just make the size spec... more RTR boats can get involved without having to change motors... and racers can decide later if they want to change motor. You know... when they have pushed the limits of that RTR motor with bigger props. Then they can take what they've learned and take advise given to go get a better quality motor for the replacement. This keeps new racers encouraged... encouraged that they have an option instead of just going out and spending another $80 on the same motor they just burned up trying to catch a Terry Davis or you or Tom or even 16 year old Tyler.

longballlumber
07-30-2016, 05:08 PM
"Off base" is a little strong....

Sounds like there is a silver bullet that I am not seeing.

We should change the name of the class "size matters". 😄

dethow
07-30-2016, 10:30 PM
"Off base" is a little strong....

Sounds like there is a silver bullet that I am not seeing.

We should change the name of the class "size matters". ��


Sorry, if you felt that was strong. Should I have just said I feel you are wrong? :hide:

And guess right now we should call it "brand matters".
Size being proposing is no different than the current motors. Size doesn't change which means its still "limited" compared to open p classes.

As I said... the only perception given to the new guys is that NAMBA only likes Aquacraft RTRs in limited classes and new guys who want to buy a different boat are punished by having to go buy a new motor before they've turned a single lap.

We have a new guy in MMEU named Chris. He told me at our last race that he has a friend who may have joined as well but he refuses to go changing his motor out just to race in the club.

There were 5 Aquacrafts burned up at our last race. Three were mine and all three were in proven setups that haven't changed since mid-last year.
$225 out of my pocket in one day... YEAH! I'd like other options before THIS new guy drops out of NAMBA due to bad motor rules. Someone call me when the rules change. That's about where I'm :censored: at.

longballlumber
07-30-2016, 11:07 PM
This is exactly why the forums are difficult to exchange two way conversations; tone and dilect is nearly impossible to understand (communicate).

I am not mad or against a motor rule change. I feel like I have stated that previously.

dethow
07-30-2016, 11:14 PM
This is exactly why the forums are difficult to exchange two way conversations; tone and dilect is nearly impossible to understand (communicate).

I am not mad or against a motor rule change. I feel like I have stated that previously.

Understood Mike... and I didn't really think you were mad. I'm not mad either, just so you know.
Well, at least not at you. A bit frustrated with these AQ motors thou.:frusty:

No worries... I'm getting to know you enough that anything you are saying or proposing is your opinion into the best interest of this hobby.
And I didn't mean to make it seem like I was attacking you, if that's what you thought. I just don't agree with your thoughts on perception of a new guy.

rayzerdesigns
08-02-2016, 06:48 PM
BTW How much fun would 10th scale be on a TP3630/1950? That would be sick fun.

I will bet my dynamite 1500 would outrun the tp motor.. Just saying

rayzerdesigns
08-02-2016, 07:00 PM
One I can see the merits of a size spec.. But I sldo see the merits of a single motor.. The only way you can call it dpec in my eyes are a single motor.. And yes that oprn up to manufacturing.. How long will such said mfgr keep making such said motor.. And on the size spec.. I like the idea.. But again I think that opens the door for people to complain that so or do dpent 300$ on a motor that's why he's winning.. Though we know that isn't the case.. I for one am ok with the current rules but do think change is coming or limited is gonna die off.. Which is sad because these are obviously the biggest classes at a club or national level..I'm not sure I agree 100% with either option.. So now what?? I will say that I am totally against the notion of just having 2 power sizes.. P1 and p2.. Again just my opinion

Darin Jordan
08-03-2016, 09:26 AM
I will bet my dynamite 1500 would outrun the tp motor.. Just saying

I think that would depend on who is working the props...

Darin Jordan
08-03-2016, 09:33 AM
But again I think that opens the door for people to complain that so or do dpent 300$ on a motor that's why he's winning..

Funny that no one is complaining about my $100.00 motors winning... :biggrin:

Or complaining when they've spent $300.00 on a motor are are NOT winning... :biggrin:

As for "spec"... this isn't spec... it's not now... and it's never been. It's "LIMITED"... You are absolutely right... "SPEC" would require a single motor option. We could go either way I suppose. I think the negatives of a "SPEC" idea far outweigh the positives for LONG TERM use. I think that's part of the reason for the discussion and the idea behind simply limiting physical size. By doing so, you really NEVER have to visit the motor rules again, and it's pretty damned clear on what is/isn't legal. Also, you are absolutely limiting the power available via the motor for the class, so you've very effectively LIMITED the classes performance potential.

As for P1/P2... I agree now. I was really just opening the conversation with that. My real ideal would be P-LTD, P, Q, and Open I don't see a need for any other power levels, and that's MORE than enough classes to include EVERYONE at a "National" event (and, honestly, HOW many of those actually happen anymore??) Anything else can be handled with the local clubs, in efforts to get new people involved.

T.S.Davis
08-03-2016, 11:28 AM
I understand the cost concern Mike. I do. I've personally screwed up a size limit in a class before. Remember our N2 Sport club class? I killed that running Lehners I think.

Having raced with and against Mike for years I can tell you that speed doesn't come from his wallet. Mike's boats simply do more with less. Kudos sir. Speed comes from knowledge. Recognizing the little things for what they are. Spending obscene time with a prop. Recognizing what adjustment does what to what. All that time has value. You can't put a number on it. If a guy spends hours sharpening a prop and hits the pond and decides to bend it this way or that way to get a half mph......what's it worth? Is it fair? If a guy doesn't have that skill, knowledge, or simply no time and buys one from Andy Brown for $75..............is that the same? I buy props from Dasboata when I'm pressed for time. Others do it because they don't do props. Fair to the guy that doesn't know he needs to sharpen his prop at all?

My point is....................we're not looking to run IROC here. We're not looking for equality. Only a power limitation. There's only so much power you can scrape from a 36x61 in runner. Sorry guys. No out runners. Less mud in the water. KISS thinking.

The original "limitation" held up for about 7 years. Giver er' take. About 3 years longer than Dave and I thought it would. This new potential motor size limit won't be perfect either but would provide a stepping point between toy boat owners and the psychopaths......that would be me...........but would still be interesting enough to get the vets to do it too.

A little perspective too. Limited encompasses really only 7 classes. Of those, only 4 run regularly. Those 4 are the most popular classes in FE ever. Period.

The goal of changing the "limit" would be:

Retain existing racers
Making it easier for a new racer to join in
limit power

As for actually attracting brand new racers...............nothing has worked better than limited since I've been racing. Buying something that is race-able right out of the box was the key IMO. That said, this is less complex than what we had. Even easier to find a boat that fits right in out of the box. Will that bring new guys? Is it right? I have no idea. What we have now though can't be sustained.

BTW At the club level I am only racing 2 classes of late. Only one of which is limited. Our club doesn't need my participation for the classes to run. Numbers are solid. Frees me up to do more CD'n and such. Yes, that's a work in progress too.

dethow
08-03-2016, 12:21 PM
My point is....................we're not looking to run IROC here. We're not looking for equality. Only a power limitation. There's only so much power you can scrape from a 36x61 in runner.

Well said...
Words "spec" and/or "iroc" need to be left out of this conversation. "Limited" is what we're looking for and a size limit on the motor does limit the class.

I don't follow NASCAR much, but from what I know... isn't there a limit on square inches for their engines? Different types but can't exceed a certain size.
And I actually don't follow real boat racing either... but are there not classes that have limits to engine sizes? I bet they don't say you can only run a small block Chevy.

Just sayin...

Darin Jordan
08-03-2016, 12:24 PM
The goal of changing the "limit" would be:

Retain existing racers
Making it easier for a new racer to join in
limit power

As for actually attracting brand new racers...............nothing has worked better than limited since I've been racing. Buying something that is race-able right out of the box was the key IMO. That said, this is less complex than what we had. Even easier to find a boat that fits right in out of the box. Will that bring new guys? Is it right? I have no idea. What we have now though can't be sustained.



I vote Terry Davis for NAMBA FE Director... The heck with Brian... :rofl:

Bwahahahahahahahahaa....

T.S.Davis
08-03-2016, 01:24 PM
I vote Terry Davis for NAMBA FE Director...

Weeny. You're off my Christmas list.

T.S.Davis
08-03-2016, 01:34 PM
Just thought of a side effect.

Although not necessarily a "goal" for a limit revision, the change would make it easier for brand new players in the boat market to comply with the rules. Companies like Promarine, Venom or even Atomik could simply bust out their calipers and figure out if their boats are legal. None of this "get it tested and approved by this guy, that group, those dip.....its from MI". None of that rot.

So in theory, more out of the box legal boats. Competitive boats? Who knows.

properchopper
08-03-2016, 01:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQv-gZxaT40


Last weekend we had our SCSTA/Nitro/FE race. Classes qualified : P-Ltd Sport Hydro, P-Ltd Cat, P-Ltd OPC, 1/10 Scale , 1/8 Scale.

144914

It was the usual SoCal warm & fuzzy lovefest.

Oddly enough there was NO discussion heard resounding in the pits regarding changing any motor requirements. Seen were : AQ 2030's, AQ 1800's, PB 1500's & [ call the Tech Police ] PB 2000 KV. FWIW last race a bone stock newly purchased PB BJ 29 showed up with the daringly defiant 6-pole 2000KV motor for a new entrant (one who BTW took High Points in last year's year-long three-state P-Mono series so she was an experienced racer. (No arrest was made) .The boat was so slow it needed a calendar to judge its speed. Then, for whatever reason and in a daring departure from reality/legality I also tried the PB 2000KV in my P-Ltd Cat. To avoid arrest and incarceration I dressed as a large Honey Bear. It was a slug & I changed it out for a AQ1800. Took 2nd overall. (Love those Starbucks gift cards/Jitters.)

If there's a point to be made I'll say this : Given that this year SoCal FE is FIVE members down (geographics & the big C), and two locals are recovering from surgery or pre-marriage extravaganzas, the current crop of gas/nitro racers are crossing over and saving the FE class ranks. AND THEY JUST WANT TO BUY A BOX STOCK RIG and not mess with changing motors for the powerplant- de jour. What's winning are bone stockers with nice props AND premium batteries (and years of making good starts and knowing how to stay in lane one.)

To rebuild racer ranks my take is that unmolested store-bought rigs are the only entryway path to re-populate the classes. Given that (with the exception of the NAMBA 2-Lap and SAW events) there's no big emphasis here in the land of fruits & nuts on which motor is/is not "Legal" . Winning is secondary to just hanging out with what can be described as a big family get-together. OK, I'll concede that this is likely not be typical of club racing elsewhere. We've possibly O.D 'd on too much surf music & pink tofu. Whatever.

"As for actually attracting brand new racers...............nothing has worked better than limited since I've been racing. "

Yessir :thumbup1:

144913

T.S.Davis
08-03-2016, 02:35 PM
Number one rule of racing.......have fun. Pisses some people off when I say that but if I stop having fun I'm out.

Tony, this change would basically be what you guys are doing. We allow the 2000kv Blackjack motor too btw. Nobody cares. Maybe they would if they were stomping the crap out of everyone though.

Making it as easy as possible while still limiting the nut jobs (me again :blink:) might bolster our ranks.

dethow
08-03-2016, 02:44 PM
Darin,
Do you know what the constant amp rating on the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv motor? :help:

This isn't listing in any info I can find on this motor:
http://www.proboatmodels.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=DYNM3910

But it is a factor into being an allowable motor per NAMBA CD discretion rule. Must not exceed 5% difference from other allowable motors. Aquacrafts are rated at 50 amp constant.

dethow
08-03-2016, 02:56 PM
We allow the 2000kv Blackjack motor too btw. Nobody cares. Maybe they would if they were stomping the crap out of everyone though.

Jeff B is the only one I'm aware of using this motor in his boats that are not Blackjacks or Geicos.
He started using a couple of these race # 2 this season.
Weird thing is that Jeff has been winning more lately... just sayin' :spy:

Maybe he's getting better :noidea:

Darin Jordan
08-03-2016, 03:25 PM
Tony makes my point perfectly above... LOCAL CLUBs can do WHATEVER the heck they want to attract racers in their arena. They already are.

But, you can NOT have a class, Nationally, or "records eligible", that operates under these loose rules. THAT part is really what this discussion revolves around.

A local, "Run-What-You-Brung", or stock RTR, or whatever class, is EXACTLY what the clubs should be doing.

Darin Jordan
08-03-2016, 03:27 PM
Darin,
Do you know what the constant amp rating on the Proboat/Dynamite 2000kv motor? :help:


I really don't know. These numbers are all just made-up anyhow. The only way to know for sure is to push one until it blows.

From my bench testing, the 2000KV Dynamite motor is down on power, and gets hotter, at 100A, compared to the others. Wouldn't be my first choice in an application that needs some torque.

T.S.Davis
08-03-2016, 03:30 PM
Moose has the stock motor in his Blackjack I believe.

properchopper
08-03-2016, 03:40 PM
"From my bench testing, the 2000KV Dynamite motor is down on power, and gets hotter, at 100A, compared to the others. Wouldn't be my first choice in an application that needs some torque. "


In my MC with an AQ1800/Oct M445 the motor is usually @ 135 deg. F as soon as I yank tape. Sunday the PB2000 came in (same boat/prop/last place finish) at 165 deg. F. Golly :confused2:

dethow
08-04-2016, 02:22 PM
In my MC with an AQ1800/Oct M445 the motor is usually @ 135 deg. F as soon as I yank tape. Sunday the PB2000 came in (same boat/prop/last place finish) at 165 deg. F. Golly :confused2:

Yeah... but that's an 1800kv motor up against a 2000kv motor with the same prop. Using an AQ2030 compared to the PB2000 would be a better comparison. Would it not?

dethow
08-04-2016, 02:27 PM
I really don't know. These numbers are all just made-up anyhow.

Understood... that's what I figured.
Which is why I question why this (constant amp ratings) is a factor mentioned in the NAMBA rules under CD discretion for usable motors.

And in which case...(the PB2000) if allowed in an event, it could easily be viewed as illegal because it's not in the list and there is no documentation of its constant amp rating as required by the CD discretion rule.

So its official... V3 Blackjack and Geico are NOT legal and the only legal out of box boats are Aquacrafts. Something is wrong there and it needs to be changed sooner than later.
:rules:

Darin Jordan
08-04-2016, 02:33 PM
Yeah... but that's an 1800kv motor up against a 2000kv motor with the same prop. Using an AQ2030 compared to the PB2000 would be a better comparison. Would it not?

Here... this will clearly show what Tony is referring too. Both motors, loaded to ~100A@4S for 60-seconds. Look at the Loaded KV, the KV-Loss under load, and especially the Delta Temperature (temp gain after 60-seconds). Clearly, the DYNM2000 is inferior, regardless of prop.

NOTE: By loading them all to 100A on the same 4S Lipo, it means they are all being tested at the same power output. Much more accurate than "which prop did I use"...


144948

dethow
08-04-2016, 02:49 PM
A local, "Run-What-You-Brung", or stock RTR, or whatever class, is EXACTLY what the clubs should be doing.

Terry Davis...
I propose that MMEU moves away from Spec SV27 and starts a "P-Lite Offshore" class which allows monos and cats with any motor under 36x61mm.
This would be a great class to bring new guys into without throwing them straight into a high traffic sprint. Besides... there are some I've heard who run P-Limited boats in Open P Offshore due to little extra speed benefits in that class. Simply put... Fast flips. This may actually be an avenue to setup a perfect Open P Offshore boat.
If we get a lot of guys doing it then we consider adding sprint classes as well.

I'd propose switching all together, but we have to keep the limited classes within the current NAMBA rules so that those going to Nats or other out of area events have setup/ready and proven boats to race.

dethow
08-04-2016, 03:03 PM
Here... this will clearly show what Tony is referring too. Both motors, loaded to ~100A@4S for 60-seconds. Look at the Loaded KV, the KV-Loss under load, and especially the Delta Temperature (temp gain after 60-seconds). Clearly, the DYNM2000 is inferior, regardless of prop.

NOTE: By loading them all to 100A on the same 4S Lipo, it means they are all being tested at the same power output. Much more accurate than "which prop did I use"...

Nice graph... explains many things. I don't actually think the PB2000 is a better motor. Nor do I even care.

But I do have a problem with it being allowed into events when its not allowed within the rules. It's being allowed because whoever bought a brand new V3 ProBoat and it's close enough. Well, a TFL Pursuit or Popeye with an SSS 3660 motor is just as close to legal as a V3 ProBoat but they will not be allowed.

Yes, I understand local clubs can do what they want. And they should.
But what I'm only trying to point out and have acknowledged is that there is a massive fundamental problem in the current rules. A problem which has reduced the amount of RTR legal boats by half and from what was two manufactures to now only one. And that one legal manufacture hasn't been doing much for new development and thus are producing less appealing boats compared to those that are similar in size and cost that no longer fit the rules.

It simply needs to be pointed out that the motor rules need to change sooner than later. Yes, us with our existing boats don't have an issue... yet. But the rules are hurting new comers and pushing them away.
And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

T.S.Davis
08-04-2016, 09:59 PM
Dave, I'm with you on the timing but I would go even further. Finish out the season with what we have and propose it full on across the classes. Re-write the limit to 36x61 and move on right or wrong. It's clearly broken the way we're doing it so a solution must be proposed. It wont be perfect. Some will be pissed. I hope though that most will see why it has to happen.

On the Bj and Geico motors.....when they first started showing up at the pond some of us knew they were less motor than we were already running. That's the only reason we asked our club to just allowing them. If I thought they were going to upset the apple cart I would never have suggested it. I wish I had NOT suggested it in hind sight. Couple reasons:

One, the motor sucks. Sorry PB it just does. So guys are trying to compete with a setup we know isn't going to keep up. Sure there are exceptions but the likelihood that a brand new guy is going to show up with less power and stomp a mud hole in our behinds is low.

Two, we may have been forced to address this sooner.

What were doing right now absolutely is going to fail. We just don't know when.

My thinking is that we go into 2017 with a new limitation. If it fails it fails. I honestly don't think it will though.

dethow
08-04-2016, 10:23 PM
Dave, I'm with you on the timing but I would go even further. Finish out the season with what we have and propose it full on across the classes. Re-write the limit to 36x61 and move on right or wrong. It's clearly broken the way we're doing it so a solution must be proposed. It wont be perfect. Some will be pissed. I hope though that most will see why it has to happen.

Are you talking about proposing "it full on across the classes" for all NAMBA? Or are you just talking about our MMEU club?

If you think it can happen within NAMBA... great I'm onboard.
But if you are NOT talking about NAMBA and just talking MMEU... how can we really do that? Mostly You, Tyler, and Tom will suffer if you use one motor for club races than have to go back to NAMBA limited for your travels. And what about MI Cup? How do we deal with guys coming from out of town that don't want to race their AQs and PBs against TPs?

All I'm saying is that if it can't happen that fast for NAMBA rules, then why don't we (MMEU) make this single new class, "P-Lite Offshore"? Or "MMEU Offshore"... or whatever we name it. Maybe "Size Matters"... LOL (That's for you Mike Ball).

I don't care about the PB2000 motors. I was only making the point that per the letter of the NAMBA rules... those RTR boats are not allowed. That fact just furthers the need for rule changes... NOW
:rules:

Darin Jordan
08-04-2016, 10:52 PM
36.3mm x 61.2mm

You can't spec 36x61 or none will measure up, including the present motors.

Trust me, I've measured them...

T.S.Davis
08-04-2016, 10:57 PM
No I want to change the limit in the NAMBA book for everyone starting 2017. Yes it can happen. It will take some effort and some explanation to go out with the proposal but I'm up for it. Some of the discussion here will likely show up in that explanatory dialog.

The fact that there has been so little opposition thus far is a pretty good indication that people aren't that outraged by the idea. Skepticism sure. People asking "what about this, that, the other" but none of the typical lunacy we get with something like this.

I follow on the PB thing too. One could easily argue that we should allow the TFL because it's an RTR, that we should allow the Promarine because it's an RTR. Then it's......why did we let PB in the door? Why not boat X,Y,Z? Yadaydayada. Is that cheese I smell?

Broke. Gotta do something.

.......... or we let "limited" just die on it's vine and go back to the original power table. Not sure that's the best route either.

dethow
08-04-2016, 11:17 PM
36.3mm x 61.2mm

You can't spec 36x61 or none will measure up, including the present motors.

Trust me, I've measured them...

Understood Darin... we are just simplifying to conversation. But yes... the dims you provided are what needs to be proposed.

dethow
08-04-2016, 11:24 PM
One could easily argue that we should allow the TFL because it's an RTR, that we should allow the Promarine because it's an RTR. Then it's......why did we let PB in the door? Why not boat X,Y,Z? Yadaydayada. Is that cheese I smell?

TFLs are ARTR (no servo or radio). At least as sold by our USA TFL dealer, the one and only... Offshore Electrics. Which why no servo guys???

and Promarine comes with 3674 motors (too big).

So not really an easy argument...

Darin Jordan
08-05-2016, 09:49 AM
TFLs are ARTR (no servo or radio). At least as sold by our USA TFL dealer, the one and only... Offshore Electrics. Which why no servo guys???

and Promarine comes with 3674 motors (too big).

So not really an easy argument...

I think that there is NO reasonable NATIONAL level answer to including just ANY RTR in a specific class. My take would be that the local clubs can handle this however they want. In the case of the Pursuit vs. the PMRC boats, I think the Pursuit has a legal sized motor, and the PMRC doesn't... Easy to work. If the driver is capable, he can race the PMRC boat in the standard P-Class, or the club can provide a "Run-Whatcha-Brung" class, just to give "newbies" the opportunity to race. If they get hooked, they can then work to comply with the existing rules.

On a NATIONAL level, there is no real valid reason to include any kind of "RTR" class. Just doesn't make sense.

dethow
08-05-2016, 10:10 AM
I think that there is NO reasonable NATIONAL level answer to including just ANY RTR in a specific class. My take would be that the local clubs can handle this however they want. In the case of the Pursuit vs. the PMRC boats, I think the Pursuit has a legal sized motor, and the PMRC doesn't... Easy to work. If the driver is capable, he can race the PMRC boat in the standard P-Class, or the club can provide a "Run-Whatcha-Brung" class, just to give "newbies" the opportunity to race. If they get hooked, they can then work to comply with the existing rules.

On a NATIONAL level, there is no real valid reason to include any kind of "RTR" class. Just doesn't make sense.

:iagree:

Darin Jordan
08-05-2016, 11:00 AM
:iagree:

HOLY CRAP??? WHAT JUST HAPPENED??!!! :tongue_smilie:

dethow
08-05-2016, 11:26 AM
HOLY CRAP??? WHAT JUST HAPPENED??!!! :tongue_smilie:

WHAT!!!??? :confused2:
There's nothing you said there that is in dispute of any existing rules or where the rules will be if we change to the 36.3mm x 61.2mm size rule.
I've never said all RTR should be included or able to run in limited on a national level. All boats need to run within the class they fit.

All I've been saying is that the current rules are excluding a lot of RTR or ARTR boats that should be allowed. Such as the Pursuit, Popeye, V3 Blackjack and V3 Geico. PMRC 3674 motor is too big, but maybe they will offer an option for a 3660 motor if the NAMBA rule changes.

We're all good Darin... You may not realize it but I've been on your side this whole time. :hug1:
Well not the whole time. There was a time MANY MANY months ago I was pushing for ridiculous 40mm motor options. I gave that up a long time ago thou and agree with every point made on that subject.

I just want to move forward and get this rule changed so I can stop buying AQs. As I said... I just burned up 3 at last MMEU race. I usually keep backups, but I don't want to buy anymore. I will run what I have until this rule is changed. I'm done with AQs. But I have bought a few PB1500s. Just haven't had a chance to setup a boat with one yet.

Darin Jordan
08-05-2016, 11:40 AM
We're all good Darin... You may not realize it but I've been on your side this whole time. :hug1:

Hahahaa... I know... I was just making a joke about a NAMBA rules based discussion coming to ANYONE in it agreeing on something! ;)